Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get?

And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension?

This is totally unfair.

matty wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get? And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension? This is totally unfair.

Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

matty wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get? And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension? This is totally unfair.

Shorty believes in equality. Everybody should be equally poor.

matty wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get? And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension? This is totally unfair.

Which policy are you talking about....The rich complaining that the poor are not poor enough under the Coalition???

:-? :-? :-?

The left faction of Labor are communists and believe in equality of outcome regardless of your input.

Not about SSM, where is the real matty.

matty wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get? And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension? This is totally unfair.

Every time it is proposed that the old age pension should be raised your beloved mob of ars**oles give us a lecture that the pension is a safety net, not an entitlement. Thus, if you don't need it you don't get it. ii

Labor has brought in much of the social reforms needed to take care of the less fortunate in this Country

Having said that, Laboir also is a lousy manager of the economy and therein lies the conundrum

red baron wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 3:06pm:

Labor has brought in much of the social reforms needed to take care of the less fortunate in this Country Having said that, Laboir also is a lousy manager of the economy and therein lies the conundrum

There's no evidence of that. Labor managed the economy well during the GFC. Would the Liberals have taken similar action to stave off the threat of a technical recession? No.

Bam wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 3:29pm:

red baron wrote on Jan 31st, 2019 at 3:06pm: Labor has brought in much of the social reforms needed to take care of the less fortunate in this Country Having said that, Laboir also is a lousy manager of the economy and therein lies the conundrum There's no evidence of that. Labor managed the economy well during the GFC. Would the Liberals have taken similar action to stave off the threat of a technical recession? No.

But bammy, libs are obviously better managers. Look at our national debt come down since theyv'e been in power.........oops. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I've worked out Mattys problem and why he doesn't like labor.

He's absolutely clueless !

red baron wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 3:06pm:

Having said that, Laboir also is a lousy manager of the economy and therein lies the conundrum

Stop drinking the cool aid.

Coalition doesn't believe in fairness or equality.  It isn't fair that

Why should we fund private/catholic schools?  Because those families pay taxes?  So do childless people. 

We know that an educated population is better than an uneducated one.  Why educate only the rich?

As for the retired people -> they get to save on tax -> tax that would otherwise fund the government's budget.  Now they want to cling on it and make an income off that instead of slowly consuming it.  It's turning into a generational fortune since we don't use death taxes to reclaim it back.

Easy - they've been hijacked by feminists who have no empathy or understanding of realities in the world at all... being primarily drawn from comfortable homes and an easy life without toil, and having lead a child's life of school to school to politics.... these fat chicks who've never missed a single meal think they are oppressed because they aren't all prime minister...

Definition of pure insanity......

macman wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 2:52pm:

matty wrote on Jan 31st, 2019 at 12:55pm: Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get? And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension? This is totally unfair. Every time it is proposed that the old age pension should be raised your beloved mob of ars**oles give us a lecture that the pension is a safety net, not an entitlement. Thus, if you don't need it you don't get it.

TOUCHE`!

stunspore wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 4:22pm:

As for the retired people -> they get to save on tax -> tax that would otherwise fund the government's budget.  Now they want to cling on it and make an income off that instead of slowly consuming it.  It's turning into a generational fortune since we don't use death taxes to reclaim it back.

They pay taxes on every purchase.... they don't pay income tax because they don't have taxable income, and those that do have to lodge a return ....

No government has a right to take, after death, the accumulated assets of any individual who has paid full taxes to acquire those assets along the way.  Is it not enough that a pensioner is punished for accumulating a boat and a Windbag for personal use (no income - only outgo) and as a result of the assets test, lose some pension?

Tfalc is wrong with you people?  You want to rob your grandmother?  You want to rob your grandmother's descendants of the often small inheritance she wishes to pass on to them, as a good parent or grandparent would?

TFALC is wrong with you all?

What people EARNED is THEIRS to do with as they choose - not the falcon government's to dispose of as it sees fit.

Some of you clueless 'righties' are as bad as or worse than Stalin....

You say no government has the right...They aren't paying the correct marginal tax.  Being merely taxed at 15% is not enough to fund the government and society.  If we reduce everyone to 15% this is going to be real trouble. 

