Quote:

Wealth Redistribution Through Taxation Defined: Taxing for the purpose of giving money to other people. While much taxation is used for the supply of common goods (eg roads, parks etc), governments of most modern social-democracies take a significant proportion of GDP for the purpose of simply giving it away. Ostensibly this 'churn' process is about taking from the rich and giving to the poor. In practise, is frequently about giving to groups favoured by the government (those with 'families', or 'single parents' etc).[AKA Ochlocrats] It is justified on humanitarian grounds, to increase equality of opportunity, to give a 'leg up' to those at the bottom, to provide a safety net to those who have lost their way, to improve 'social cohesion'. In fact, it is a form of slavery. It is forcing someone to work for the benefit of another.  :( While some might argue that no force is involved (because no-one is forced to work), saying in effect 'you don't have to work, but if you do, then 50% of that work must be for the benefit of someone else' is an application of force. The practise has no more moral validity than slavery.  :( This is not to say that wealth redistribution is immoral. If an individual chooses to give their wealth to others, they are perfectly entitled to. [Charity] But they have no right to force others to do so.

link

I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't wasted without a care in the world, 'they can always take more'.


Watching the government spend my money is like watching a big dog taking a sh1t on the carpet while staring at you straight in the eye.


Yo can yell at it, but you know it is going to finish off rather than stop.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:07am:

Watching the government spend my money is like watching a big dog taking a sh1t on the carpet while staring at you straight in the eye.

......a damned fine analogy  ;D

Quote:

In fact, it is a form of slavery. It is forcing someone to work for the benefit of another.

That is quite a creative definition of slavery.
Using that definition all employees are in fact slaves
No one is being forced to work and working for the benefit of others is, in fact, how capitalism works.



Quote:

you don't have to work, but if you do, then 50% of that work must be for the benefit of someone else' is an application of force.

50% ?
They are using the same creative accounting that Joe Hockey used. It isn't any where close to 50%. The highest tax rate is 45% and you only pay that for very dollar above $180,000. Then you have to take into account how much is spent on roads, schools, health, defense, police and other things that you benefit from. Then there is the aged pension, which is something that you arn't benefiting from now, but you will in the future.

Even welfare payments are an indirect benefit. They provide piece of mind that there is a safety net if you were to become unemployed, injured or sick. They also create social cohesion because studies have shown that the greater inequality there is in society the greater social problems there are.

So stop your endless whining and be careful what you wish for. An economy which relies solely on a user pays system is not something you would want to live in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iCozPOZV7I

http://www.knowyourrightsgroup.com.au/tax/

i think you have to flip your way of thinking on this swagman.

humans are biologically wired to do as little as possible as long as they can "survive' and "keep the dna going'  ie  pump out a kid or two.

its why most people are very very mediocre.

there are so many things they could do, so many passions they could pursue, so many places they could go but they will do none of it because  the evolutionary pressure is gone and they are incapable of self motivating.

in short, they are screwed and the thing that is keeping them screwed is that they simply arent challenged enough.

when they tax certain people and redistribute the income to other people , who really wins ? think hard about this.

the person who recieves the welfare or the free meal most certainly does NOT win. he's screwed. he's diminished. he's less of a man. he's going nowhere.

the person who pays the high taxes has a choice though .
I dont think theres ever been a year i didnt pay more tax then the PM and when i was younger it used to bug me, but what you resist persists.

you have to get on the other side of this.
you have to see your big tax contribution as reaffirming the fact that you are a winner. that you are one of those lucky few who lives in abundance. that you never drank  from the poisoned chalice of the freebie and that you still have momentum and passion.

money doesnt really matter in the long run any way.

if you can hustle and stay in positivity, if you can stay present and just keep following a passion, the universe will keep giving more and more and more to you.
its crazy.
the more i have the more they give me.
the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
its just how the universe works.

if you try to take or are only interested in what you can get, you are farrrked. and income redistribution encourages most people to see life in terms of what they can get (me,me,me and my rough little life) it puts them in a scarcity mind set and it destroys them.

its why i now view paying tax as a way of wiping out the opposition.
i view it like we are all running a marathon and the tax bill is a big hill . all my competitors are going to give up, stop trying to run their business, slow down, get butt hurt by the taxes and get angry and piss off their customers and i'm going to scoop it all up as they drop out.

awesome news

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

That is quite a creative definition of slavery. Using that definition all employees are in fact slaves No one is being forced to work and working for the benefit of others is, in fact, how capitalism works.

