Is income and welath inequality good for Australia?

what do you think?

 

I personally don't think it's necessarily bad unless the gap becomes ridiculously widened and government policy disadvantages the low income. Capitalism isn't bad if regulated with a holistic social approach. All can aspire to varying levels of lifestyle within their capacities and desires, but we simply shouldn't withdraw opportunity or forget those less fortunate.

 

Yea, human nature requires it. We are animals and tend to have a large portion of our population that have a tendency to revert to violence under certain conditions (I'll call them the zombies). So a capitalist system rewards effort and intelligence to enable the zombies to desire that which they are too lazy and stupid to achieve, while affording the rest of us some security and comfort. Sounds harsh, but its basically true - especially when you consider things on a more realistic global scale.

Capitalism is the most democratic system in existence because it allows a person to choose their path and operate with freedom in a world of choices.

The other obvious attribute is that it enables innovation and effort to be rewarded, as without those things we would have no capacity to compete with other business/states/countries.

You could always create a caste system like communism does, but then we start to infringe on human rights to maintain it. The more rigid a system, the more capacity there is for corruption, as benchmarks move the system becomes a tool of oppression. Capitalism needs controls, like any engine, but it is its freedom which enables the important attribute of transparency to be constantly relative to the nature of the activity.

 

Mmm. To a point it grants choice, but those born into wealth have far greater choice than those who are not. Anyone that ignores accumulated wealth (family wealth) when they consider the self-made man is in denial.

Granted, some people make it no matter what - but it's not usually the case. Economic mobility is worse in western (wealthy) countries with less of a "socialist" structure. That is, if the country is doing well - the people of that country are better placed to make something of themselves with government assistance, which balances the equation, providing people of little or no accumulated wealth with opportunities that would likely simply not be available otherwise. It's part of a social contract.

Somewhat off topic: I read today that [x] people 'earning' over 1million people paid no tax in whatever year. Yet they are happy to use the roads, police, fire etc. ********s.

 

I find that very hard to believe. If you earn any more than $18,200 you will pay tax.

 

They pay for the best accountants who in turn make sure their right offs match their income, however when they use their cars on the roads they have to pay registration thus contributing a levy to the upkeep of the roads, when they buy groceries or go to resturaunts, or purchase anything retail they pay GST and therefore effectively pay the same share as a non employed person to access the police, fire etc. I would imagine that the low socio economic demographic (non working) would possibly utilise the emergency services far more than the average Australian, and yet we do not demand that they pay more, just those that rarely utilise them.

I am a little sick and tired of this constant chip on the shoulder attitude of Australians against the wealthy. They have money and you don't..........either get over it or get on with making it ! Do you all really know what would happen if all the wealthy moved themselves and their business interests off shore ? You would see a massive explosion of welfare seekers that is unimaginable, but here is the thing, there would be no base of income on which the government could draw revenue to pay the welfare.............because there would be no BLOODY jobs !

 

slipperyfish .. You seem so brainwashed and ignorant to think that rich people are good cuz they create jobs . Know they DO NOT. Instead they move jobs to third world countries! Rich people are rich because of tax cuts and corporate welfare. It's us who feed them not them.

 

I never said the rich were good or bad, that is not the point. Let me ask you, how many people do you employ sunshine ?

 

Another one of DV's mates. Where do you get this tripe? Give us a list of the tax cuts especialy for the rich and a list of the corporate welfare being paid.

 

I think Gina is the corporate welfare "queen" is she not? Didn't Gina just secure a $764 million US Government loan form the American tax payers in March 2014? Why are the American tax payers subsidising a business deal between an Australian Billionaire and titans of American industry? Corporate welfare is it not?

 

Wouldn't her company have to pay interest on a loan? I think there is more to this story, there must be something in it for the Yanks.

 

Ever consider what's in it for her borrowing form the US Government tax payers bank instead of borrowing form a regular bank? Do you seriously think she would be paying the same interest on the loan from the US tax payers as she would a normal bank? NO. Its called corporate welfare for the rich.

 

Im pretty sure she'd be paying less for a loan from the yanks than from an Australian bank...

 

They still receive a return that is negotiated between them and the interested party. That is their business what they receive as return, but a return on investment it is. They don't deal in anything under tens of millions, so they don't particularly look to a percentage return as more number in dollar amounts. She may borrow one hundred million, and they may want three million return for that, or whatever the case may be. The difference is they expect the return in months moreso than years, therefore the percentage is somewhat irrelevant. Gina might try hundreds of lending facilities before settling on one, effectively shopping for the best outcome through negotiation. When you are dealing in amounts like these normal banking practices like you and I are used to are null and void. No thirty year loans here.