I note the OP abandoned his troll thread with not a single response....Why do we feed this dickhead???

:-? :-? :-?

Because the unions and now the Extremist Greenies control Labor.

The definition of "fairness" is the essence of the left/ right debate.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2019 at 7:21am:

I note the OP abandoned his troll thread with not a single response....Why do we feed this dickhead??? :-? :-? :-?

Hypocrite is tired?

Bam wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 1:44pm:

matty wrote on Jan 31st, 2019 at 12:55pm: Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get? And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension? This is totally unfair. Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

Extremely intelligent response.

stunspore wrote on Feb 1^st, 2019 at 5:52pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 1st, 2019 at 7:21am: I note the OP abandoned his troll thread with not a single response....Why do we feed this dickhead??? :-? :-? :-? Hypocrite is tired?

I was actually finishing writing a 17,000 word paper. Unlike the lefty dole bludgers on here, I actually do work and am unable to be on here every bloody day of the week.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 2:10pm:

Not about SSM, where is the real matty.

I know that 9/10 my posts are about social issues but I am just as conservative economically as I am socially. And by conservative I mean ‘fair’, as in genuinely fair; not the skewed communist corrupted version of fair to which you lefties prescribe.

Many posts here so allow me to elaborate with my answer:

Mr and Mrs. X work for a living. They work five days a week to support themselves and their children. These people pay more than their fair share of tax. They retire and have saved for their own retirement. They don’t get a pension because they have too much money. They then also get their franking credits stripped because they have too much money.

Meanwhile, Mr and Mrs. Y don’t work, they bludge off the taxpayer their whole lives and whatever money they may get, they blow on the pokies, cigarettes and alcohol. These people get the money paid by Mr and Mrs., the money that they contributed via their taxes and saving for their own retirement, the money that they saved up via working for a living.

And somehow, this is ‘fair’ in the eyes of Labor and its supporters.

matty wrote on Feb 1^st, 2019 at 11:25pm:

Many posts here so allow me to elaborate with my answer: Mr and Mrs. X work for a living. They work five days a week to support themselves and their children. These people pay more than their fair share of tax. They retire and have saved for their own retirement. They don’t get a pension because they have too much money. They then also get their franking credits stripped because they have too much money. Meanwhile, Mr and Mrs. Y don’t work, they bludge off the taxpayer their whole lives and whatever money they may get, they blow on the pokies, cigarettes and alcohol. These people get the money paid by Mr and Mrs., the money that they contributed via their taxes and saving for their own retirement, the money that they saved up via working for a living. And somehow, this is ‘fair’ in the eyes of Labor and its supporters.

Fake scenario.  With fake fairness.  pay more than 'fair share'?  Not paying tax is clearly fair to coalition supporters.

stunspore wrote on Feb 1^st, 2019 at 11:39pm:

matty wrote on Feb 1st, 2019 at 11:25pm: Many posts here so allow me to elaborate with my answer: Mr and Mrs. X work for a living. They work five days a week to support themselves and their children. These people pay more than their fair share of tax. They retire and have saved for their own retirement. They don’t get a pension because they have too much money. They then also get their franking credits stripped because they have too much money. Meanwhile, Mr and Mrs. Y don’t work, they bludge off the taxpayer their whole lives and whatever money they may get, they blow on the pokies, cigarettes and alcohol. These people get the money paid by Mr and Mrs., the money that they contributed via their taxes and saving for their own retirement, the money that they saved up via working for a living. And somehow, this is ‘fair’ in the eyes of Labor and its supporters. Fake scenario.  With fake fairness.  pay more than 'fair share'?  Not paying tax is clearly fair to coalition supporters.

1. So you’re saying that in the 24,500,000 odd people in Australia (notwithstanding children, disabled etc...) that not one couple fits these profiles??

2. The ‘more than their fair share’ - it is a fact that the more that one earns, the more tax they pay, despite not getting better access to public services.

