Is misleading lying?

It is my opinion that for a long time now we have been lied to, not directly, but by feeding us miss-information we manufacture the lie in our mind. Well the average person does.

We live in a rapidly changing world, one that appears to be one thing but usually it is something else.

Take the Governments response to Labors stance on the franked shares.
True thousands of low income pensioners will be affected, but you have to look at the words they use.

They say, The majority of people affected will be pensioners, true enough but the majority of those affected will be self funded pensioners and the majority, somewhere over 80% of them with assets in excess of 2.4 million.
They say, Some of them could lose thousands. Two important parts of this sentence, "Some of them" and "could lose". True enough, what they don't say is that for every pensioner in the "low end", let's say under 50k, there are 10's of thousands that won't be affected at all, and those that will be it won't be by much.

I have heard some people who think that they (pensioners) will lose some of their income, well that is not true really, if you lose $1000 in tax refund you don't however lose the income generated by the shares, just the tax that was paid on them will not be refunded. Yes a few low income pensioners may be worse off, but if the wealthy didn't stick their wealth in every little tax free crevice they could we wouldn't need this.

Now as we know, any savings made by the conservatives will go to stuffing the mattresses of the wealthy while savings made by Labor will go to the people in general. Better welfare, better public hospitals, better schools, transport etc. No, I know not all of it, but a lot more than the coalition would have, so in the big picture those few affected will be compensated for by having a more prosperous country.

I heard someone else tell an implied lie this morning when talking about funding the NDIS saying that it is funded fairly, well fair to who?

Raising the medicare levy to pay for it really means the lower income people pay the largest contribution to it.

 

The wealthy are not just wealthy because they are smarter or more enterprising.

1: They are wealthy because they live in a country that enables personal wealth to be created and kept. They owe Australia for that.
2: The majority of the wealthy are wealthy by inheritance, old money it's known colloquially, and the majority of this group IMHO cause most of the problems we face today.
3: They are wealthy because wealth enables wealth.

So let's look at tax, why should the wealthy pay more tax. There is a group who believe that there should be a flat tax system, companies and private salary and wage earners all pay say 12% flat tax rate saying that that is the fairest.

Most of our foreign policy helps with national security and international trade, both of which are of MORE benefit to business then the average worker. Police, the legal system and government policies create an environment where business can operate at optimum levels, and welfare provides a place for people displaced by business decisions, I'm sure some executives would care if laid of staff had no parachute, and it provides a source of future labour.

So it is quite clear that businesses have more to get from good governance, therefore they have the biggest social responsibility. A lot look on welfare as a waste of money, throwing good money after bad. Now some people are still on welfare, sometimes second or third generation welfare, but that says more about business and government then it does about the recipients. If the bludgers were 70% what the heck, we cannot find jobs for the 25%, but we spend more effort in demonising the 75% than we do helping the 25%. What we don't realise is those percentages will never change although the numbers will. I.E. 1000 unemployed, 250 genuinely look for work. If they all got jobs, then the unemployed would be 750, 188 genuinely looking for work. Why would they now be looking for work when before they were bludgers? Well firstly they were the best of the bludgers, give up a little too easy, think what the heck, I'm on the dole and there is no chance of a job. But it is different now, so they become more active, it causes a cultural shift.

So the benefits that business receive from taxes is much much greater, even the welfare they get is mostly spent with businesses, food, clothes, rent etc.

Now point 3 is very obvious, if you earn more you can invest more, hard to have a shares portfolio if you're struggling to feed your family. Add to this the ways the wealthy can avoid taxes and it gives them a very unfair advantage.

Giving more money to the top end of town will do less to grow or nation, economically, socially and culturally than putting more money in at the bottom in my honest opinion

 

You'd almost think that trickle down doesn't work, wouldn't you?

 

It works, but it's not the best solution. You give a business extra income, it can usually absorb some, repairs etc. Then if they can invest in new or better technology they will, this usually increases productivity, not necessarily more workers or higher wages.

With a small if any increase in wages and higher productivity things have to be cheaper.

Pumping the funds into the bottom has a lifting affect. We need some sort of basic income, everyone would get it, working or not. Employers would pay workers less but pay more tax, there would be incentive to employ more. The lower income brackets would have more disposable income which would be fed back into the economy rather than hidden away in tax havens.

For workers it would replace the tax free threshold. Everyone would be guaranteed an income of say 30k. They would be more able to get home loans etc.

Everyone would benefit.

 

Misleading, misdirection, spin, slant. We should be more critical in our thinking. Is it the decline in the quality of our information services- tv, newspapers and radio, the saturation by social media or the quality of education? Have we stopped thinking or are we persuaded that we don't have to think?

 

There are some really great points that help frame the situation regarding taxation and the “real” background.

I’m always bewildered how Americans have allowed their system to run rough shod over them so blatantly. It is about controlling the circulation of money. The more that goes to the top the more likely it is to stay circulating at the top. The filthy rich don’t buy Holden’s and fords, they’re spending their fortunes on Bagattis and Lamborghinis. They don’t shop at BigW, Lowe’s or just jeans, they visit retail stores where they charge you an average Australian fortnightly wage just to visit!

