Society/Culture Can a purely socialist society exist?

[peetoo]

Pratts Visy fine was lie a lettuce leafy floggin compared to his wealth. Look it up

So government ‘saves’ capitalism does it? We are seeing that in action now, not pretty

 

[Malifice]

Pratts Visy fine was lie a lettuce leafy floggin compared to his wealth. Look it up

If you want to talk about the Government increasing the penalty for people who engage in anticompetitive behavior or unfair trade practices (i.e. that harm others), I'm all ears.

So government ‘saves’ capitalism does it?

Liberal governments only exist to protect people from harm from others. It's literally their sole reason to exist. They have no mandate to legislate for anything unless the thing they're legislating against is a harm (from one person to another) and the legislation is proportionate to that harm.

Criminal code. Road laws. Trade Practices Acts. Residential tenancy acts. Etc.

The liberal government has a role to play in the economic sphere, just like they do on the roads, or in any other area of human activity. Do whatever you want as long as you do no harm to anyone else (pollution, unfair trade practices, anticompetitive behavior, misrepresentation, fraud, poor treatment of employees etc).

I don't care how much money Jeff Bezos has. I only care that he pays his share of tax, and harms no-one else.

And again, if you want to argue that Bezos and Amazon should pay more tax, I'm all ears.

 

[AvantGardener]

Can anybody explain why it is Gina Rinehearts, Anthony Pratts or Mike Cannon Brookes responsibility to fund the life of Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs?

 

[peetoo]

If you want to talk about the Government increasing the penalty for people who engage in anticompetitive behavior or unfair trade practices (i.e. that harm others), I'm all ears.



Liberal governments only exist to protect people from harm from others. It's literally their sole reason to exist. They have no mandate to legislate for anything unless the thing they're legislating against is a harm (from one person to another) and the legislation is proportionate to that harm.

Criminal code. Road laws. Trade Practices Acts. Residential tenancy acts. Etc.

The liberal government has a role to play in the economic sphere, just like they do on the roads, or in any other area of human activity. Do whatever you want as long as you do no harm to anyone else (pollution, unfair trade practices, anticompetitive behavior, misrepresentation, fraud, poor treatment of employees etc).

I don't care how much money Jeff Bezos has. I only care that he pays his share of tax, and harms no-one else.

And again, if you want to argue that Bezos and Amazon should pay more tax, I'm all ears.

So you’ve agreed twice that liberal governments aren’t really meeting your ideals. The very rich and the gap is obscenely getting bigger can easily be a step ahead of legislation. Govts sponsored by big wealth can under fund compliance departments and then there’s the globalisation and how somehow individual states or countries have to compete with others to get global investment.

It’s even worse if a govt has any hint of socialism

 

[Malifice]

So you’ve agreed twice that liberal governments aren’t really meeting your ideals.

No, I've stated we could do more. It's a balancing act though; if you tighten tax rules you drive away Corporations who contribute trillions of dollars in economic activity.

The very rich and the gap is obscenely getting bigger can easily be a step ahead of legislation. Govts sponsored by big wealth can under fund compliance departments and then there’s the globalisation and how somehow individual states or countries have to compete with others to get global investment.

Im not going to deny the impact of globalism. It creates problems for wealthy countries (offshore tax havens and shipping manufacturing offshore where its cheaper). On the flip side, that offshoring creates wealth in the countries where it happens. India, Taiwan, Vietnam etc (where manufacturing moved to) have seen drastic increases in wealth.

I'm not at all concerned with the gap between the top end of town, and your average punter. Its a false equivalence to compare the wealth of say Jeff Bezos with your average Aussie.

Im more concerned with the question of 'how is your average punter doing'. And despite all the sooking that goes on, six figure jobs are easy to acquire, and your average Aussie's personal wealth is increasing:

 

[Malifice]

Can anybody explain why it is Gina Rinehearts, Anthony Pratts or Mike Cannon Brookes responsibility to fund the life of Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs?