3. Could you kindly point me toward any Coalition supporters saying that? Not that I am one, I don’t support either major party, but I have not seen Coalition supporters say that.

matty wrote on Feb 1^st, 2019 at 11:51pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 1st, 2019 at 11:39pm: matty wrote on Feb 1st, 2019 at 11:25pm: Many posts here so allow me to elaborate with my answer: Mr and Mrs. X work for a living. They work five days a week to support themselves and their children. These people pay more than their fair share of tax. They retire and have saved for their own retirement. They don’t get a pension because they have too much money. They then also get their franking credits stripped because they have too much money. Meanwhile, Mr and Mrs. Y don’t work, they bludge off the taxpayer their whole lives and whatever money they may get, they blow on the pokies, cigarettes and alcohol. These people get the money paid by Mr and Mrs., the money that they contributed via their taxes and saving for their own retirement, the money that they saved up via working for a living. And somehow, this is ‘fair’ in the eyes of Labor and its supporters. Fake scenario.  With fake fairness.  pay more than 'fair share'?  Not paying tax is clearly fair to coalition supporters. 1. So you’re saying that in the 24,500,000 odd people in Australia (notwithstanding children, disabled etc...) that not one couple fits these profiles?? 2. The ‘more than their fair share’ - it is a fact that the more that one earns, the more tax they pay, despite not getting better access to public services. 3. Could you kindly point me toward any Coalition supporters saying that? Not that I am one, I don’t support either major party, but I have not seen Coalition supporters say that.

One couple?  Try again...... you pay your taxes in accordance with your income to support the nation as a whole and the government decides where to spend it - would you prefer to barricade your home against the hungry and fear to walk to work while your granny is mugged at the ATM on pension day
.... and coalition supporters don't need to say it - they live it with every breath - what's to discuss?

::)

Matty the coalition supporter (or supports the parties that side with coalition) prefers to remove progressive taxation then - because it is unfair.

Paying tax equally in amount doesn't mean necessarily mean fairness.

It isn't fair to get hit by a car even when you looked both sides of the road.  It isn't fair that you were born taller or smarter than others in your class.

If people can produce more (and with the support of a safe, supportive environment e.g. a good society) they should support the infrastructure that makes it possible by paying more.

To both of you (and for the fiftieth time I am not a supporter of the Coalition!), why should people not pay the same tax? What services do those get who pay more? Where is the reward for effort?

And the progressive tax income, that is just one issue in and of itself. This taking away of people’s franking credits, those who have worked hard and saved for their own retirement, is a whole different issue.

matty wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 1:39am:

To both of you (and for the fiftieth time I am not a supporter of the Coalition!), why should people not pay the same tax? What services do those get who pay more? Where is the reward for effort? And the progressive tax income, that is just one issue in and of itself. This taking away of people’s franking credits, those who have worked hard and saved for their own retirement, is a whole different issue.

I gave you the alternative of siding with those that side with the coalition (like One Nation).  Ultimately which small party you are aligned, you (or your small party) has to pick a major party to support in forming government (if minority).

Your sense of fairness is not shared by some.  There is a clear difference in opinions which is why you are puzzled about why others may see things differently.

Keeping it to a simple analogy. 

There are two different pots which have varying soils (background/upbringing of people).  Though we treat them exactly the same, the plants grown are different.  If we are thinking of fairness in terms of resources used, well, so be it.
If we are after the best performance of each plant, one plant might need an extra boost to produce better.

https://www.theage.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/motivation-for-tax-cuts-always-more-political-than-economic-20190201-p50v15.html

Today's Matty's required learning on why taxation more or less does not affect incentive to work.

matty wrote on Jan 31^st, 2019 at 12:55pm:

Simply put, why does Labor believe that those who work for a living, who work hard to support their family, and spend and save their money wisely, should be penalised whilst who do not, and refuse to work, get given that extra income that those who do work hard, get? And why should those who earn more and pay more taxes, get given NO pension at all whilst those who earn less do get paid a pension? This is totally unfair.

You didn't notice that the Liberals want to push the pension age to 70 due to their own neglect and incompetence and that they are very strongly doing exactly the same thing.

This is happening out of fairness - Both the Liberals and Labor understand that the numbers clearly say the paying more people a pension is not affordable. The argument is that not paying a pension to people who do not need it helps to remedy this problem.

The super guarantee from the 90's was meant to correct this issue by reducing the need for a pension however every successive Liberal government blocking increases has blocked the fix and forced an extension to the pension eligibility age.

Quote:

Why does Labor not believe in fairness/equality?

Funny that you come up with topics like this when you openly support the Liberal a group who love to be as unfair as possible as often as possible.

