Almost as much as the Right hate poor people.
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 9
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 8 Winner: bearweger
Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)
- Thread starter Cesoir
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Potentially, except it wouldn't stop there and Covid has shown that when poor people get money they don't invest it or save it. typically they spend on things or experiences. It is a difficult problem to solve.
That and there aren't enough billionaires to tax in that manner, and our national spending continues to increase.
And yet in all my time working in charities (24 years) it is the people on the right who volunteer and give the most. Outside of young people. Young people on both sides volunteer at high rates.
Anyone that has a bit more than what I have
Yep, it should be known as the Bernie Sanders definition.
Most wealth is inherited is untrue. It may be true in small economies, like the one you are referencing. In Australia there is freedom of wealth mobility.
Make a large statement and back it by an obscure article in one small place in the world. Of the very richest men in the world, how many inherited their wealth? I don't know the exact figure but the percentage of them that created their business would be higher.
$1bn is rich enough. Ok. I appreciate the answer. So they should only aim to build businesses that reach $300-$400m in revenue? And then stop? And refuse to grow or hire beyond that?
Most of the wealthiest people in our country give huge amounts to charities and foundations that are doing amazing things in the community. Millions in grants per year, hearing programs, speech programs, indigenous programs and more. As well as funding health initiatives and sponsoring university scholarships and departments in the area of health.
Does something need to be done? Yes. I would start with bringing immigration and spending under control. rewarding having kids and rewarding people in jobs. Give bonuses to people who have worked in certain professions and trades for certain periods of time. Those are some ideas as a start.
The fact it's obscure doesn't mean it's untrue.
All billionaires under 30 have inherited their wealth, research finds
Fifteen young billionaires are among the first wave of a $5.2tn transfer of wealth by the ageing super-rich
Some give money yes. But this is the point I constantly make, that in proportion to their wealth they don't. If my wealth is $1.5m (House, super,cash etc) and I give $1500 per year to charity that's the same as someone with a wealth of $1.5bn giving $1.5m. And they'd still have 1.485bn left.
They could give away $500 million and still have $1000 million left. That level of wealth is just not needed.
I agree with parts of your last paragraph.
The fact it's obscure doesn't mean it's untrue.
Heres another one. Mainstream enough for you? Or is it too far left?All billionaires under 30 have inherited their wealth, research finds
Fifteen young billionaires are among the first wave of a $5.2tn transfer of wealth by the ageing super-richwww.theguardian.com
Please tell me you see the massive issues with that article?
Title 'All Billionaires inherited their wealth'
False.
Then the article is 'those under 30'. Ah so we are admitting that it isn't all and we are using a number that works for the shock value. Yes old rich people will die, they will be taxed and the younger family members will become billionaires in some instances. Not all and could you acknowledge that of the very richest people in the world many did it without inheritance?
I wasn't clear, sorry about that. The initial article was about Billionaires in florence. One small economy that has no impact on us. use Australia or the US.
I think looking at percentages is the best way of measuring this. And even then against most people, I would bet they would give the same percentage of wealth or more than other economic groups. And that is on top of being taxed a huge amount more.
After a certain point the account numbers would just be a way of keeping 'score'.
It's a reality for many young people. I admit that 'entire' is an exaggeration but it is most certainly not a significant exaggeration.
It's not just the inner city or western suburbs that are unaffordable. I'm currently looking for anything that's within an hour commute of the city (more than reasonable given I regularly have 12 hour plus days) and there's bugger all that's affordable.
Older generations regularly tell me to 'look outside your dream suburb, I had to buy my first home two or three suburbs over'. Meanwhile, I'm looking about 10 suburbs further out from the two or three suburbs within my 'dream' suburb.
It's insane that it needs to be said but living within an hour of your workplace should be affordable on an average wage, without assistance from the bank of mum and dad.
I actually went looking for data to back up your statement, could not find any. I imagine it's probably hard to gather reliable data on boomer's spending habits back in the day due to the use of cash etc.
Do you have data show that younger generations have more discretionary income available to them and that they spend it on frivolous or non-essential items?
In a climate with stagnate wages and increasing costs of living, I would have thought it's more than reasonable to assume that younger generations have significantly less income available to them for discretionary spending than boomers did.
Well as a percentage of earnings,who pays the most tax? Billionaires of wage earners?
The 1st article also states that similar studies done in different countries have the same results.
Where are you looking, relatively 'cheap' areas I can think of are like Ellenbrook, Stratton and Mandurah with houses and a yard from around $500K?
You know it isn't true. Look at the richest people in the world. Google owners... Apple... Facebook. Elon... Bill Gates and Balmer. Chat GPT. There is a lot of movement between the economic groups.
If they do a study of a small country or a socialist country I would guess it is similar. Two of the most recent billionaires in Australia, one in Perth and another in Melbourne, didn't inherit a thing. People from generation to generation move up and down in western countries. Capitalism isn't perfect... it is better than any other system.
I am 25min to the city and five minutes from Guildford. You can get a nice place here for $450 or less and do it up.
You keep moving goal posts. If everyone who earned over $200k gave 10% would you be happy or still annoyed at the rich people?
