Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print
Allow 20+ to work for junior wages... (Read 3425 times)
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #75 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:11pm
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:50pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:31pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:27pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:25pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:19pm:
Of course, situations change. That's why people need to be frugal and save money.

Regarding having children, no one should be forced NOT to have children. My point is that if you earn below a certain level of income that will put financial pressure on you, then I don't think that the taxpayer should pay to look after someone else's kid through subsidies for child care, etc. It's a parent's responsibility to look after their children, not mine or yours. 


At what income level should potential parents abort their potential offspring?


You're forgetting something: the act that takes place IN ORDER for the woman to get pregnant?

There's something called contraception, you know.


Not always effective and the most effective is not for everyone. How many do you want to import if everyone on basic wages stopped breeding, where would we bring them from?
http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/12z7v7/30fertility_rate729.png


I suspect the cases of where it's not effective are very low.

That's why we should have an immigration programme that favours families over individuals, AND such individuals who have skills, etc. There are enough middle and upper class families in poor countries to sustain Australia for a long time.


How do you think that would sit with most Australians that believe their culture is being destroyed now? We just import our population from where ever, what if the countries we import them from are not so friendly to each other or us? What kind of society will you beget? If we stopped all people on minimum wages procreating our birthrate might go down to .5 per couple as the less well of tend to have more children.


First of all, there's no 'stopping' anyone from doing anything. The Government would simply remove incentives for people to breed, and to disincentivize single-parent households.

Second, I don't believe that our culture is being 'destroyed.' Those who believe it are misinformed by fear-mongering. Our institutions and legal systems are strong enough that it can withstand a diverse a society. I hope to beget a diverse society where everyone is 'equal under the law.'



Equal as long as they do what they are told by their 'betters'?  I could get that in any business these days.. not generally the small kind, which in most cases realises that people are it's first product - but certainly in the big ones.  Trouble is that in at least six out of ten cases, these 'betters' know nothing and are simply leading to disaster...
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #76 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:16pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:11pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:50pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:44pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:31pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:27pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:25pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:19pm:
Of course, situations change. That's why people need to be frugal and save money.

Regarding having children, no one should be forced NOT to have children. My point is that if you earn below a certain level of income that will put financial pressure on you, then I don't think that the taxpayer should pay to look after someone else's kid through subsidies for child care, etc. It's a parent's responsibility to look after their children, not mine or yours. 


At what income level should potential parents abort their potential offspring?


You're forgetting something: the act that takes place IN ORDER for the woman to get pregnant?

There's something called contraception, you know.


Not always effective and the most effective is not for everyone. How many do you want to import if everyone on basic wages stopped breeding, where would we bring them from?
http://www.smh.com.au/cqstatic/12z7v7/30fertility_rate729.png


I suspect the cases of where it's not effective are very low.

That's why we should have an immigration programme that favours families over individuals, AND such individuals who have skills, etc. There are enough middle and upper class families in poor countries to sustain Australia for a long time.


How do you think that would sit with most Australians that believe their culture is being destroyed now? We just import our population from where ever, what if the countries we import them from are not so friendly to each other or us? What kind of society will you beget? If we stopped all people on minimum wages procreating our birthrate might go down to .5 per couple as the less well of tend to have more children.


First of all, there's no 'stopping' anyone from doing anything. The Government would simply remove incentives for people to breed, and to disincentivize single-parent households.

Second, I don't believe that our culture is being 'destroyed.' Those who believe it are misinformed by fear-mongering. Our institutions and legal systems are strong enough that it can withstand a diverse a society. I hope to beget a diverse society where everyone is 'equal under the law.'



Equal as long as they do what they are told by their 'betters'?  I could get that in any business these days.. not generally the small kind, which in most cases realises that people are it's first product - but certainly in the big ones.  Trouble is that in at least six out of ten cases, these 'betters' know nothing and are simply leading to disaster...