...if everyone paid the same amount of tax yes.  But we don't.

The fact is that a minority pays the majority of tax.  That minority are indeed forced to pay more tax than the majority by the majority.  That portion of extra tax represents (in effect) unpaid work.  That is therefore 'forced unpaid work' which is akin to slavery.


The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

50% ? They are using the same creative accounting that Joe Hockey used. It isn't any where close to 50%. The highest tax rate is 45% and you only pay that for very dollar above $180,000. Then you have to take into account how much is spent on roads, schools, health, defense, police and other things that you benefit from. Then there is the aged pension, which is something that you arn't benefiting from now, but you will in the future.

Throw in GST, land rates, medicare, etc and you will get 50%. The percentage really doesn't really matter, it just increases or decreases the level of slave time.


The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

Then you have to take into account how much is spent on roads, schools, health, defense, police and other things that you benefit from

Yes, but why should any individual pay more for these 'services' than others?



The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

Even welfare payments are an indirect benefit. They provide piece of mind that there is a safety net if you were to become unemployed, injured or sick. They also create social cohesion because studies have shown that the greater inequality there is in society the greater social problems there are.

Doesn't make it right.  That is simply a form of armed robbery.  Pay up or we'll bash you....


The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:59am:

So stop your endless whining

....nope

Australia - The land of the willing.

Some people are willing to work and pay taxes.

Others are willing to let them.

lee wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:36pm:

Australia - The land of the willing. Some people are willing to work and pay taxes. Others are willing to let them.

They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :)

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:38pm:

They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :)

Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:38pm: They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :) Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system.

Irrelevant, my comment still stands regardless of the answer

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:49pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:38pm: They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :) Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system.

The nation of Swagmania

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:52pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:49pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:38pm: They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :) Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system. Irrelevant, my comment still stands regardless of the answer

That's because it is ideological nonsense that would never work in the real world.

oh good swag's back to stand up against the outrageous persecution (or "slavery" as he puts it) of the poor downtrodden fabulously wealthy

The only real redistribution through taxation I have seen was the tax reductions at the top end paid for by everyone else during the Howard years.

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 1:07pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:52pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:49pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:38pm: They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :) Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system. Irrelevant, my comment still stands regardless of the answer That's because it is ideological nonsense that would never work in the real world.

Wait, what?


That socialist are constantly demanding other people's money to fund whatever lifestyle choice du juor, is ideological nonsense I agree, but what are ya gonna do?

Swagman wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 1:07pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:49pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:38pm: They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :) Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system. The nation of Swagmania

Sounds like an oligarchy run by a credit manager to me!!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 1:07pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:52pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:49pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:38pm: They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :) Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system. Irrelevant, my comment still stands regardless of the answer That's because it is ideological nonsense that would never work in the real world. Wait, what? That socialist are constantly demanding other people's money to fund whatever lifestyle choice du juor, is ideological nonsense I agree, but what are ya gonna do?

What socialists we haven't had one of those for many decades.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 1:55pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 1:40pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 1:07pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:52pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:49pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 12:38pm: They would be the socialists, born with their hand out first.  :) :) Name one country that doesn't have a progressive taxation system. Irrelevant, my comment still stands regardless of the answer That's because it is ideological nonsense that would never work in the real world. Wait, what? That socialist are constantly demanding other people's money to fund whatever lifestyle choice du juor, is ideological nonsense I agree, but what are ya gonna do? What socialists we haven't had one of those for many decades.

Jeez, is this where you are going.

Yeah, good one, fkken clown

100s of 1000s of people have gone to Centerlink to
claim the dole or DSP after they lost their job,
after working & paying taxes all their lives
and were told they weren't entitled to a penny.

Centerlink has a book called -
1001 reasons not to give you a penny.

Anyway - life is full of injustices.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 1:26pm:

The only real redistribution through taxation I have seen was the tax reductions at the top end paid for by everyone else during the Howard years.

But D, the top end should be paying zero tax - not a penny. I mean, the bottom end don't pay any right?