It is 24 mins to the city from my house. There is plenty out here you would find affordable. I did it without the assistance from the bank of mum and dad. Many have and can, it is a matter of looking in and moving to areas you may not like.
The boomer generation, my parents, I lived what we had and did not have. We did not have air con. Or more than one car until I was 16. There were no subscription services and we ate out four times a year. One of those was sizzler and the others were split between Maccas and Fish and chips. We were not unusual or way poorer. We were lower middle class. This wasn't a year or two it was until I was 16. When I got a job I paid board, I gave 90% of everything I made to my parents for years and it never bothered me. Most of my friends as myself wore hand me down clothes for most of our childhood.
They didn't have discretionary income. For a large portion of their working life they were never paid super.
You don't need data to tell you that we have more stuff, subscriptions, eat out more, it is obvious when you look around you by the sheer volume of these places compared to the 70's, 80's and 90's.
There is not one friend or business owner who when I look at their budget it isn't stuffed with discretionary spend. I have looked at hundreds of business owners budgets and about 30 friends. Every single one spends relentlessly. Credit cards, car loans, interest free furniture and computers, kayo, foxtel, Binge, stan, disney and more. Some people have 3,4 or all of these. We make good money and I use free trials for all but Kayo and that was my birthday present last year. I am not sure if I will renew at my next birthday.
There is a story spreading through the left that the boomers are so lucky and it is all so easy because they got housing cheaper. I would choose being born today a million times over being born in 1945 as my parents were. Sick when they were young because the nation was on rations. Sacrificed everything to get here and my dad worked three jobs to look after us. Our closest family friends lost two babies to health complaints they can fix with key hole surgery today, and minimal recovery time. No mobile phones, stupid expensive landline service and no internet until they were in their fifties and even then it was barely worth having.
If you want a home within half an hour or forty minutes from the city you could get one east of the city. You have easy access to the stock market and at your age (guessing from what you have told me) if you put in $200 a month you would have more than 2 million by retirement plus your super and everything else.
You live in one of the best places on earth. The boomer generation are not your issue. Sure some had it easier than others. None had access to the opportunity in business we have today.
I would put my money on it. Anyone here with a trade or a profession. I will help you start a business. Risk will be your time sacrifice. We could have it up and running within months. Profitable shortly thereafter.
Solid cheap shot here.Anyone that has a bit more than what I have
I hadn't picked up this part of your comment until I saw Kram's comment.
You could define rich by income. However, I'd consider myself to have a relatively high income. I imagine for people at my point in their careers, I'm comfortably in the top 20% of income earners. And, if we look beyond those at my level, I earn well above the national average.
So if we define rich by income, it actually doesn't get us very far because even those who are 'rich' can't afford houses.
We could define rich by home ownership as we're see a growing divide between those who own homes and those who do not but again not overly helpful as many poor people do own homes.
On reflection, 'welfare for the rich' may have been a poor way to describe negative gearing and capital gains tax. Maybe it would be better to describe negative gearing and capital gains tax as 'welfare for those so financially illiterate that they cannot manage the risk of their own investments and instead need to rely on the Australian taxpayer to prop up their delusions of wealth and grandeur'.
The old 'you don't need data, just trust me kiddo'. Oh how I've missed you.
Also appreciate the suggestion of suburbs from yourself and Kram, however, Ellenbrook for example is an hour and a half from the office by public transport, not happening. I'm not copping that. Plus I'm too stingy to pay for parking, so I'm not driving (I know right, these youngens and their spending habits).
I'm on a good wicket, I'll get a shitty place that's within an hour of the office in time, just got to wait an eternity to save that deposit.
I just feel sorry for those who have worked just as hard but still get shafted because they're not as fortunate.
You are laying it on a tad thick lol but yeah apart from housing affordability and maybe job security I really struggle for one other reason why I would want to for example trade living as my age now with say 30 years ago instead of today. Otherwise things are way better and easier.
I was asking for the definition of rich as it was brought up in a negative.
Defining rich by income ins't helpful or at least it doesn't provide the complete picture as you rightly point out.
I am not sure how a tax on capital gains is welfare for the rich or for the financially illiterate?
Regarding negative gearing, if you take a look at the podcast I linked earlier they go into it a bit there, I think you will find it interesting. But I will discuss some things I am thinking about at the moment re: property investing.
One of my investment properties is cashflow neutral and the other is cash flow negative. I haven't put up the rent to match the increase in repayments and other costs. I can claim those costs as a loss and then it is taken off my final taxable income. What this looks like for each person depends on how it is set up. BanjoRules would know more or be able to correct me here. My goal is to have it become a positive cash flow position when we are at 50-60% loan to value ratio. Which will be years and years from now. And when we start making a profit I will pay tax on it. And then when I sell (if I sell) I will pay again.
Is that not enough tax? After the risk and outlay of the early years? Where others are going away and we are choosing not to do those things for the future income?
I will look for data. And you could ask people older than you how their parents lived. What they did and did not have.
Midland is an option. Train station here and 26 mins to the city. Prices are great.
I would say that the job security situation is offset by the ability to work online and the options is provides. My wife makes $50-60k profit per year from home as a SAHM, with a small business.
I wouldn't trade it with 30 years ago or with the 70's or 80's which is when the boomers were 30.