It's their responsibility to pay taxes, just like Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs.

You paid more in income tax last year, than Donald Trump paid in the previous 5 years.

You agree that this is wrong right?

 

[AvantGardener]

It's their responsibility to pay taxes, just like Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs.

You paid more in income tax last year, than Donald Trump paid in the previous 5 years.

You agree that this is wrong right?

It is unfair for one person to pay $32k and another pay $0 and even receive tax money.

I am not going to comment on US tax when I do not know about that. In Australia most rich people would still be trying to get their income to a level they pay some tax as to not waste the 19% and 30% and probably even 37% thresholds each year. Even maxxing the 30% threshold is $32K tax which is far and away above more that persons fair share for services they would use and the surplus goes into funding Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs.

 

[Malifice]

It is unfair for one person to pay $32k and another pay $0 and even receive tax money.

You didnt answer my question.

One of Pratts (who you mention above) companies paid 5.8 percent tax over 3 years (zero tax in two of those years) despite a taxable income of 327 million dollars:

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-australias-richest-man-pays-virtually-no-tax

In 2015 Pratt Consolidated Holdings had $2.6 billion in total turnover, a taxable income of $88 million, but was reported as paying nil tax.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...tralias-richest-revealed-20160322-gno5u5.html



Is that fair?

Yes or No?

In Australia most rich people would still be trying to get their income to a level they pay some tax as to not waste the 19% and 30% and probably even 37% thresholds each year.

No mate, in Australia 'rich people' don't pay a penny in tax, because they invest money offshore in tax havens, and their companies (incorporated overseas in countries like Lichtenstein) pay a separate entity, which then gets linked to trusts and get offset via deductibles etc.

How do you think Pratt avoided paying a penny of tax on nearly 3 billion dollars?

You're simping for billionaires, who are sitting there laughing at you paying more tax on your income than they do on theirs.

 

[AvantGardener]

You didnt answer my question.

One of Pratts (who you mention above) companies paid 5.8 percent tax over 3 years (zero tax in two of those years) despite a taxable income of 327 million dollars:

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-australias-richest-man-pays-virtually-no-tax

In 2015 Pratt Consolidated Holdings had $2.6 billion in total turnover, a taxable income of $88 million, but was reported as paying nil tax.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...tralias-richest-revealed-20160322-gno5u5.html

View attachment 2157930

Is that fair?

Yes or No?



No mate, in Australia 'rich people' don't pay a penny in tax, because they invest money offshore in tax havens, and their companies (incorporated overseas in countries like Lichtenstein) pay a separate entity, which then gets linked to trusts and get offset via deductibles etc.

How do you think Pratt avoided paying a penny of tax on nearly 3 billion dollars?

You're simping for billionaires, who are sitting there laughing at you paying more tax on your income than they do on theirs.

You didn't answer my question to start with.

Anthony Pratt and Pratt Consolidated Holdings are two separate legal and tax entities. I mentioned these people as individuals and referenced individual tax rates such as 19% and 37%. Bringing up companies is a tangent.

Regardless the article says Pratt Consolidated Holdings paid $18M in tax. That $18M subsidises the life of quite a lot of Dazzas, Shazzas and Joe Bloggs. In what way is that fair? To answer your question I think it is unfair one company must subsidies lives of people.

There is residency rules and transfer pricing rules that some income needs to be declared in Aust. That income whether its passed through trusts and companies some (even a minute amount) would eventually flow to Pratt individual name to get some income out each year at lower rates like 19% - 37%. For CGT purposes and even legacy issues some assets of these people like real estate may even be in individual name also meaning rental income is being declared in their ITRs. He could be worth megabillions and according to you dodging millions in tax but he is still declaring $200K not $0K as taxable income in personal ITR. Thus personally Anthony Pratt is still funding Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs and in what realm is that fair?

 

[Malifice]

You didn't answer my question to start with.