So therefore, even though our tax system does not allow this facility to my knowledge, the USA tax system does allow investment of accumulated revenue in which they get a return to grow that accumulated revenue. Great idea, growing the revenue outside of the local revenue base.

Does this make it a low interest loan or corporate welfare ???? If she is repaying the loan with interest of any kind, to me that makes it a loan not welfare

 

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck - its a duck. A billionaire borrowing money from tax payers is corporate welfare mate - simple as that.

 

What makes it corporate welfare, is the fact that the American tax payers have missed out on $756 million to FUND their social projects and for their benefit. Just like Gillard crying poor mouth and only giving the NDIS $1 billion, but giving a loan to the IMF for $7 billion at the same time - corporate welfare for the rich, and who don't need it.

 

Only if it is not to be paid back, and least of all if it has interest attached to it. So your duck seems to look much like a chicken mate.

 

This money was given absolutely and never determined to be paid back, this makes it welfare, but is it corporate ?? NDIS is government scheme. The fact the Americans want to invest their tax revenue into the private sector has nothing to do with us, that is their decision alone, if that is what they have determined than so be it. I think it is forward thinking as long as the debt is underwritten to protect the people.

 

Australia in that sense does not exist. It's a convenient talking point. What exists are individuals.

I guess by Australia you mean the Australian people collectively. I find what's good for the Australian people to be entirely irrelevant. What matters is that individuals are free in their activities, property, and associations. Including voluntary trade. If this leads to inequality so be it.

[hr][/hr]

In addition, I'd encourage you to take a second look at all but a select few programs designed to reduce inequality or give (unjustified) power to certain segments of the population. Almost invariably they end up being breeding grounds for collusion between government and industry. In WA the state government nets $300 million from gambling taxes. That's almost as much as the slashing of those 70 Federal agencies netted the budget. Consequently, they have a very strong incentive to eliminate competition and provide special incentives (monopolistic licensing, specific exemptions to legislation, etc) to their favored businesses.

This is the case with a lot of the populist legislation supposedly designed to protect the community.

 

Do you mean Americans, or American politicians who are going to get "personal" kick-backs no one will ever know about. If Gina was not going to get a huge advantage out of it mate, then she wouldn't be borrowing she would be borrowing from regular financial institutions, not the American tax payers. Come slippery, I give you more credit than to suggest Gina is doing the American people a favour by borrowing money from them.

 

Never said she was. Never said their politicians weren't getting kickbacks. That's not the point. You called it corporate welfare, i say it's not. Nothing more, nothing less. What who gets from what is no concern of mine, but it is not welfare.

 

I beg to differ mate, because Gina is getting special benefits from the American people, that she wouldn't normally get going through a normal lending institution - and that is corporate welfare. You don't see a billionaire borrowing money from tax payers at a lower interest rate corporate welfare? LOL

I think you might need to look at the definition on the meaning of welfare, because it wouldn't apply to Gina under any circumstance.

 

If it is to be paid back with interest accrued it is NOT welfare. It is only welfare in your mind, as you are trying to prove some sort of point. It is the American tax Departments business what deal they do with the wealthy, and if they deem that Gina only needs to pay back at 3% then so be it. Even if it is at .01% they have technically made money from it. The American people may not be happy about it, but so it goes.

There is no such thing as normal terms when dealing with loans in the hundreds of millions. They draw up the rules to suit each individual loan need. You have to forget about Mum and Dad mortgages and the rules that apply therein to general working class people. This seems to be what is confusing you. Normal, as in general day to day finances to the average person, is not applicable to these financial negotiations.

In America, unlike Australia where we tend to chop the tall poppies down, the government hold entrepreneurs in high regard and attempt to assist them within boundaries to be successful. WHY ? Because these individuals have the ability to mass employ, and that is of great benefit to any country. So if that means the American tax department wants to give out cheap loans to big business, then so be it.

"I think you might need to look at the definition on the meaning of welfare, because it wouldn't apply to Gina under any circumstance".......... I think you contradict your argument here. You are right Gina would not be eligible for welfare, but she sure is looking for cheap finance to make billions.... That is business !

 

Gina wants to screw the American people over to get a cheap loan, then that's her prerogative, but she has to walk the plank one day one her own, and I for one, wouldn't like to be in her shoes. All the money in the world cannot buy decency of character and a good heart.

 

You don't get to be a billionaire without burning some bridges. what do they say, "No friends in business". I think it should say "in BIG business", as most small businesses are run by everyday hard working people just trying to look after their families and having a go. I would really like some differentiation between big business and small business....... They are poles apart in moral ethics. Generally speaking of course.