What are you talking about? No one's advocating that employers have total control over employees. The OP of this topic was to allow 20+ workers to be entitled FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME to be able to compete in the workplace.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #77 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:20pm
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:19pm:
Of course, situations change. That's why people need to be frugal and save money.

Regarding having children, no one should be forced NOT to have children. My point is that if you earn below a certain level of income that will put financial pressure on you, then I don't think that the taxpayer should pay to look after someone else's kid through subsidies for child care, etc. It's a parent's responsibility to look after their children, not mine or yours. 


But in a society which is alleged to be functioning for the good of all through whatever means it chooses - whether that be anything in the range from pure capitalism to pure communism - why would a society wish to deliberately starve children when their support network of parents is unable to find work within that society?  Nobody would be forced not to have children - just starved if they did.  Jesus God, man - do you ever look into a mirror?  We'll give you one just before you go to the firing squad so you can shave and look neat.

Do you truly have no understanding of the social security network (not safety net) that says that every individual is worthy of being fed and housed?

You may well have an argument over subsidies given to those above a certain level of income - as the government currently does - and you may well argue that the current standard is too high, and thus money is being handed unnecessarily to parents who can afford to pay for childcare etc for their own.

In that case you need to go back to John Howard and Peter Costello - whom some cite as our greatest PM and greatest treasurer for wasting the windfall from mining by providing child care etc to the middle classes who had no need for it, but who voted for them.

In a perfect world, id you can afford to send your kid to a private school - you pay for it.  If you can afford to pay for a nanny - you pay for it.

There's a hell of a lot of money paid out so kids can go to private schools and have nannies and so forth, while their parents are in a very good income bracket, often including many who write off most expenses and costs of living as business expenses.

What you are pursuing, in reality, is a return to the good old days of the robber barons and the company stores.... and there is no way anyone with any intelligence at all would fall for a five year term for the fools we currently have in Parliament, or for no Senate to watch over their absurd antics and ideological games.

That you again, Ahovking?  Never learn........
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 15851
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #78 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:21pm
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:10pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:01pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:50pm:
First of all, there's no 'stopping' anyone from doing anything. The Government would simply remove incentives for people to breed, and to disincentivize single-parent households.

Second, I don't believe that our culture is being 'destroyed.' Those who believe it are misinformed by fear-mongering. Our institutions and legal systems are strong enough that it can withstand a diverse a society. I hope to beget a diverse society where everyone is 'equal under the law.'


The incentives to breed are there for a reason. Even through that big peak in the graph I posted, the govt was paying people to breed for a reason, one of each parent and one for the country.

I don't think out culture is being destroyed either, but many do, you want to tell them just to STFU, it's for your own good, you have no say?

You want a dictatorship where someone like you can dictate what people can do, how many children they have, how much they are paid, who comes here what they will be like. Your own utopia. We are not all you and we are many.

You are full of ideas to reinvent Australia but they are narrow, as you started off, you have been forced over time to broaden your thought as people have responded to you, you are clutching at crazy now to keep your original ideas alive, you need more thought for the next thought experiment.



Hold on a second? Did I ever say that I wanted to CONTROL OR DICTATE what people can and can't do? I never said that I would prevent anyone from doing anything.

I just don't think that the government should provide stipends for childcare, or payments for each child you have.


OK in your world they just shouldn't. That will solve a lot won't it.

The govt pays for people to have children for a reason. The level of payment is open to adjustment. I never got what people get today for childcare etc. My parents only got child endowment. I'm up for a discussion on where the line should be drawn but not until you understand there is a reason the govt promotes people having children. Just importing our birthrate every year is not a solution.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #79 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:26pm
 
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:21pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:10pm:
Setanta wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:01pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:50pm:
First of all, there's no 'stopping' anyone from doing anything. The Government would simply remove incentives for people to breed, and to disincentivize single-parent households.