Anthony Pratt and Pratt Consolidated Holdings are two separate legal and tax entities.

I know they're legally separate entities. My point was that Billionaires use such entities to avoid paying tax.

I mentioned these people as individuals and referenced individual tax rates such as 19% and 37%. Bringing up companies is a tangent.

No, it's not a tangent.

Regardless the article says Pratt Consolidated Holdings paid $18M in tax. That $18M subsidises the life of quite a lot of Dazzas, Shazzas and Joe Bloggs. In what way is that fair?

It's incredibly fair. I pay a third of my income in Tax each year.

Pratt paid 18 million on 2,700,000,000 dollars, or a tax rate of 0.0066 percent.

Do you think it's fair that billionaires pay a far lower percentage of tax (via holding companies, loopholes, trusts and manipulating assets to offset tax liabilities) than Shazza and Dazza do?

You're literally sitting here defending a billionaire convicted of ripping off people like 'Dazza and Shazza' via price fixing jacking up packaging costs for goods bought in Australia, and subsequently fined 36 million dollars as a result.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/visy-fined-36m-for-price-fixing-20090619-cpzd.html

If you're asking me 'Do I think tax loopholes should be closed, and billionares like Pratt be compelled to pay an equal percentage of tax as you and I do?' the answer is 'Yes'.

I'm sitting here defending capitalism, and you're chiming in to slag off the poor, and cheer on billionaires who rort the system.

Despite probably falling into the category of 'Dazza and Shazza' yourself.

Why on earth would you take the sides of fraudsters who rort the system, and who don't give a shit about you (and actively engage in practices to ensure they not only don't contribute money to the State they do business in, but also fraudulently rort the system to rip off Aussies who do?).

You're cheering on the worst elements of unregulated capitalism. For some reason that utterly escapes me.

 

[AvantGardener]

I know they're legally separate entities. My point was that Billionaires use such entities to avoid paying tax.




No, it's not a tangent.



It's incredibly fair. I pay a third of my income in Tax each year.

Pratt paid 18 million on 2,700,000,000 dollars, or a tax rate of 0.0066 percent.

Do you think it's fair that billionaires pay a far lower percentage of tax (via holding companies, loopholes, trusts and manipulating assets to offset tax liabilities) than Shazza and Dazza do?

You're literally sitting here defending a billionaire convicted of ripping off people like 'Dazza and Shazza' via price fixing jacking up packaging costs for goods bought in Australia, and subsequently fined 36 million dollars as a result.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/visy-fined-36m-for-price-fixing-20090619-cpzd.html

If you're asking me 'Do I think tax loopholes should be closed, and billionares like Pratt be compelled to pay an equal percentage of tax as you and I do?' the answer is 'Yes'.

I'm sitting here defending capitalism, and you're chiming in to slag off the poor, and cheer on billionaires who rort the system.

Despite probably falling into the category of 'Dazza and Shazza' yourself.

Why on earth would you take the sides of fraudsters who rort the system, and who don't give a shit about you (and actively engage in practices to ensure they not only don't contribute money to the State they do business in, but also fraudulently rort the system to rip off Aussies who do?).

You're cheering on the worst elements of unregulated capitalism. For some reason that utterly escapes me.

We do not need to discuss companies tax. I mentioned individuals.

Even tone it down to a lawyer making $1M with PSI rules has to pay $400K tax. How is it fair they pay $400K for the Govt services they use whereas another person pays $5K for the Govt services they use. It doesn't matter if one makes a Million or a Billion and the other makes $50K or worse makes $0 and leaches pensions altogether, how is it fair one person pays significantly more for the same rights to live here. It would be discriminatory to charge one person a higher amount than another for the same goods and services and yet for the right to live in a country and use its services we have massive differences in prices. Basically every single thing we pay for in life is equal price for everybody but come tax its % of earnings. It is bizarre.

