Support NeoGAF

[Choc]

Don't agree with you on the first point. Our economy is changing anyway with the uncertainty around any decision to do wtih climate change being put off. Will this add to cost of living? Most likely.

Over and above whatever was being added anyway? Who knows and I think unlikely. And those saying that it will increase everything by a significant amount are talking out their arsehole as no actual detail has been given yet. Including the amount of compensation to households due to cost of living rises.

People complain too often without offering up any alternatives. The Lib policy about 'direct action' or whatever term they placed on it, was clearly shit and would never have worked.

but you can guarantee those without kids will miss out again. Those without kids seem to be and endless bank for the Federal government.

 

[Salazar]

Choc has something against working families.

 

[Omikron]

but you can guarantee those without kids will miss out again. Those without kids seem to be and endless bank for the Federal government.

Oh christ. I ain't even going to bother with that comment.


@legend - Nuclear is an interesting one, I am not sure it is the solution, but have no issues with a study being commissioned to consider its viability.

 

[Nemesis_]

it won't be locked on ps3

my wife can translate japanese

Don't think you read my previous posts, but whatever. >_>

 

[Choc]

Choc has something against working families.

i have zero issue with families getting discounts. I have an issue with the federal government deciding that those without kids need to be taxed to the fucking shitter to make up for it

 

[Omikron]

i have zero issue with families getting discounts. I have an issue with the federal government deciding that those without kids need to be taxed to the fucking shitter to make up for it

How are you taxed more than a similarly earning person with a child, without going into a discussion about discounts due to family tax relief.

 

[Choc]

How are you taxed more than a similarly earning person with a child, without going into a discussion about discounts due to family tax relief.

Whenever the government announces either rebates or discounts or something to do with a new law it almost always excludes singles and double income no kids

Family Tax Benefit A/B etc of course shouldn't go to dinks and singles, i am not arguing that, but lets see. I have zero issue with FTB A and B. It's good.

in NSW (obviously not Fed, but it goes along the same lines) the two parties have announced rebates for Electricity because they fucked up and our power bills are going through the roof (triple teh price in 3 years)

so what do they do, announce rebates only for those who have Family Tax Benefit A and B.

So those without kids have to pay abhorrent electricity prices (which in some cases is forcing low income couples to not use electricity) because the Government fucked up the sale of the power companies

That's when it becomes a joke.


I guess the word tax is not applicable here. I am more arguign about when the government decides people should get rebates etc it almost always excludes dinks and singles despite the fact teh Cost of Living is going through the fucking roof.

I'd argue that it is now verging on impossible to buy a house in Sydney as a single, in fact i'd go as far as saying it is impossible to live in the Sydney Metro Area with a mortgage, single and on the average wage.

 

[Omikron]

So you don't have an issue with the discounts etc, except you have an issue with the discounts?

The solution is to clearly procreate choc! Go forth an conquer!


BTW I 100% agree cost of living is ridiculous in Australia in general. But guess what, it is largely our own creation due to having such a high avg wage comparatively to most of the rest of the world.

 

[Choc]

So you don't have an issue with the discounts etc, except you have an issue with the discounts?

Family Tax Benefit A and B is NOT an electricity rebate......

 

[codswallop]

Howard did it with the GST

... and we voted that down, then he promised he'd never introduce a GST. Then he did it anyway.

Whenever the government announces either rebates or discounts or something to do with a new law it almost always excludes singles and double income no kids

Ugh. Tell me about it. If you don't tow the line by marrying (a member of the opposite sex) committing to spend the majority of your working life buying a house, and then spit out a few kids, you're nothing to the government in Australia.

 

[Choc]

... and we voted that down, then he promised he'd never introduce a GST. Then he did it anyway.

he changed his mind yes like gillard has, but before putting it to parliament, took it to an election.

There's the difference.

 

[Omikron]

Family Tax Benefit A and B is NOT an electricity rebate......

But again, your initial point was you are TAXED more than couples/people with children.

 

[codswallop]

he changed his mind yes like gillard has, but before putting it to parliament, took it to an election.

There's the difference.

True. Though I voted against Lil Johnny every election after he went back on his word (not that he was ever my first choice to begin with).

 

[Choc]

But again, your initial point was you are TAXED more than couples/people with children.

yes i know. i shouldn't have used the word tax More like government rebates and benefits.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

You get taxed more as a single person than people with kids do, yes. On the other hand, you don't have kids. I'm not certain, but I suspect that children represent a substantial financial commitment you cannot opt out of. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the extra tax you pay is dwarfed by the extra disposable income you have as a result of being single.

In short: don't hate, appreciate.

 

[Omikron]

yes i know. i shouldn't have used the word tax More like government rebates and benefits.