Second, I don't believe that our culture is being 'destroyed.' Those who believe it are misinformed by fear-mongering. Our institutions and legal systems are strong enough that it can withstand a diverse a society. I hope to beget a diverse society where everyone is 'equal under the law.'


The incentives to breed are there for a reason. Even through that big peak in the graph I posted, the govt was paying people to breed for a reason, one of each parent and one for the country.

I don't think out culture is being destroyed either, but many do, you want to tell them just to STFU, it's for your own good, you have no say?

You want a dictatorship where someone like you can dictate what people can do, how many children they have, how much they are paid, who comes here what they will be like. Your own utopia. We are not all you and we are many.

You are full of ideas to reinvent Australia but they are narrow, as you started off, you have been forced over time to broaden your thought as people have responded to you, you are clutching at crazy now to keep your original ideas alive, you need more thought for the next thought experiment.



Hold on a second? Did I ever say that I wanted to CONTROL OR DICTATE what people can and can't do? I never said that I would prevent anyone from doing anything.

I just don't think that the government should provide stipends for childcare, or payments for each child you have.


OK in your world they just shouldn't. That will solve a lot won't it.

The govt pays for people to have children for a reason. The level of payment is open to adjustment.



No - you'd just make it near impossible for them to do anything else.

You must be one of those kids with that 'education' larnin'..... no wonder many of those are demonstrably autistic in their thinking....
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #80 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:28pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:20pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 9:19pm:
Of course, situations change. That's why people need to be frugal and save money.

Regarding having children, no one should be forced NOT to have children. My point is that if you earn below a certain level of income that will put financial pressure on you, then I don't think that the taxpayer should pay to look after someone else's kid through subsidies for child care, etc. It's a parent's responsibility to look after their children, not mine or yours. 


But in a society which is alleged to be functioning for the good of all through whatever means it chooses - whether that be anything in the range from pure capitalism to pure communism - why would a society wish to deliberately starve children when their support network of parents is unable to find work within that society?

Do you truly have no understanding of the social security network (not safety net) that says that every individual is worthy of being fed and housed?

You may well have an argument over subsidies given to those above a certain level of income - as the government currently does - and you may well argue that the current standard is too high, and thus money is being handed unnecessarily to parents who can afford to pay for childcare etc for their own.

In that case you need to go back to John Howard and Peter Costello - whom some cite as our greatest PM and greatest treasurer for wasting the windfall from mining by providing child care etc to the middle classes who had no need for it, but who voted for them.

In a perfect world, id you can afford to send your kid to a private school - you pay for it.  If you can afford to pay for a nanny - you pay for it.

There's a hell of a lot of money paid out so kids can go to private schools and have nannies and so forth, while their parents are in a very good income bracket, often including many who write off most expenses and costs of living as business expenses.

What you are pursuing, in reality, is a return to the good old days of the robber barons and the company stores.... and there is no way anyone with any intelligence at all would fall for a five year term for the fools we currently have in Parliament, or for no Senate to watch over their absurd antics and ideological games.

That you again, Ahovking?  Never learn........


I agree there should be a social safety net for those who have disabilities or who need social care. Regarding unemployment, there should be stipends for people who are unemployed who lose a job through no fault of their own. One policy doesn't exclude the other. Do you think the parent would rather have a slightly lower-paying job than none at all?

Second, I'm NOT a reactionary. I'm a libertarian. The five-year term argument is based on the idea that a Government CAN reform if it wants too. Sure, it could sit there and do nothing; or it could destroy the country. But, either of these scenarios can happen in a 3-year term.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #81 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 11:49pm
 
Network - not net....... a responsible society does not expect people to fall before catching them....
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #82 - Feb 26th, 2017 at 11:56pm
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:28pm:
I agree there should be a social safety net for those who have disabilities or who need social care. Regarding unemployment, there should be stipends for people who are unemployed who lose a job through no fault of their own. One policy doesn't exclude the other. Do you think the parent would rather have a slightly lower-paying job than none at all?