The price fixing or whatever has nothing to do with my premise. The premise is about how much each person pays in tax, not if the person paying the tax is a good person and doesn’t break other rules.

You are right I much more align with Dazza and Shazza than the likes of Pratt and Rineheart. (99% of us do) However, what I align with does not and should not alter my judgement on what is fair and what is not fair. Imagine saying something is fair just because it aligns with what helps your circumstances. How morally corrupt is that.

All I have questioned is why it is their responsibility and why it is fair. I have not said we can’t tap them on the shoulder and say hey guys this isn’t fair and it shouldn’t really be your responsibility, but society really needs roads and hospitals but without your massive assistance we can’t afford so we need to tax you mega tons.

My argument even stacks up better on a lower level. You have said you pay a third of your income in tax each year. Assuming you are only talking Income Tax that puts you around $280K taxable income and $93K tax. Compare to somebody earning $45K tax paying $4K tax. You pay $89K more tax. Are you really using $89K more of public services or is your right to live here really $89K more expensive? That is not fair in the slightest and it should not be your responsibility to pay for the other person. Again, whether for society to function we say ok it needs to happen is not my point, my point is fairness and whether its your responsibility.

 

[Malifice]

We do not need to discuss companies tax. I mentioned individuals.

Those individuals set up those companies in order to avoid paying tax.

Richard Pratt probably paid zero income tax for years, because he would have put the money through the companies and trusts he set up to avoid paying any.

Just like Donald Trump did:

The [released tax returns show] that as a result of reporting losses in many years and receiving a $72.9 million tax refund, Trump paid no net federal income taxes in 11 of 18 years of the past two decades. In 2016, Trump paid only $750 in federal income tax, and in 2017, he paid another $750 in federal income tax. In 2017, Trump's pre-credit tax liability was $7,435,857. All but $750 of this amount was negated by carried-over tax credits, of which he had $22.7 million at the time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump

Billionaires set up holding companies and trusts in order to avoid paying tax personally at all.

How much income tax have you paid over the previous 18 years? Likely more than Pratt and Trump who earn more than 1,000 times more than you, and have assets valued at a billion dollars plus each.

It doesn't matter if one makes a Million or a Billion and the other makes $50K or worse

So you think everyone (regardless of income) should pay a flat amount of tax? The same amount per person?

Yes or No?

If the answer is 'No' then the amount of tax paid on income isnt the issue, it's the percentage of tax paid on income that matters.

And Pratt managed to pay 0.06 percent on his income for at least 1 year, and Trump paid even less for most of the previous 2 decades.

You are right I much more align with Dazza and Shazza than the likes of Pratt and Rineheart. (99% of us do) However, what I align with does not and should not alter my judgement on what is fair and what is not fair.

So you don't have much money, and you're supporting the fact that Richard Pratt and Gina Rineheart should pay a smaller percentage of their income as tax than you do?

People that could literally drop 100 million dollars off a cliff and not blink an eye?

 

[Malifice]

AvantGardener you're slagging off the poor who have nothing (and who pay a 10 percent tax every time they buy anything, which adds up to a huge percentage of their weekly salaries), while approving of billionaires avoiding paying tax entirely.

Just stop for a second and think about it. Those billionaires rely on people like you in order to continue rorting the system.

 

[AvantGardener]

Put the money into a company and it pays tax at 25% or 30%. Put the money into a trust and it must distrubute the money back to another company that will pay tax at 25% or 30% or to individuals who will be taxed at marginal rates. We do not have the full picture as to how Pratts companies paid that amount of tax, it could have been past losses, the figure not taking into account franking credits already paid, tax offsets etc so it is silly to be commenting in too much detail.

Even sillier to be commenting on Trump and a foreign nations tax when the Aust tax code system is complicated enough.

Do I think everyone should pay a flat tax amount? Practically it just wouldnt work. But as I thought I made crystal clear in last post I am not talking about what it should or shouldn't be, I am just pointing out is unfair on those contributing well in excess of what they use.