There are so many needs and not enough funds to cover them adequately.  Tax changes will create "winners" and "losers".  And that's the problem - focus on "winning".  That's why Matty thinks its unfair.

stunspore wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 8:18am:

matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 1:39am: To both of you (and for the fiftieth time I am not a supporter of the Coalition!), why should people not pay the same tax? What services do those get who pay more? Where is the reward for effort? And the progressive tax income, that is just one issue in and of itself. This taking away of people’s franking credits, those who have worked hard and saved for their own retirement, is a whole different issue. I gave you the alternative of siding with those that side with the coalition (like One Nation).  Ultimately which small party you are aligned, you (or your small party) has to pick a major party to support in forming government (if minority). Your sense of fairness is not shared by some.  There is a clear difference in opinions which is why you are puzzled about why others may see things differently. Keeping it to a simple analogy.  There are two different pots which have varying soils (background/upbringing of people).  Though we treat them exactly the same, the plants grown are different.  If we are thinking of fairness in terms of resources used, well, so be it. If we are after the best performance of each plant, one plant might need an extra boost to produce better.

Okay but that does not mean that I side with them. I vote below the line myself and number every box. I put the Greens dead last and other parties like the “social alliance” etc...

My whole point of this thread was that the left have a skewed sense of fairness: you think that it is fair to rob hard-working people to give to the bludgers. You think that it’s okay for people to work hard and pay tax and get nothing in return of it.

Again I ask you - what better public services do those who pay more tax get?

Your analogy doesn’t really work because plants cannot choose to bludge.

stunspore wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 11:42am:

There are so many needs and not enough funds to cover them adequately.  Tax changes will create "winners" and "losers".  And that's the problem - focus on "winning".  That's why Matty thinks its unfair.

Not really. Quit simply put, I believe in reward for effort; a notion that you leftists just can’t, or refuse, to understand.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 9:39am:

Quote: Why does Labor not believe in fairness/equality? Funny that you come up with topics like this when you openly support the Liberal a group who love to be as unfair as possible as often as possible.

I was going to address your post above but after posting this am not going to wast my time on an idiot like you, who can’t seem to comprehend the fact that I a man nothing but scathing of the Libs.

matty wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 12:38pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 11:42am: There are so many needs and not enough funds to cover them adequately.  Tax changes will create "winners" and "losers".  And that's the problem - focus on "winning".  That's why Matty thinks its unfair. Not really. Quit simply put, I believe in reward for effort; a notion that you leftists just can’t, or refuse, to understand.

I'm somewhat centre of left..... far more left than the Dali Lama, it seems - but nobody could fault my work ethic etc..... and there is not always reward for effort, let me assure you.

Man..... you gotta be rich to even think that way....

Matty, those who have the most also have the most to lose.

They need to pay the most to avoid that loss - as well as to make the most of opportunities.  That's why they pay more.  You don't get the big picture.

matty wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 12:36pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 8:18am: matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 1:39am: To both of you (and for the fiftieth time I am not a supporter of the Coalition!), why should people not pay the same tax? What services do those get who pay more? Where is the reward for effort? And the progressive tax income, that is just one issue in and of itself. This taking away of people’s franking credits, those who have worked hard and saved for their own retirement, is a whole different issue. I gave you the alternative of siding with those that side with the coalition (like One Nation).  Ultimately which small party you are aligned, you (or your small party) has to pick a major party to support in forming government (if minority). Your sense of fairness is not shared by some.  There is a clear difference in opinions which is why you are puzzled about why others may see things differently. Keeping it to a simple analogy.  There are two different pots which have varying soils (background/upbringing of people).  Though we treat them exactly the same, the plants grown are different.  If we are thinking of fairness in terms of resources used, well, so be it. If we are after the best performance of each plant, one plant might need an extra boost to produce better. Okay but that does not mean that I side with them. I vote below the line myself and number every box. I put the Greens dead last and other parties like the “social alliance” etc... My whole point of this thread was that the left have a skewed sense of fairness: you think that it is fair to rob hard-working people to give to the bludgers. You think that it’s okay for people to work hard and pay tax and get nothing in return of it. Again I ask you - what better public services do those who pay more tax get? Your analogy doesn’t really work because plants cannot choose to bludge.