Second, I'm NOT a reactionary. I'm a libertarian. The five-year term argument is based on the idea that a Government CAN reform if it wants too. Sure, it could sit there and do nothing; or it could destroy the country. But, either of these scenarios can happen in a 3-year term.


Again - I said Social Security Network - there is a world of difference from a safety net.  One is pre-emptive and seeks to resolve issues before they become a disaster - the other merely seeks to avert disaster.

What level of stipend do you feel should be appropriate for people who lose a job through no fault of their own?  How does that apply to casuals etc?  At no time did I suggest a parent would not accept a lower paid job - but the ideal should be that jobs are available and will provide adequately, not just that any job will do.

A government MAY reform - then again it may not, and I doubt the Australian people, including myself, are willing to offer any 'government' that chance given their track record. As things stand, no government within my memory has achieved any 'reform' unless it was to suit their donors.  Reform is meant to be for the better - not for the worse.  A government of GENUINE reform would get down to it on Day One - they don't need five years to install their ideology so deeply that it is as removable as a cancer, as affirmative action has become.

We have no such government of genuine positive reform in the offing..... we have two potential governments that wish only to reform to suit themselves and not the people.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 15851
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #83 - Feb 27th, 2017 at 12:03am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:26pm:
No - you'd just make it near impossible for them to do anything else.

You must be one of those kids with that 'education' larnin'..... no wonder many of those are demonstrably autistic in their thinking....


I'm not sure what you think I said.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #84 - Feb 27th, 2017 at 8:37am
 
Setanta wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 12:03am:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:26pm:
No - you'd just make it near impossible for them to do anything else.

You must be one of those kids with that 'education' larnin'..... no wonder many of those are demonstrably autistic in their thinking....


I'm not sure what you think I said.



I didn't mean you - I just couldn't be bothered trawling back to find the original post.  We are in agreement over discussion of the amount of subsidy that should rightly go towards having and raising children.  Difficult for the city slickers to have their veggies etc - but remember when everyone had a backyard with chooks and gardens and water tanks?  That's what I have here, but without the chooks.  When I was a kid we even had pigs and the occasional cow and even a crop of beans one year, and a retired mine horse who the old man saved from the knackers yard.

Our 'social security network' has blown out massively with all this subsidies for children, childcare and getting women back tow work - none of these has anything to do with social security in reality, and are more in the way of wants than real needs.

I think, in line with Augie's raising the point of a stipend for lost employment, we need to put pensions under the same microscope - one could argue that retirement is the loss of job not through one's own making - it is a natural event.

Can't find the other strand he was arguing about Direct Democracy etc - but on his point about 'repeatedly asking the question such as Brexit/Clinton** until the people get it right' - his thinking is flawed.  Firstly by saying 'we' ask - he is indicating that the ruling body demands the answer they want and runs the show for their own ends; secondly, as I said, the people have already voted, why would they ask themselves again and again until they 'get it right'?

ONLY if the people deem they got it wrong will they decide to take ANOTHER vote and see if it changes.

** supporting Hillary is a 'leftie' thing - I never did support Hillary, and am happy to await the outcomes from The Trumpet.  Methinks I am mistaken for a 'leftie' when I am in reality a Realitie......
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 27th, 2017 at 8:55am by Grappler Truth Teller Feller »  

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #85 - Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:06am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 11:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:28pm:
I agree there should be a social safety net for those who have disabilities or who need social care. Regarding unemployment, there should be stipends for people who are unemployed who lose a job through no fault of their own. One policy doesn't exclude the other. Do you think the parent would rather have a slightly lower-paying job than none at all?

Second, I'm NOT a reactionary. I'm a libertarian. The five-year term argument is based on the idea that a Government CAN reform if it wants too. Sure, it could sit there and do nothing; or it could destroy the country. But, either of these scenarios can happen in a 3-year term.