Mmm. Perhaps you should consider your points before ranting? But I guess that is why we love you choc

Anyway, its all hyperbole anyway. Australia still has an economy that is largely the envy of the world and big business is going to be able to absorb this fixed price on carbon (note, not a fucking big new tax) into their calculations. And my guess is that largely mainstream families in Australia will barely notice the difference. Prediction! OMG!


BTW, you know the one piece of legislation I would be interested in seeing? Actually making HECS/HELP debts 'interest' free. As I have no issue with people making the fairly small contribution to further education. Just their sneaky CPI increases are fucking bullshit. My mortgage isn't CPI'd every year.

 

[Choc]

You get taxed more as a single person than people with kids do, yes. On the other hand, you don't have kids. I'm not certain, but I suspect that children represent a substantial financial commitment you cannot opt out of. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the extra tax you pay is dwarfed by the extra disposable income you have as a result of being single.

In short: don't hate, appreciate.

VKS i agree with you. but you need to look beyond that.


A couple earning $65k between them a year is not seen as low income and gets none of these benefits with either a sky high mortgage or high rental payments

it's hurting them just as much as it is those with kids, so why are they excluded....

dinks on high income (and sorry Government in this day and age 150k between two adults is NOT high income because of your fuck ups and how expensive everything is) can afford it sure, but think of the other end of the spectrum.


Edit: Omi i'd love to agree with you but in this day and age with shareholders being pricks and wanting profits up and up and up, the big corporations will just pass the tax on down the line.

TA was @ a fruit shop last week. That fruit shop pays $6000 a month in power (wtf i know!) but after the carbon tax the prediction is a $7500 bill (if the power company passes it on which they will as tehy have shareholders to keep happy)

so therefore the company has to charge more for fruit to stay open. Obviously an extreme type of example, but this tax could make everything more expensive....

 

[legend166]

Middle class welfare in this country is a joke, to be honest.

 

[jambo]

Don't families get more benefits because they have more people to support?

 

[Choc]

Middle class welfare in this country is a joke, to be honest.

it's still no where near as bad as the UK. Over there is just crazy.

 

[Choc]

Don't families get more benefits because they have more people to support?

Yes Jambo and that is fine but what is not fine is people who are doing it tough but without kids getting fucked up the arse every time the government introduces new laws and prices rise.

 

[codswallop]

Don't families get more benefits because they have more people to support?

Vomit out three kids and you too can get $1500 a fortnight!*

*So I hear... I have no actual data to back that up.

 

[legend166]

BTW, you know the one piece of legislation I would be interested in seeing? Actually making HECS/HELP debts 'interest' free. As I have no issue with people making the fairly small contribution to further education. Just their sneaky CPI increases are fucking bullshit. My mortgage isn't CPI'd every year.

I got no problem with this really, although I see where you're coming from. I think it's just a deterrent from people gaming the system.

There is no time limit on HECS/HELP and you don't pay if you're out of the country/don't earn much. So the people it effects are those who for some reason can't find work for a long, long time after graduating, and those people that leave for 10 years and then come back.

Which now that I think of it, my cousin has done. She moved out of Australia as soon as she finished uni and has lived overseas for 10+ years and probably never paid a dime of her HECS. That annoys me.

Really though, I think the HECS/HELP scheme is one of the best things about this country.

 

[AdventureRacing]

dinks on high income (and sorry Government in this day and age 150k between two adults is NOT high income because of your fuck ups and how expensive everything is) can afford it sure, but think of the other end of the spectrum.

Wait 150K combined isn't a high income?

 

[Axiom]

Political talk here should continue as long as Don't Forget Your Toothbrush lasted in Australia.

Don't make me dig up Kerry Packer.

I wish I knew what Wendy Mooney looked like these days, I had a thing for her on that show.

 

[Choc]

Wait 150K combined isn't a high income?

Not in Sydney

and thats the biggest fucking problem in this whole country. Sydney is this massive outlier compared to generally everywhere else. The only place that somewhat comes close is Melbourne

Everything, EVERYTHING is ridiculously priced here and so when making national policy it is always Sydney that generally hurts the most as we have the most ridiculous cost of living around. And an incompetent gvt

in other states (Vic aside generally) 150k is a high income, completely agree

In Sydney it doesn't go far....

The average house price in Sydney is now over a million dollars. And yes that is affected by sales of mansions on the harbor costing $15-16 million dollars, but even so our real estate is just out of control and FUCK ALL is being done to control it. That's the biggest problem. A shitbox of a house went for 1.1 million @ auction the other day. I mean what the fuck. And so now everyone in that area will think their house is worth 1.1 million when its clearly not. And so the cycle continues.