Oh the injustice. Its as swag says - slavery, pure and simple.

There is no serious political will for wealth re-distribution.
Wealth manipulates power, and will always seek to maintain its own interests and position.
200 of australia's richest people paid no income tax, not even the medicare levy.
And then a political silence, but there are diversions cynically designed to focus people's attention elsewhere.
History shows there is only one way to successfully re-distribute wealth.

This is thing about pure capitalist is that when the going gets tough, they turn to the biggest socialist.   They tend to privatize their profits, and socialize their losses.  Before you guys talk down to socialism, may be you should perhaps pay the billions of bail out money (or negative gearing) back to the people. 

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 10:22am:

This is thing about pure capitalist is that when the going gets tough, they turn to the biggest socialist.   They tend to privatize their profits, and socialize their losses.  Before you guys talk down to socialism, may be you should perhaps pay the billions of bail out money (or negative gearing) back to the people.

I highly recommend watching The Big Short - about the start of the GFC. The causes of this was not merely immoral behaviour, it was illegal activity on an industrial scale. And after all that, one single person went to gaol for it - and he was a small fry. All the big players not only didn't get penalised for their criminality, they enjoyed big fat bonuses courtesy of the great government bailout package. It was the poor people of course who wore the cost of it all. And no one should expect anything different under capitalism.

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 10:22am:

This is thing about pure capitalist is that when the going gets tough, they turn to the biggest socialist.   They tend to privatize their profits, and socialize their losses.  Before you guys talk down to socialism, may be you should perhaps pay the billions of bail out money (or negative gearing) back to the people.

You do realise the the money received from negative gearing is that person's own money don't you?


It is isn't someone else's money like welfare recipients get it is a tax write off that is returned from the fat stack of cash the person has already paid in taxes.


Is this something that you people don't understand, because you seem to think the refund is coming out of someone else's pocket. It isn't.


Now you can b1tch and moan about un-reconciled bail out money all you want, but negative gearing is not even close to the same thing, it is a tax write off, same and any tax write off that you may claim.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 1:50pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 10:22am: This is thing about pure capitalist is that when the going gets tough, they turn to the biggest socialist.   They tend to privatize their profits, and socialize their losses.  Before you guys talk down to socialism, may be you should perhaps pay the billions of bail out money (or negative gearing) back to the people.  You do realise the the money received from negative gearing is that person's own money don't you? It is isn't someone else's money like welfare recipients get it is a tax write off that is returned from the fat stack of cash the person has already paid in taxes. Is this something that you people don't understand, because you seem to think the refund is coming out of someone else's pocket. It isn't. Now you can b1tch and moan about un-reconciled bail out money all you want, but negative gearing is not even close to the same thing, it is a tax write off, same and any tax write off that you may claim.

If you like to be strict about it, then all tax money are people's own money anyway.   If I run a business, and make a loss.  I will not be able to off set that loss against my main income.  I will however, get it in a form of tax credit against future gains when my business do start to make money. 

With properties however, this loss can be off set against my other main income through negative gearing.  So in a way, we are socializing people's investment loss with revenues that otherwise would have been gained if its another business other than property investment.

This creates an inequality in terms of risk between different investments.  Which in term, creates an environment where the banks would tolerate more risks with property investment than other smaller business investment types.  And this can have flow on effects to the economy - through higher interest rates and principal requirement. 

For example, it is alot easier to get an investment loan on a 500k property, upto 400k in loan, at a lower interest rate, than it is to say getting a loan to start a small business of 200k. 