Again - I said Social Security Network - there is a world of difference from a safety net.  One is pre-emptive and seeks to resolve issues before they become a disaster - the other merely seeks to avert disaster.

What level of stipend do you feel should be appropriate for people who lose a job through no fault of their own?  How does that apply to casuals etc?  At no time did I suggest a parent would not accept a lower paid job - but the ideal should be that jobs are available and will provide adequately, not just that any job will do.

A government MAY reform - then again it may not, and I doubt the Australian people, including myself, are willing to offer any 'government' that chance given their track record. As things stand, no government within my memory has achieved any 'reform' unless it was to suit their donors.  Reform is meant to be for the better - not for the worse.  A government of GENUINE reform would get down to it on Day One - they don't need five years to install their ideology so deeply that it is as removable as a cancer, as affirmative action has become.

We have no such government of genuine positive reform in the offing..... we have two potential governments that wish only to reform to suit themselves and not the people.


It's interesting you mention the Social Safety Network. A Libertarian policy would also significantly lower taxes. For e.g. those earning under $30k per year wouldn't pay a single cent in tax. This would help lower income families significantly.

Regarding your comment about businesses repatriating profits overseas to avoid paying tax in Australia, I agree that the Government should make laws to prevent this. It's also a different thing from imposing severe penalties on them for moving offshore.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 79545
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #86 - Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:12am
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:06am:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 11:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:28pm:
I agree there should be a social safety net for those who have disabilities or who need social care. Regarding unemployment, there should be stipends for people who are unemployed who lose a job through no fault of their own. One policy doesn't exclude the other. Do you think the parent would rather have a slightly lower-paying job than none at all?

Second, I'm NOT a reactionary. I'm a libertarian. The five-year term argument is based on the idea that a Government CAN reform if it wants too. Sure, it could sit there and do nothing; or it could destroy the country. But, either of these scenarios can happen in a 3-year term.


Again - I said Social Security Network - there is a world of difference from a safety net.  One is pre-emptive and seeks to resolve issues before they become a disaster - the other merely seeks to avert disaster.

What level of stipend do you feel should be appropriate for people who lose a job through no fault of their own?  How does that apply to casuals etc?  At no time did I suggest a parent would not accept a lower paid job - but the ideal should be that jobs are available and will provide adequately, not just that any job will do.

A government MAY reform - then again it may not, and I doubt the Australian people, including myself, are willing to offer any 'government' that chance given their track record. As things stand, no government within my memory has achieved any 'reform' unless it was to suit their donors.  Reform is meant to be for the better - not for the worse.  A government of GENUINE reform would get down to it on Day One - they don't need five years to install their ideology so deeply that it is as removable as a cancer, as affirmative action has become.

We have no such government of genuine positive reform in the offing..... we have two potential governments that wish only to reform to suit themselves and not the people.


It's interesting you mention the Social Safety Network. A Libertarian policy would also significantly lower taxes. For e.g. those earning under $30k per year wouldn't pay a single cent in tax. This would help lower income families significantly.

Regarding your comment about businesses repatriating profits overseas to avoid paying tax in Australia, I agree that the Government should make laws to prevent this. It's also a different thing from imposing severe penalties on them for moving offshore.



Yes - it's a different thing - but offshoring jobs means a reduction in economic activity and genuine prosperity for this nation - and therefore I think a 'departure tax' is in order.  I've said before - the claim is that we 'compete' for jobs with ten cent countries in some 'global economy' - perhaps then jobs, viewed as a commodity, should be put up for auction, highest bidder wins and a reserve price.

That's one way of 'leveling' the 'playing field'.  But an easier alternative is to impose a 'departure tax', not a penalty (nah.. nah) just paying your dues.....
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #87 - Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:14am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 11:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:28pm:
I agree there should be a social safety net for those who have disabilities or who need social care. Regarding unemployment, there should be stipends for people who are unemployed who lose a job through no fault of their own. One policy doesn't exclude the other. Do you think the parent would rather have a slightly lower-paying job than none at all?