Mortgages in Sydney are taking generally over 50% of a household income, and that shit cannot continue.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Vomit out three kids and you too can get $1500 a fortnight!*

*Which you then proceed to spend (and then some) on keeping said kids alive and off the streets / pole.

Fixed.

Working families hyperbole aside, at the end of the day, I really don't think that people with kids are getting that much better a deal than you are. It's not all Nerf guns and lollipops, is what I'm saying.

 

[Omikron]

I got no problem with this really, although I see where you're coming from. I think it's just a deterrent from people gaming the system.

There is no time limit on HECS/HELP and you don't pay if you're out of the country/don't earn much. So the people it effects are those who for some reason can't find work for a long, long time after graduating, and those people that leave for 10 years and then come back.

Which now that I think of it, my cousin has done. She moved out of Australia as soon as she finished uni and has lived overseas for 10+ years and probably never paid a dime of her HECS. That annoys me.

Really though, I think the HECS/HELP scheme is one of the best things about this country.

As I said, I don't disagree with HECS/HELP, in fact its a great scheme. But I think the fact it continues to increase while I am paying it back is complete bullshit. Same for those that get a degree and yet because of that can't earn enough for numerous years before being made to pay back a % of their income (the minimum wage before paying it back is somewhere around mid 40k/year)... why does the government punish them further by infected it with CPI?

I just think a small improvement can be made there somehow.

in other states (Vic aside generally) 150k is a high income, completely agree

In Sydney it doesn't go far....

If you can't live comfortably off 150k/year combined income for a couple no kids, you are clearly doing something wrong. And/or are trying to keep up with others and not live within your means.

IMO of course.

 

[evlcookie]

It's alright. I'm not disappointed with you.

Spoiler

You'd better talk to her tomorrow or so help me, there'll be WORDS.

I doubt it will happen. She always sits against the window so she can rest her head for a nap. There's usually one or two people around her and depending on the train that's either a 4 seating section or a 6 seating section.

Almost impossible. I would love to know where she vanishes for the rest of the week after tuesday though, maybe she works 2 days a week. I want that job.

 

[Omikron]

Changing the tack of the conversion to epic lols.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/mac_app_store_bars_under_17s_from_downloading_opera/

Apple has allowed Opera's desktop browser into its new Mac App Store, but it has decreed that no one under 17 years old can download the thing.

<3 Apple.

 

[codswallop]

I doubt it will happen. She always sits against the window so she can rest her head for a nap. There's usually one or two people around her and depending on the train that's either a 4 seating section or a 6 seating section.

Almost impossible. I would love to know where she vanishes for the rest of the week after tuesday though, maybe she works 2 days a week. I want that job.

Just console yourself that maybe it's better to have the fantasy than the reality (maybe she's an awful person, maybe she's plain boring, etc)...

 

[Planet_JASE]

You get taxed more as a single person than people with kids do, yes. On the other hand, you don't have kids. I'm not certain, but I suspect that children represent a substantial financial commitment you cannot opt out of. In fact, I'm fairly certain that the extra tax you pay is dwarfed by the extra disposable income you have as a result of being single.

In short: don't hate, appreciate.

Choice. I (or at the least the women of Australia) have decided to not have children. I appreciate that children cost money and I, as a result, have more disposable income. Yay me and all that. However, I get absolutely no tax breaks, no benefits from the government and get a laughable tax return.

The only thing I have ever received from the government is the KRudd Cash-o-matic Fun Time Super Money Explosion. Ever.

I don't begrudge people getting assistance from the government but I do get tired of being a one way money stream for the government to give to everyone else*.

*This is how I feel. I understand that my taxes get used for roads, infrastructure and other crap.

 

[evlcookie]

Just console yourself that maybe it's better to have the fantasy than the reality (maybe she's an awful person, maybe she's plain boring, etc)...

She looks like she could be kinda boring and i like it . I don't find myself very interesting at all, Rather simple at best and she looks like she might be similar.

There is another super tiny girl on the bus that i sometimes see, I think she might be into me or something. She turned up at the bus stop on saturday morning as i was waiting, So i'm going to claim she is stalking me and go with that.

Girls sure are interesting.

Wait, We are talking about videogames right, My bad.

 

[codswallop]

She looks like she could be kinda boring and i like it .

Ahh, the naughty librarian paradox.

I'm with you on that point, Jase. But then I don't have kids either; I do have a feeling that parents scream "me me me" to get as much money as they can. If you can't afford to have kids: don't! You don't see me buying a Ferrari and then screaming at the government to bail me out.

 

[r1chard]

Choice. I (or at the least the women of Australia) have decided to not have children. I appreciate that children cost money and I, as a result, have more disposable income. Yay me and all that. However, I get absolutely no tax breaks, no benefits from the government and get a laughable tax return.

The only thing I have ever received from the government is the KRudd Cash-o-matic Fun Time Super Money Explosion. Ever.