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:05pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 1:50pm: tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 10:22am: This is thing about pure capitalist is that when the going gets tough, they turn to the biggest socialist.   They tend to privatize their profits, and socialize their losses.  Before you guys talk down to socialism, may be you should perhaps pay the billions of bail out money (or negative gearing) back to the people.  You do realise the the money received from negative gearing is that person's own money don't you? It is isn't someone else's money like welfare recipients get it is a tax write off that is returned from the fat stack of cash the person has already paid in taxes. Is this something that you people don't understand, because you seem to think the refund is coming out of someone else's pocket. It isn't. Now you can b1tch and moan about un-reconciled bail out money all you want, but negative gearing is not even close to the same thing, it is a tax write off, same and any tax write off that you may claim. If you like to be strict about it, then all tax money are people's own money anyway.   If I run a business, and make a loss.  I will not be able to off set that loss against my main income.  I will however, get it in a form of tax credit against future gains when my business do start to make money.  With properties however, this loss can be off set against my other main income through negative gearing.  So in a way, we are socializing people's investment loss with revenues that otherwise would have been gained if its another business other than property investment. This creates an inequality in terms of risk between different investments.  Which in term, creates an environment where the banks would tolerate more risks with property investment than other smaller business investment types.  And this can have flow on effects to the economy - through higher interest rates and principal requirement.  For example, it is alot easier to get an investment loan on a 500k property, upto 400k in loan, at a lower interest rate, than it is to say getting a loan to start a small business of 200k.

You can take out a loan t buy shares and write that off loss and associated costs, thoughts?



We have one of the most complex tax systems anywhere, but what our biggest problem is that everyone wants someone else to foot the bill.

You want mum and dad investors to pay more tax so someone else can get some more free money, a fantastic system if you are on the receiving end of such largess.


Taxpayers who get a tax refund are NOT a burden on the system, people who get more in handouts than the contribute in income tax, absolutely are.

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:05pm:

If you like to be strict about it, then all tax money are people's own money anyway.   If I run a business, and make a loss.  I will not be able to off set that loss against my main income.  I will however, get it in a form of tax credit against future gains when my business do start to make money.  .

Most business owners have their business income as their main income, I know I did.


But if you are talking about someone who sells sh1t in ebay, then yeah you are right, but jeezus.

I am all for lower taxes - perhaps using the money saved to lower personal income tax.   I just dont think we should socialize people's investment decisions.  I do not want a culture that people to invest to make a loss to minimize their tax liability.  It distorts the market, and goes against the free market principal of conservative economic.

For example, no one in their right mind would invest 500K into a business that generate loss each year (and no one would pay more to buy it off you a year later).  They are doing that now, because, they would suffer the loss now, and make a larger capital gain later on.   I am not against savy investors for doing this, but I am against, subsidizing their losses  now, and then give them a bigger capital gains tax concession in the future when they do make a profit.   To me, its just double dipping. 

This also creates an environment of property speculation.  Where the investors invest not for its principal to income ratio, but rather speculation of future gains.  This opens up a big problem down the road, when eventually, property prices have to readjust. 

Now, you mention about shares.  Say you have a next door neighbor, he earns the same as you are.  But he wanted to get rich quick, and put 100k into a small obscure prospecting company.  But it went sour, and he lost half of it.  Now, this means, in order to make the short fall on the revenue, the government need to raise more money from you.  How would you feel about it?  8-)

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:05pm: If you like to be strict about it, then all tax money are people's own money anyway.   If I run a business, and make a loss.  I will not be able to off set that loss against my main income.  I will however, get it in a form of tax credit against future gains when my business do start to make money.  .  Most business owners have their business income as their main income, I know I did. But if you are talking about someone who sells sh1t in ebay, then yeah you are right, but jeezus.

Then you should not have a problem if your business income is your main sourse of income.  Because any losses you make, you can offset against your income.   However, if you use your money earned to try to make more money from another source, then it is you who have to do your own homework to see if the business/investment would make you money or losses.   The tax payers cant be there to off set your poor business decisions.

Since you also own a small business, then negative gearing affect you as well directly.  Because when most investment money are tied up with property speculation, the cost of business loans for other businesses such as yours would naturally be higher through higher interest rate charges.

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:21pm:

I am all for lower taxes - perhaps using the money saved to lower personal income tax.   I just dont think we should socialize people's investment decisions.  I do not want a culture that people to invest to make a loss to minimize their tax liability.  It distorts the market, and goes against the free market principal of conservative economic. For example, no one in their right mind would invest 500K into a business that generate loss each year (and no one would pay more to buy it off you a year later).  They are doing that now, because, they would suffer the loss now, and make a larger capital gain later on.   I am not against savy investors for doing this, but I am against, subsidizing their losses  now, and then give them a bigger capital gains tax concession in the future when they do make a profit.   To me, its just double dipping.  This also creates an environment of property speculation.  Where the investors invest not for its principal to income ratio, but rather speculation of future gains.  This opens up a big problem down the road, when eventually, property prices have to readjust.  Now, you mention about shares.  Say you have a next door neighbor, he earns the same as you are.  But he wanted to get rich quick, and put 100k into a small obscure prospecting company.  But it went sour, and he lost half of it.  Now, this means, in order to make the short fall on the revenue, the government need to raise more money from you.  How would you feel about it?  8-)

I think we view taxes very differently

I see all taxes paid by me as my money until I reconcile at the end of the year, and whatever I can't claw back is 'gone' money, but  what is is mine is mine.