I have literally just said we could still tap Gina and Pratt on the shoulder and say hey you gotta pay mega ton amount of tax. All I am saying is that while it may be for the greater good and benefit rest of society my words have only ever been to say that isn't fair and that it isn't their responsibility. I feel my last post was so crystal clear with that that you are willingly ignoring what I said.

I seriously don't know why people can't accept it is unfair for one person to contribute $50k and another person to contribute $5k. Thats not necessarily calling for change to the system, just acknowledge that yes its not equal and its unfair (but its done for reason xyz).

 

[Malifice]

Put the money into a company and it pays tax at 25% or 30%. Put the money into a trust and it must distrubute the money back to another company that will pay tax at 25% or 30% or to individuals who will be taxed at marginal rates.

Not if those companies (or trusts) are incorporated overseas you don't (with money being transferred or offset by other shelf companies, or by other offsets created by shelf companies you also own).

Here's how you do it:

Amazon has paid little tax in Australia since setting up its local online retail business, its financial accounts show, with possibly hundreds of millions of dollars flowing offshore last year.

The company has used a range of tactics and loopholes to legally reduce the income taxes it pays around the world.

ABC News can reveal that, in Australia, Amazon's three local entities had combined revenues of more than $1 billion but a combined tax bill of just over $20 million in 2018.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...shifts-income-offshore-to-reduce-tax/11719232

20 million paid in tax on 1 billion dollars. A tax rate of 2 percent.

Here is more:

In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.

Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...ds-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

You pay more income tax each year than Bezos, Soros, Bloomberg, Trump, Pratt and Musk combined.

Heck, you pay more tax when you buy your groceries at Coles (in both dollars and as a percentage of your weekly salary) than they pay in income tax most years.

You are literally sitting there, simping for people who pay zero income tax most years (despite having billions of dollars in assets), while people like you (and 'Shazza and Dazza') who do pay your damn income tax are 'freeloaders'.

Wake up mate. It's the other way around from what you think it is. Billionaires don't need your support in paying nothing to the tax man. They have accountants for that.

You're probably one of those blokes who vote for parties that not only let them do the above, but also seek to legislate to reduce the tax burden of billionaires even further (the Coalition, Republicans and Tories).

 

[peetoo]

Capitalism has been around in more places for longer than socialism. There’s bound to be a bigger list of issues.

But the so called promise of capitalism for all of the eighties is going the other way now. And a theme from the billionaires and their mates in government is illegal immigrants etc are cutting your lunch

 

[AvantGardener]

Not if those companies (or trusts) are incorporated overseas you don't (with money being transferred or offset by other shelf companies, or by other offsets created by shelf companies you also own).

Here's how you do it:



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11...shifts-income-offshore-to-reduce-tax/11719232

20 million paid in tax on 1 billion dollars. A tax rate of 2 percent.

Here is more:



https://www.propublica.org/article/...ds-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax

You pay more income tax each year than Bezos, Soros, Bloomberg, Trump, Pratt and Musk combined.

Heck, you pay more tax when you buy your groceries at Coles (in both dollars and as a percentage of your weekly salary) than they pay in income tax most years.

You are literally sitting there, simping for people who pay zero income tax most years (despite having billions of dollars in assets), while people like you (and 'Shazza and Dazza') who do pay your damn income tax are 'freeloaders'.

Wake up mate. It's the other way around from what you think it is. Billionaires don't need your support in paying nothing to the tax man. They have accountants for that.

You're probably one of those blokes who vote for parties that not only let them do the above, but also seek to legislate to reduce the tax burden of billionaires even further (the Coalition, Republicans and Tories).

The US/International examples are stupid because there is different people/companies in ultimate control that are not subject to Aus residency tests.

Pratt and Austs like Pratt would still be declaring more taxable income in their ITR than me. They would want to max out on some assets eligible for 50% CGT write off and the flow of this is either individual name or trust that distributes to them. Companies and overseas entities cannot claim 50% CGT write off. The annual rents and dividends on these CGT assets flow to these individuals.