There soon won’t be a middle class, it will be the rich, filthy rich, mega rich and the rest sharing the spoils. The spoils are already creating issues such as racism that are battled out by the peasants. It is all sleight of hand stuff.

Australia needs to be embrace the tall poppy syndrome mentality once again to keep these bastards from enslaving the bottom 90% of us! Spread the bloody wealth I say and that can only be done from the bottom up!

 

Yeap,
that s certainly true, the middle class is disappearing. And with all the Trump's and Putin's, Xi Ping's and others that won't change.
I can see us getting closer to another French Revolution, heads rolling.

But coming back to the original question, is misleading lying?
Yes it is, but as part of our life I think we might not be able to do without.
Even with little things, given within every family or relationship.
Sometimes we might chose to be quit not to upset, or ignore a situation not to offend.
We turn the other way when it suits us.
The real problems are our emotion and our most inner believes and values.
But we are not notorious liars. Governments are, and that is the sad bit....
Regards

 

The farming sector which competed with the mining sector for employees actually were done an inadvertent favour due to lack of manual labour as a consequence of the mining boom. They had to invest in new technology that required less manual labour with the end result being those flicked from mining sector after boom was over found it hard to pick up old jobs because technology had now covered those roles.

 

I wonder if a middle class isn't meant to be. What if it were only rich people and workers?
Perhaps the middle class was an aberration which was only meant to last for a century or so?
Now that the advent of populism has thrown everything into turmoil with so many contradictory statements and opinions, who can we trust? Newspapers are nearly dead on their feet, tv and radio push their advertising and owners barrows and the internet is a baying horde of unreliable and sometimes malicious voices. How are we to know what reality is!

 

French Revolution is what comes to mind! What the difference is on this occasions is we voted for this stupidity! We believe the system is free and fair because we got to vote on this stuff. It is all kings and queens under a new guise!

 

Hmmm,
I can feel the right or wrong deep inside me, I think it must have been achieved through my upbringing.
Reg.

 

There are so many people out there who feed themselves crap food, sugary stuff and so on. Now they complain they have become obese.
Will they change a thing? Of course not, but why?
People complain about anything possible, they've long stopped watching news, but are on their I-phones 24/7, facebook is waiting...
The middle class is disappearing, because we have become to complacent, the achievers are a dying race......
Reg.

 

It’s not until serious health issues set in that they start to pay attention to their dilemma. Americans are starting to sense something isn’t right but then vote in the wealthiest president in history! Seriously, how whacked is that!
Look if Australia’s wealth inequality continues and we are as dumb as some Americans, Gina Rhinehart will be Australia’s next Prime Minister!

 

Gina as PM? How terrifying. Didn't she like the idea of African 457 visa workers who'd work for $2 a day? She is very distant from ordinary people. Can't relate to them at all.

 

Nope, she wants everyone to work for $2 a day because she did.

But us commoners can aspire to be like this self made billionaire who worked tirelessly to build her fortune. Yep, worked 20 hours a day and sacrificed so much, probably lived on noodles for years and hand me downs from Rose.

All Gina will have to say is: “I have Australia’s best interest at heart”! Yep, that will win us over! It worked for Donald.

 

You nailed it!
Ps must have been a lot of noodles!

 

The only interest Gina has at heart is Gina's. She openly admitted the fight not to release her children's trust fund was due to the tax. If with all her wealth she goes to such extremes to deprive Australia of it's rightful share of her wealth, she has zero loyalty to Australia. Zero. This woman is a parasite.

 

Of course, she is a spiteful cow! And to her children!

I’m just happy to own me home and afford the things I love doing. I’m certainly not going to waste my time building wealth and the pressures that come with it! Only live once!

 

Lying, to me, is an intentional falsehood. Both intent and the falsehood are required. If malicious intent is there but you do not say anything which is false, you have not lied.

If you say something which is false but did not know this then you have not lied.

Only when you are knowingly saying something false is it a lie.

 

the problem is the rich yield enormous power, a good example is when Kevin Rudd tried to tax the mining companies, which I supported 100%. The mining lobby is the reason he was replaced by Julia Gillard, pressuring the traitorous Labor party I am still angry about it to this day.

Taxing mining companies would have been a very good first step in giving back to ordinary Australians. These extremely wealthy individuals are basically raping our country and keeping the wealth to themselves, a country that have been nothing but good to them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-05/manne-rudds-downfall-written-in-australian/2869942

 

Yes. Misleading is dishonest, its lying.

 

Yes it's dishonest, but not lying. Just not the "whole truth".
That is why I thought that we've been encouraged to be uncritical and to accept what we're told without questioning it.

 

Lying, deceiving, misleading - all are dishonest and should be rejected, people who engage in any of them should be punished. The only difference between them is the subtle twist on the form of deceit.

 

Do you think we bear some of the responsibility, for accepting dishonest behaviour and not being rigorous enough in protesting about "alternative facts?"

 

If you accept dishonest behavior because you gain from the deception, then you are being dishonest and bear responsibility.

There are cases in which a person recognizes deception but is powerless to do anything about it, such as some activities of the govt. In those cases, the person is not being dishonest.