You may see it as all taxes paid as the governments money and tax write offs / returns as dubious accounting practice design to rip off the government.


I begrudge every cent taken from me, as a vast majority of that money is p1ssed away on failed and imprudent ventures.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:35pm:

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:21pm: I am all for lower taxes - perhaps using the money saved to lower personal income tax.   I just dont think we should socialize people's investment decisions.  I do not want a culture that people to invest to make a loss to minimize their tax liability.  It distorts the market, and goes against the free market principal of conservative economic. For example, no one in their right mind would invest 500K into a business that generate loss each year (and no one would pay more to buy it off you a year later).  They are doing that now, because, they would suffer the loss now, and make a larger capital gain later on.   I am not against savy investors for doing this, but I am against, subsidizing their losses  now, and then give them a bigger capital gains tax concession in the future when they do make a profit.   To me, its just double dipping.  This also creates an environment of property speculation.  Where the investors invest not for its principal to income ratio, but rather speculation of future gains.  This opens up a big problem down the road, when eventually, property prices have to readjust.  Now, you mention about shares.  Say you have a next door neighbor, he earns the same as you are.  But he wanted to get rich quick, and put 100k into a small obscure prospecting company.  But it went sour, and he lost half of it.  Now, this means, in order to make the short fall on the revenue, the government need to raise more money from you.  How would you feel about it?  8-) I think we view taxes very differently I see all taxes paid by me as my money until I reconcile at the end of the year, and whatever I can't claw back is 'gone' money, but  what is is mine is mine. You may see it as all taxes paid as the governments money and tax write offs / returns as dubious accounting practice design to rip off the government. I begrudge every cent taken from me, as a vast majority of that money is p1ssed away on failed and imprudent ventures.

Oh no no, I don't view tax write off as dubious accounting practice.  At the moment, the negative gearing is legal. So anyone can do it.  I just question if it fits under the model of free market, small government conservative economics.

Hey, I understand your predicament.  Those pesky 3 monthly GST statement that does your head in.  Luckily, most of our business income is GST free, so we get a good amount of money returned.   :)

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 2:54pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:35pm: tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:21pm: I am all for lower taxes - perhaps using the money saved to lower personal income tax.   I just dont think we should socialize people's investment decisions.  I do not want a culture that people to invest to make a loss to minimize their tax liability.  It distorts the market, and goes against the free market principal of conservative economic. For example, no one in their right mind would invest 500K into a business that generate loss each year (and no one would pay more to buy it off you a year later).  They are doing that now, because, they would suffer the loss now, and make a larger capital gain later on.   I am not against savy investors for doing this, but I am against, subsidizing their losses  now, and then give them a bigger capital gains tax concession in the future when they do make a profit.   To me, its just double dipping.  This also creates an environment of property speculation.  Where the investors invest not for its principal to income ratio, but rather speculation of future gains.  This opens up a big problem down the road, when eventually, property prices have to readjust.  Now, you mention about shares.  Say you have a next door neighbor, he earns the same as you are.  But he wanted to get rich quick, and put 100k into a small obscure prospecting company.  But it went sour, and he lost half of it.  Now, this means, in order to make the short fall on the revenue, the government need to raise more money from you.  How would you feel about it?  8-) I think we view taxes very differently I see all taxes paid by me as my money until I reconcile at the end of the year, and whatever I can't claw back is 'gone' money, but  what is is mine is mine. You may see it as all taxes paid as the governments money and tax write offs / returns as dubious accounting practice design to rip off the government. I begrudge every cent taken from me, as a vast majority of that money is p1ssed away on failed and imprudent ventures. Oh no no, I don't view tax write off as dubious accounting practice.  At the moment, the negative gearing is legal. So anyone can do it.  I just question if it fits under the model of free market, small government conservative economics. Hey, I understand your predicament.  Those pesky 3 monthly GST statement that does your head in.  Luckily, most of our business income is GST free, so we get a good amount of money returned.   :)

Im no longer in business, but I didn't mind all the paperwork and such, I just hate handing one cent more than I have to.