You will do everything to throw mud eg bring up misdemeanours of some rich people, call me name, go off on tangents about companies and US tax system but you will not answer how it is fair one person pays $30k to live here while another pays $5k.

 

[Gethelred]

Can anybody explain why it is Gina Rinehearts, Anthony Pratts or Mike Cannon Brookes responsibility to fund the life of Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs?

Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs all need to go to university to become the lawyers, engineers and accountants of tomorrow?

Dude, you keep trying to wear the hat of "Why should I pay for other people's lives?" whilst supposedly believing in HELP and commonwealth sponsored tertiary education. This is an either/or proposition: you either are okay supporting the lives of little people, or you're not.

If you are, you can limit the degree (pun intended) to which you are willing to chip in, but you need to stop posting as though you don't think it's something you believe in.

 

[Malifice]

The US/International examples are stupid because there is different people/companies in ultimate control that are not subject to Aus residency tests.

I literally used Amazon Australia and Pratt/ Visy in my examples above.

And people that 'are not subject to Australian residency tests' include Companies and Trusts incorporated in places like Lichtenstein where you offshore your money to.

These shelf companies incorporated offshore are used to offset tax liabilities and generate write offs to enable the very wealthy to pay zero income tax.

You will do everything to throw mud eg bring up misdemeanours of some rich people, call me name, go off on tangents about companies and US tax system but you will not answer how it is fair one person pays $30k to live here while another pays $5k.

No, my point was how is it fair that you and I pay over 1/3 of our income in tax, while billionaires like Bezos and Pratt (via Amazon Australia and Pratt Holdings) pay less than 0.1 percent of their income on tax?

Also how is it fair that you and I pay 10 percent more when we purchase anything (via GST), which is the same that Billionaires pay?

10 percent higher prices for bills, groceries and so forth is a much higher burden on people earing a few grand a week than it is for people like Pratt and Bezos who earn a million bucks a week right?

It's like how a 500 dollar speeding fine for you or me, is a much bigger (relative) penalty than it would be for Richard Pratt.

 

[Taylor]

If you have a social currency you can have a purely socialist society work very well. But it will be intangible and not transferable which limits the ability to scale outside of a social structure where everyone knows who everyone else is - and more specifically what they contribute to society.

You'll know that older person who could still be on the shovel but is resting because it's their land that they gave to the society to grow all the food, they've already made their contribution and the hard work they brought prior to the formation is recognised by the people working currently.

You need only look at current attitudes towards those who have worked longer and have more wealth because of it, there's an undertone of those people not deserving it and needing to see it stripped from them and spent on those who are just beginning their journey.

 

[AvantGardener]

I literally used Amazon Australia and Pratt/ Visy in my examples above.

And people that 'are not subject to Australian residency tests' include Companies and Trusts incorporated in places like Lichtenstein where you offshore your money to.

These shelf companies incorporated offshore are used to offset tax liabilities and generate write offs to enable the very wealthy to pay zero income tax.



No, my point was how is it fair that you and I pay over 1/3 of our income in tax, while billionaires like Bezos and Pratt (via Amazon Australia and Pratt Holdings) pay less than 0.1 percent of their income on tax?

Also how is it fair that you and I pay 10 percent more when we purchase anything (via GST), which is the same that Billionaires pay?

10 percent higher prices for bills, groceries and so forth is a much higher burden on people earing a few grand a week than it is for people like Pratt and Bezos who earn a million bucks a week right?

It's like how a 500 dollar speeding fine for you or me, is a much bigger (relative) penalty than it would be for Richard Pratt.

And who do you think is the parent company in control of Amazon Australia is? And where is that parent company from?