Ultimately,either coalition or ALP will form government.  No matter which small party you pick, one of them will govern.  Are you letting the small parties choose for you to be the kingmaker?  Matty, be honest.  You want coalition to be in government more than ALP.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyWpMkLVYAAAcbH.jpg

matty wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 12:38pm:

stunspore wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 11:42am: There are so many needs and not enough funds to cover them adequately.  Tax changes will create "winners" and "losers".  And that's the problem - focus on "winning".  That's why Matty thinks its unfair. Not really. Quit simply put, I believe in reward for effort; a notion that you leftists just can’t, or refuse, to understand.

So you say drastically increase taxes to the well off so that they can be paid pensions ?


Quote:

that you leftists just can’t,

You miss the point that the right have no different policy in fact this one is mostly their position and fault.

I am not aware of a party or politician who is looking at anything different.

How do you consider all the tax benefits to more wealthy people saving for retirement ? A tax beak which means nothing to poor people.

When you measure in all the costs and benefits the wealthy do a lot better out of public money and taxation than the poor.

matty wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 12:40pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 9:39am: Quote: Why does Labor not believe in fairness/equality? Funny that you come up with topics like this when you openly support the Liberal a group who love to be as unfair as possible as often as possible. I was going to address your post above but after posting this am not going to wast my time on an idiot like you, who can’t seem to comprehend the fact that I a man nothing but scathing of the Libs.

There is nothing untrue in the post. The conservative side of politics have never been close friends to fairness they support big business and help them to screw fairness at every opportunity and you have sprouted conservative politics every day you have posted here irrespective of what you may want to pretend.

I have no need to insult you when you own words so obviously position you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5PWOz08458

Not very fair, life.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 5:57pm:

matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 12:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 9:39am: Quote: Why does Labor not believe in fairness/equality? Funny that you come up with topics like this when you openly support the Liberal a group who love to be as unfair as possible as often as possible. I was going to address your post above but after posting this am not going to wast my time on an idiot like you, who can’t seem to comprehend the fact that I a man nothing but scathing of the Libs. There is nothing untrue in the post. The conservative side of politics have never been close friends to fairness they support big business and help them to screw fairness at every opportunity and you have sprouted conservative politics every day you have posted here irrespective of what you may want to pretend. I have no need to insult you when you own words so obviously position you.

Quite.  Matty loves to make comments about "left" not being "good" - typically getting it from some right wing media group like Alan jones which not many of us listen/read. 
Of course, things like the St Kilda Rally (with special guest Fraiser Anning) recently in Victoria, Matty makes not one comment - which was in all types of media.  Not that it needs commenting - clearly those extremist right wingers were in the wrong.

How about claiming that the "left" hate the environment by not helping with the Murray?  Or the "left" hate cheaper electricity prices?

matty wrote on Feb 1^st, 2019 at 11:25pm:

Many posts here so allow me to elaborate with my answer: Mr and Mrs. X work for a living. They work five days a week to support themselves and their children. These people pay more than their fair share of tax. They retire and have saved for their own retirement. They don’t get a pension because they have too much money. They then also get their franking credits stripped because they have too much money. Meanwhile, Mr and Mrs. Y don’t work, they bludge off the taxpayer their whole lives and whatever money they may get, they blow on the pokies, cigarettes and alcohol. These people get the money paid by Mr and Mrs., the money that they contributed via their taxes and saving for their own retirement, the money that they saved up via working for a living. In 2007 the then Prime Minister John Howard introduced the tax-free super for the over sixties, if the super income comes from a so-called taxed fund. As a result : This is how the retirees are treated in Australia. Retiree: 1) Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund. Retiree 2) Has accumulated assets of $1.5million,mostly with huge tax concessions, and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax. Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks, and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits. Should the assets of these retirees fall below a certain level, they will be entitled to the age pension as anyone else, therefore why does the government provides the rich retirees with such huge tax concessions, while punishing the retirees at the lower income scale with the punitive means-test of the age pension? Retiree 3) Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals $10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free for the SMSF. Retiree’s 2) are well represented by the media and the super industry, as well as the Unions, and retiree’s 3) are represented by the government, and ironically by the leadership of various retiree Associations, like ACPSRO and its affiliated Associations,Acoss,COTA, but who represents retiree’s 1) the part- pensioners who are being robbed of a decent standard of living in retirement by the means-test of the age pension. What is the fairest solution; scrap the mean test of the age pension and scrap all tax concessions for super. And somehow, this is ‘fair’ in the eyes of Labor and its supporters.