Second, I'm NOT a reactionary. I'm a libertarian. The five-year term argument is based on the idea that a Government CAN reform if it wants too. Sure, it could sit there and do nothing; or it could destroy the country. But, either of these scenarios can happen in a 3-year term.


Again - I said Social Security Network - there is a world of difference from a safety net.  One is pre-emptive and seeks to resolve issues before they become a disaster - the other merely seeks to avert disaster.

What level of stipend do you feel should be appropriate for people who lose a job through no fault of their own?  How does that apply to casuals etc?  At no time did I suggest a parent would not accept a lower paid job - but the ideal should be that jobs are available and will provide adequately, not just that any job will do.

A government MAY reform - then again it may not, and I doubt the Australian people, including myself, are willing to offer any 'government' that chance given their track record. As things stand, no government within my memory has achieved any 'reform' unless it was to suit their donors.  Reform is meant to be for the better - not for the worse.  A government of GENUINE reform would get down to it on Day One - they don't need five years to install their ideology so deeply that it is as removable as a cancer, as affirmative action has become.

We have no such government of genuine positive reform in the offing..... we have two potential governments that wish only to reform to suit themselves and not the people.


How about this? Let's split the difference on this one. Let's agree to implement a policy where the minimum wage is $12 per hour (for everyone, although each State can fix it according to their cost of living, etc.). We have a tax-free threshold of $40k per year. In terms of unemployment subsidies, there could be a reduction in the amount paid, say $500 per month; and/or a 'food-stamp' scheme (but more generous than America) at the same amount per month to prevent starvation?

In addition, Governments relax zoning restrictions so that there's more choice in housing, allowing for more affordable property. In terms of family benefits, the Government would offer tax breaks for those earning $40k per year.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #88 - Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:15am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:12am:
Auggie wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:06am:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 11:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:28pm:
I agree there should be a social safety net for those who have disabilities or who need social care. Regarding unemployment, there should be stipends for people who are unemployed who lose a job through no fault of their own. One policy doesn't exclude the other. Do you think the parent would rather have a slightly lower-paying job than none at all?

Second, I'm NOT a reactionary. I'm a libertarian. The five-year term argument is based on the idea that a Government CAN reform if it wants too. Sure, it could sit there and do nothing; or it could destroy the country. But, either of these scenarios can happen in a 3-year term.


Again - I said Social Security Network - there is a world of difference from a safety net.  One is pre-emptive and seeks to resolve issues before they become a disaster - the other merely seeks to avert disaster.

What level of stipend do you feel should be appropriate for people who lose a job through no fault of their own?  How does that apply to casuals etc?  At no time did I suggest a parent would not accept a lower paid job - but the ideal should be that jobs are available and will provide adequately, not just that any job will do.

A government MAY reform - then again it may not, and I doubt the Australian people, including myself, are willing to offer any 'government' that chance given their track record. As things stand, no government within my memory has achieved any 'reform' unless it was to suit their donors.  Reform is meant to be for the better - not for the worse.  A government of GENUINE reform would get down to it on Day One - they don't need five years to install their ideology so deeply that it is as removable as a cancer, as affirmative action has become.

We have no such government of genuine positive reform in the offing..... we have two potential governments that wish only to reform to suit themselves and not the people.


It's interesting you mention the Social Safety Network. A Libertarian policy would also significantly lower taxes. For e.g. those earning under $30k per year wouldn't pay a single cent in tax. This would help lower income families significantly.

Regarding your comment about businesses repatriating profits overseas to avoid paying tax in Australia, I agree that the Government should make laws to prevent this. It's also a different thing from imposing severe penalties on them for moving offshore.