It doesn't matter what somebody earns. They get the same right to live in a country and the same access to public services. Fairness is paying the same price for the same goods and services. You are buying the exact same product when buying goods with GST on them. Fairness is being treated equal rather than being treated with discrimination because your circumstances (income) is different. Imagine paying for someone elses dinner and instead of a thanks you get told you should have paid for even more peoples dinner.

 

[AvantGardener]

Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs all need to go to university to become the lawyers, engineers and accountants of tomorrow?

Dude, you keep trying to wear the hat of "Why should I pay for other people's lives?" whilst supposedly believing in HELP and commonwealth sponsored tertiary education. This is an either/or proposition: you either are okay supporting the lives of little people, or you're not.

If you are, you can limit the degree (pun intended) to which you are willing to chip in, but you need to stop posting as though you don't think it's something you believe in.

You need to read what I have said. I am only arguing it isn't fair and shouldn't be the responsibility of people to pay for others. I have then expanded to say that despite it being not fair that we can still tap people on the shoulder and say hey it isn't fair but for the common good and a better society can you please pay up extra.

I think it can be acknowledged that yes there needs to be some tax inequality and unfairness for the good of society overall. But to not acknowledge some people are being treated unfairly with their tax bills for the good of society is selfish.

 

[Gethelred]

You need to read what I have said. I am only arguing it isn't fair and shouldn't be the responsibility of people to pay for others. I have then expanded to say that despite it being not fair that we can still tap people on the shoulder and say hey it isn't fair but for the common good and a better society can you please pay up extra.

I've read your posting, and I'm telling you it's an either-or proposition.

I think it can be acknowledged that yes there needs to be some tax inequality and unfairness for the good of society overall. But to not acknowledge some people are being treated unfairly with their tax bills for the good of society is selfish.

I'm not saying you have to advocate for full socialism if you believe in X, but I am saying that you cannot support government funded tertiary education whilst calling those who are rely on government support bludgers, which is - in effect - what you're doing.

You can acknowledge a more complex picture, but you cannot do so and rely on caricature at the same time.

 

[AvantGardener]

I've read your posting, and I'm telling you it's an either-or proposition.

I'm not saying you have to advocate for full socialism if you believe in X, but I am saying that you cannot support government funded tertiary education whilst calling those who are rely on government support bludgers, which is - in effect - what you're doing.

You can acknowledge a more complex picture, but you cannot do so and rely on caricature at the same time.

Is it fair I have to lock my doors before I go to bed? No it isn't. But for the greater good I do it.
Is it fair Cripps has to bust his body up but Ollie Holland doesn't. No it isn't. But for the greater good thats how it works.
Is it fair one person pays more tax than another? No it isn't. But for the greater good it gets done.

Bludger is not a word I use so I don't believe I have said that. Further to this I haven't focused on the people receiving the advantages. I have been saying it is unfair on the people paying extra.

 

[Gethelred]

Is it fair I have to lock my doors before I go to bed? No it isn't. But for the greater good I do it.
Is it fair Cripps has to bust his body up but Ollie Holland doesn't. No it isn't. But for the greater good thats how it works.
Is it fair one person pays more tax than another? No it isn't. But for the greater good it gets done.

Bludger is not a word I use so I don't believe I have said that. Further to this I haven't focused on the people receiving the advantages. I have been saying it is unfair on the people paying extra.

The problem you've got is that by using rhetoric like this:

Can anybody explain why it is Gina Rinehearts, Anthony Pratts or Mike Cannon Brookes responsibility to fund the life of Dazza, Shazza and Joe Bloggs?

... you signal an implied attitude that sits diametrically at odds with a desire to fund aspects of the education system.

My problem is entirely that you want to have your cake - ask why it's Gina's responsibility to fund the life of Dazza, Shazza et al - and eat it - believe in commonwealth, state sponsored tertiary education. Either drop the rhetoric and you're free to paint the situation as luridly as you like, or deal with the fact that your rhetoric doesn't match you supposed beliefs and you're going to get lynched over the inconsistency.