If there was no super, then all taxes would have gone to the government who would then pass it back as pensions.

Then we encourage people to save by making it tax effective to accumulate wealth.  Then people use the accumulated wealth to produce an income.

What's the difference?
The accumulated wealth -> instead of consuming it, people want to keep it as capital -> which i guess can be passed down. in the meantime, they want to live of the income, which part of it is from refunded franking credits.

Overall, there is less revenue for the government to pay for services with the 2nd version.

It isn't fair i'm paying my taxes for private education.  By the way i am childless.  I am happy though to have it go to public education.  And, no, private education doesn't save the government money -> because public education shoudln't be saving money in the first place - it is an investment. same with many aspects of government spending which i may disagree.

Trying to reverse structural deficits is not popular but helps the rest of society.

Another Matty favourite type thread about "left" protesting on free speech.

Here's another media article :https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-02/brisbane-airport-alleged-domestic-violence-man-charged-bomb-hoax/10774522

How about not asking why the "left" aren't defending this person's right to free speech?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 12:47pm:

matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 12:38pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 11:42am: There are so many needs and not enough funds to cover them adequately.  Tax changes will create "winners" and "losers".  And that's the problem - focus on "winning".  That's why Matty thinks its unfair. Not really. Quit simply put, I believe in reward for effort; a notion that you leftists just can’t, or refuse, to understand. I'm somewhat centre of left..... far more left than the Dali Lama, it seems - but nobody could fault my work ethic etc..... and there is not always reward for effort, let me assure you. Man..... you gotta be rich to even think that way....

What does being rich have rom do with it?

Oh that’s right, rich people pay more tax than anyone and don’t get a cent of pension money.

stunspore wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 12:51pm:

Matty, those who have the most also have the most to lose. They need to pay the most to avoid that loss - as well as to make the most of opportunities.  That's why they pay more.  You don't get the big picture.

What are you even on about?

You have not been a lemon to dispute any point that I have made. Simply put: people with more money pay more tax and get nothing back; people with less money pay less tax and get the money (via pension) of those who paid more tax. Not fair.

stunspore wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 12:53pm:

matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 12:36pm: stunspore wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 8:18am: matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 1:39am: To both of you (and for the fiftieth time I am not a supporter of the Coalition!), why should people not pay the same tax? What services do those get who pay more? Where is the reward for effort? And the progressive tax income, that is just one issue in and of itself. This taking away of people’s franking credits, those who have worked hard and saved for their own retirement, is a whole different issue. I gave you the alternative of siding with those that side with the coalition (like One Nation).  Ultimately which small party you are aligned, you (or your small party) has to pick a major party to support in forming government (if minority). Your sense of fairness is not shared by some.  There is a clear difference in opinions which is why you are puzzled about why others may see things differently. Keeping it to a simple analogy.  There are two different pots which have varying soils (background/upbringing of people).  Though we treat them exactly the same, the plants grown are different.  If we are thinking of fairness in terms of resources used, well, so be it. If we are after the best performance of each plant, one plant might need an extra boost to produce better. Okay but that does not mean that I side with them. I vote below the line myself and number every box. I put the Greens dead last and other parties like the “social alliance” etc... My whole point of this thread was that the left have a skewed sense of fairness: you think that it is fair to rob hard-working people to give to the bludgers. You think that it’s okay for people to work hard and pay tax and get nothing in return of it. Again I ask you - what better public services do those who pay more tax get? Your analogy doesn’t really work because plants cannot choose to bludge. Ultimately,either coalition or ALP will form government.  No matter which small party you pick, one of them will govern.  Are you letting the small parties choose for you to be the kingmaker?  Matty, be honest.  You want coalition to be in government more than ALP.