The maximum any one person, couple or family should pay as income tax is 20% of that income, and no more. Everyone pays the same rate of tax, and in the event of emergencies, the Parliament can increase taxes but only for a specified limited amount of time.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 11:07am:

I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't wasted without a care in the world, 'they can always take more'. Watching the government spend my money is like watching a big dog taking a sh1t on the carpet while staring at you straight in the eye. Yo can yell at it, but you know it is going to finish off rather than stop.

I wouldnt m ind the gay brigade being TAXED double to pay for this bloody postal having gone out of their way to block everything the libs wanted to do  just to be bloody minded   makes my blood boil...so yeah I will vote YES to taxing them double to repay those who dont give a toss if they marry.

cods wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 3:02pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 11:07am: I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't wasted without a care in the world, 'they can always take more'. Watching the government spend my money is like watching a big dog taking a sh1t on the carpet while staring at you straight in the eye. Yo can yell at it, but you know it is going to finish off rather than stop. I wouldnt m ind the gay brigade being TAXED double to pay for this bloody postal having gone out of their way to block everything the libs wanted to do  just to be bloody minded   makes my blood boil...so yeah I will vote YES to taxing them double to repay those who dont give a toss if they marry.

Should all republicans be double taxed for a republican referendum?

Auggie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 3:10pm:

cods wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 3:02pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 11:07am: I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't wasted without a care in the world, 'they can always take more'. Watching the government spend my money is like watching a big dog taking a sh1t on the carpet while staring at you straight in the eye. Yo can yell at it, but you know it is going to finish off rather than stop. I wouldnt m ind the gay brigade being TAXED double to pay for this bloody postal having gone out of their way to block everything the libs wanted to do  just to be bloody minded   makes my blood boil...so yeah I will vote YES to taxing them double to repay those who dont give a toss if they marry. Should all republicans be double taxed for a republican referendum?

nope because that affects everyone.. this only affect a small percentage and they have blocked just about every thing that has gone through the house.. wasting time and money left right and centre...

now they have the hide to scream we are all homophobic if we dont do their bidding..


I do not see any Republicans jumping up and down pointing fingers calling people names  for disagreeing with them....and no one blocked the ref.on its the first time round..

there is a huge difference.

cods wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 3:26pm:

Auggie wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 3:10pm: cods wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 3:02pm: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 11:07am: I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't wasted without a care in the world, 'they can always take more'. Watching the government spend my money is like watching a big dog taking a sh1t on the carpet while staring at you straight in the eye. Yo can yell at it, but you know it is going to finish off rather than stop. I wouldnt m ind the gay brigade being TAXED double to pay for this bloody postal having gone out of their way to block everything the libs wanted to do  just to be bloody minded   makes my blood boil...so yeah I will vote YES to taxing them double to repay those who dont give a toss if they marry. Should all republicans be double taxed for a republican referendum? nope because that affects everyone.. this only affect a small percentage and they have blocked just about every thing that has gone through the house.. wasting time and money left right and centre... now they have the hide to scream we are all homophobic if we dont do their bidding.. I do not see any Republicans jumping up and down pointing fingers calling people names  for disagreeing with them....and no one blocked the ref.on its the first time round.. there is a huge difference.

Rubbish. Those who support the monarchy have been called all sorts of names: "sell outs" etc.

The SSM marriage issue is about equality before the law. Do you not believe in this principal?

cods wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 3:02pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 11:07am: I wouldn't mind so much if it wasn't wasted without a care in the world, 'they can always take more'. Watching the government spend my money is like watching a big dog taking a sh1t on the carpet while staring at you straight in the eye. Yo can yell at it, but you know it is going to finish off rather than stop. I wouldnt m ind the gay brigade being TAXED double to pay for this bloody postal having gone out of their way to block everything the libs wanted to do  just to be bloody minded   makes my blood boil...so yeah I will vote YES to taxing them double to repay those who dont give a toss if they marry.