Yes - it's a different thing - but offshoring jobs means a reduction in economic activity and genuine prosperity for this nation - and therefore I think a 'departure tax' is in order.  I've said before - the claim is that we 'compete' for jobs with ten cent countries in some 'global economy' - perhaps then jobs, viewed as a commodity, should be put up for auction, highest bidder wins and a reserve price.

That's one way of 'leveling' the 'playing field'.  But an easier alternative is to impose a 'departure tax', not a penalty (nah.. nah) just paying your dues.....


Ok, I'm open to the departure tax.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Allow 20+ to work for junior wages...
Reply #89 - Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:25am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:12am:
Auggie wrote on Feb 27th, 2017 at 9:06am:
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 11:56pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 26th, 2017 at 10:28pm:
I agree there should be a social safety net for those who have disabilities or who need social care. Regarding unemployment, there should be stipends for people who are unemployed who lose a job through no fault of their own. One policy doesn't exclude the other. Do you think the parent would rather have a slightly lower-paying job than none at all?

Second, I'm NOT a reactionary. I'm a libertarian. The five-year term argument is based on the idea that a Government CAN reform if it wants too. Sure, it could sit there and do nothing; or it could destroy the country. But, either of these scenarios can happen in a 3-year term.


Again - I said Social Security Network - there is a world of difference from a safety net.  One is pre-emptive and seeks to resolve issues before they become a disaster - the other merely seeks to avert disaster.

What level of stipend do you feel should be appropriate for people who lose a job through no fault of their own?  How does that apply to casuals etc?  At no time did I suggest a parent would not accept a lower paid job - but the ideal should be that jobs are available and will provide adequately, not just that any job will do.

A government MAY reform - then again it may not, and I doubt the Australian people, including myself, are willing to offer any 'government' that chance given their track record. As things stand, no government within my memory has achieved any 'reform' unless it was to suit their donors.  Reform is meant to be for the better - not for the worse.  A government of GENUINE reform would get down to it on Day One - they don't need five years to install their ideology so deeply that it is as removable as a cancer, as affirmative action has become.

We have no such government of genuine positive reform in the offing..... we have two potential governments that wish only to reform to suit themselves and not the people.


It's interesting you mention the Social Safety Network. A Libertarian policy would also significantly lower taxes. For e.g. those earning under $30k per year wouldn't pay a single cent in tax. This would help lower income families significantly.

Regarding your comment about businesses repatriating profits overseas to avoid paying tax in Australia, I agree that the Government should make laws to prevent this. It's also a different thing from imposing severe penalties on them for moving offshore.



Yes - it's a different thing - but offshoring jobs means a reduction in economic activity and genuine prosperity for this nation - and therefore I think a 'departure tax' is in order.  I've said before - the claim is that we 'compete' for jobs with ten cent countries in some 'global economy' - perhaps then jobs, viewed as a commodity, should be put up for auction, highest bidder wins and a reserve price.

That's one way of 'leveling' the 'playing field'.  But an easier alternative is to impose a 'departure tax', not a penalty (nah.. nah) just paying your dues.....


Also the other thing is that I support collective bargaining and unionism in place of a government-fixed wage limit.

In fact, this is what Germany has done up until recently. They had no minimum wage, but enforced collective bargaining agreements. Libertarians shouldn't have an issue with because it's about 'right to association' which is a fundamental principle of liberty. If there are gaps in some industries, etc. then the States should be able to fix a minimum wage based on their local economies and cost of living differences.

My guide is about $12 p/h, and I think there should be a 'starting-out' wage like they have in New Zealand, which could be fixed $9 p/h, to at least provide some incentive for employers to hire non-experienced workers. This could be offered to people who don't have experience in the industry, but would only be temporary: like 3 months, after which they go to the standard rate.  I think ultimately though the minimum wage should be a double-digit figure at least, not a single-digit figure.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 27th, 2017 at 10:32am by Auggie »  

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 
Send Topic Print