No, I number every box, so choose my own preferences. I put the Greens dead last and then Labor and the Coalition (except this year I will vote 2 for Jim Molan), unless there is some other far-left party, in which case I will put them last before the two majors.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 5:57pm:

matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 12:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 9:39am: Quote: Why does Labor not believe in fairness/equality? Funny that you come up with topics like this when you openly support the Liberal a group who love to be as unfair as possible as often as possible. I was going to address your post above but after posting this am not going to wast my time on an idiot like you, who can’t seem to comprehend the fact that I a man nothing but scathing of the Libs. There is nothing untrue in the post. The conservative side of politics have never been close friends to fairness they support big business and help them to screw fairness at every opportunity and you have sprouted conservative politics every day you have posted here irrespective of what you may want to pretend. I have no need to insult you when you own words so obviously position you.

Clearly I am conservative, have always been and will always be. I make that very obvious in my posts.

However, I don’t vote Liberal. That statement is not in need of a ‘however’; the reason that I don’t vote Liberal is because they are not conservative.

stunspore wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2019 at 7:35pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 5:57pm: matty wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 12:40pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 2nd, 2019 at 9:39am: Quote: Why does Labor not believe in fairness/equality? Funny that you come up with topics like this when you openly support the Liberal a group who love to be as unfair as possible as often as possible. I was going to address your post above but after posting this am not going to wast my time on an idiot like you, who can’t seem to comprehend the fact that I a man nothing but scathing of the Libs. There is nothing untrue in the post. The conservative side of politics have never been close friends to fairness they support big business and help them to screw fairness at every opportunity and you have sprouted conservative politics every day you have posted here irrespective of what you may want to pretend. I have no need to insult you when you own words so obviously position you. Quite.  Matty loves to make comments about "left" not being "good" - typically getting it from some right wing media group like Alan jones which not many of us listen/read.  Of course, things like the St Kilda Rally (with special guest Fraiser Anning) recently in Victoria, Matty makes not one comment - which was in all types of media.  Not that it needs commenting - clearly those extremist right wingers were in the wrong. How about claiming that the "left" hate the environment by not helping with the Murray?  Or the "left" hate cheaper electricity prices?

I made comments against Fraser Anning and some of his comments. He is one of the few people that all you lefties label as “far-right”, who is possibly genuinely such. Genuine conservatives like I, am against the far-right.

I have never seen you say anything about far-leftists causing violence and obstruction. Eg the Bettina Arndt case.

The most important issue facing the world today is climate change.

Conservatism is in denial with climate change treating it like a joke for the big end of town profit today not caring for the future, which is blatantly criminal to the point of acting in evil...conservatives are evil minded people.

The franking credit issue isn't even an issue - rich retirees are getting tax refunds for not paying any taxes - hardly fair.

It will also be grand fathered so those who already receive this rort aren't effected - what's the issue then?

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 7:11am:

The franking credit issue isn't even an issue - rich retirees are getting tax refunds for not paying any taxes - hardly fair. It will also be grand fathered so those who already receive this rort aren't effected - what's the issue then?

Wrong, it is not grandfathered. Pensioners will be exempt, but all others cop a hit, including those who are income poor yet not receiving a pension.

For many it will be a massive hit to their annual income.

30% loss of income for some.  :o

Just think about that. That's equivalent to paying a 40% GST.

Captain Nemo wrote on Feb 6^th, 2019 at 8:45am:

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on Feb 6th, 2019 at 7:11am: The franking credit issue isn't even an issue - rich retirees are getting tax refunds for not paying any taxes - hardly fair. It will also be grand fathered so those who already receive this rort aren't effected - what's the issue then? Wrong, it is not grandfathered. Pensioners will be exempt, but all others cop a hit, including those who are income poor yet not receiving a pension. For many it will be a massive hit to their annual income. 30% loss of income for some.  :o Just think about that. That's equivalent to paying a 40% GST.

I expect an exodus of locals holding Aussie shares. Investment into offshore companies with lower tax rates and no imputed credit to steal. Less investment in local companies. Just what we need right now.

Using tax effective methods to build up a capital to then earn tax free income.  Then when dead, can pass this inheritance. 

The government need tax to fund services.

And no, it isn't the case that the rich pay more yet get exactly the same as the poor.  This isn't a Maccas meal where "Why should i pay more to get same meal as the poor".

Rich people benefit far more than the poor from a government that serves all. They should pay for it.