What a stupid thing to say cods
The only reason this is costing us millions of dollars is because Tony Abbott came up with the absurd idea of a non binding plebiscite.
If the government had the balls to actually make a decision themselves (isn't that what they are paid for?) This whole thing wouldn't cost a cent.

tickleandrose wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 10:22am:

This is thing about pure capitalist is that when the going gets tough, they turn to the biggest socialist.   They tend to privatize their profits, and socialize their losses.  Before you guys talk down to socialism, may be you should perhaps pay the billions of bail out money (or negative gearing) back to the people.

And lets not forget the billions used to bail out the overseas banks during the GFC because they were "too big to fail". 

cods wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 3:26pm:

. this only affect a small percentage and they have blocked just about every thing that has gone through the house.

rubbish. The only ones blocking everything are the ones trying to prevent gay marriage. The gays are happy to let parliament decide, instead of an opinion poll, the way they're supposed to.

John Smith wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 10:06pm:

cods wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 3:26pm: . this only affect a small percentage and they have blocked just about every thing that has gone through the house. rubbish. The only ones blocking everything are the ones trying to prevent gay marriage. The gays are happy to let parliament decide, instead of an opinion poll, the way they're supposed to.

Divine Right Of Elected Government, smith - once you abrogate and forfeit your individual right to tell government what it can and cannot dictate - you are running the razor across your grand-kid's necks...

What part of history tells you otherwise?  Italy?  Germany?  Russia?  Cambodia? Japan?  America - North and South?  England?  New South Wales?

Are you prepared to bow down in a feudal manner and pledge obeisance to your overlord, the State, and thus accept all of its decrees or be declared rebel or outlaw?  Or are you a king in your own right in your own home and castle, and are thus entitled, in a democratic institution, to tell the State where its powers end?

Get your thinking out of the Dark Ages and the medieval times, boy.... damn, you Italians STILL got no balls...

'same sex marriage' is a mole sent to undermine the institution of the Right of the People to dictate to the government - and NOT the other way around.

It seems you've missed most of the past forty years in this once-fine nation..... I weep for you and your descendants...

We pay taxes for government services.

The tax system we have means some people pay for services, other people don't pay for services.

Of the people that pay for services, they all pay different rates for the same service.

Its not progressive or fair,,, its the tax system.

I wish people would be more honest,,, its NOT a fair system

all these things are there to f**ck with your mind.

humans have a natural tendency to not waste energy (another way of saying this is that laziness is the default).

if you get welfare, your reptilian brain will be happy, you will achieve nothing and you are screwed.

if you are working but in lower consciousness (being run by your reptilian brain), you will look at those on welfare and get envious or angry because you dont want to work either.

Dont be tricked. if you go down that path , you also are screwed.

the only way to move up is to face challenges,
challenges cause the growth.

your reptilian brain doesnt seek out challenges.
but your higher consciousness does.

get in tune with higher consciousness.

the ammount of opportunities out there for growth is unbelievable.

you can travel the world, climb everest, do it all...but most people will do none of it.

if you fall into the trap of wanting to get stuff without facing a challenge (the socialist model) or if you resist city hall and get all butt hurt about paying taxes (the angry rightie model), then you are screwed.
you are spinning your wheels, you are going nowhere, you will achieve nothing of your potential.
life is over in a blink.

you have this happy childhood where your parents create a false reality
then you hit high school and you either get bullied or you are the bully.
then you heal from the wounds of this and you have to decide what do you want out of life.
and then you pick something that it means, some north star and you go for it.

most people miss step 3.
they stay in scarcity and never really grow up.
pensioners still wanting to suck on societies titties.
retirees still all butt hurt because they have to pay taxes , like some child chucking a tantrum.

if you have no north star, you have no boundaries and you will just wander the earth in a soup seeking ways to have your default emotional state triggered.
if you are a complainer or a sook or outraged, you just wrote off your life.
you got none of the value out of it.
all the great religions point to his one fact.

render unto ceasar what is caesars and then get on with having an awesome life.

if you cant have an awesome life in australia in 2017, you are a f***king disgrace