I don't begrudge people getting assistance from the government but I do get tired of being a one way money stream for the government to give to everyone else*.

*This is how I feel. I understand that my taxes get used for roads, infrastructure and other crap.

You're OK with relying on other people's children to look after you when you get old, right?

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Choice. I (or at the least the women of Australia) have decided to not have children. I appreciate that children cost money and I, as a result, have more disposable income. Yay me and all that. However, I get absolutely no tax breaks, no benefits from the government and get a laughable tax return.

The only thing I have ever received from the government is the KRudd Cash-o-matic Fun Time Super Money Explosion. Ever.

I don't begrudge people getting assistance from the government but I do get tired of being a one way money stream for the government to give to everyone else*.

*This is how I feel. I understand that my taxes get used for roads, infrastructure and other crap.

The financial opportunity cost of having children vs not having them is MASSIVE. There are huge natural disincentives to having kids in every first world country and this results in low birthrates.

Here's the rub, though: without people having kids, there's no future taxpayers, no future workers and you get huge demographic problems. Your cost of living skyrockets, your roads don't get fixed, your hospitals have to fire staff and you get the elderly poor having to eat cat food to get by.

You really have to separate what is good for you personally and what is good for the nation as a whole. I'm a relatively high income earner (especially for my age) and get no help from the government whatsoever, nor should I. Would it be nice to get more money each year in my tax return? Oh yeah, I'd be ecstatic about it, what with all the expenses I have this year, a couple thou extra would hit the spot just right. Just because I'd personally benefit however, doesn't make it prudent tax policy.

You might be different, but I'm of the opinion that it's better to have less money in my pocket and live in relative peace and security than to be rich but live in a society where poverty and crime are endemic.

 

[Fredescu]

Here's the rub, though: without people having kids, there's no future taxpayers, no future workers and you get huge demographic problems. Your cost of living skyrockets, your roads don't get fixed, your hospitals have to fire staff and you get the elderly poor having to eat cat food to get by.

We could easily stock up on tax payers through skilled immigration. I think a lot of the reasons governments subsidise child rearing is to maintain a certain type of culture. Kids being brought up as "Australians" have more value to them than people brought up overseas.

 

[FormallyMegadrive]

Just for that last post VKS, you're awesome.

 

[Choc]

VKS and how did we try and fix our low birthrate


handing out government money as a bonus for having a child


So what did that lead us to. Yes there were many many people who had kids and were in a position to do so

but lots of young people got pregnant just to get the 5k. And where did they end up generally? (talking school kids here)

on centrelink benefits for single mums.

throwing money at shit generally does not work.

EDIT: Legend yay, Cricket Australia confirms a T20 international at ANZ stadium next season

 

[Choc]

I think the whole point i am trying to make is that when Governments enact laws and rebates they always consider families and the impact, this is a good thing.

But they give the impression that they haven't even considered how it would affect singles and couples without kids which gives the impression they don't give a fucking rats arse about those people and in general you know what, they don't

why? Because more families vote then those without kids. That's what it boils down to. If there were more singles than couples with kids then tehy would get the rub of the green, why, votes.

If you think that the governments of the day look beyond the next election in terms of planning you are absolutely kidding yourself.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

We could easily stock up on tax payers through skilled immigration. I think a lot of the reasons governments subsidise child rearing is to maintain a certain type of culture. Kids being brought up as "Australians" have more value to them than people brought up overseas.

I won't deny this. There's a certain element of nativism in both the child-rearing and population debates.

Still, I would argue that skilled immigration is a bit of a crapshoot and depending on it is risky. You can't guarantee that you'll be able to attract the people with the right skill sets at some point thirty to fifty year into the future. Who's to say that at that point, skilled workers won't be lining up to get into China or Singapore and see Australia as a second-rate job market? Better to plan for it now than expect the immigrants of tomorrow to come in and save the day.

VKS and how did we try and fix our low birthrate


handing out government money as a bonus for having a child


So what did that lead us to. Yes there were many many people who had kids and were in a position to do so

but lots of young people got pregnant just to get the 5k. And where did they end up generally? (talking school kids here)

on centrelink benefits for single mums.

throwing money at shit generally does not work.

Citation needed. I don't think there'd have been much of an increase in single mums on welfare - that sounds exactly like ACA/TT scaremongering.

Bottom line: those women who got pregnant just to get the 5k are invariably bogans. Getting pregnant way too young to some unreliable dipshit who's just going to leave her with nothing but a kid and a tattoo that says "Darren" is just what bogans do.

 

[Planet_JASE]

You're OK with relying on other people's children to look after you when you get old, right?

Oh, please. Can we not devolve into this level of argument? Otherwise I'll counter with something absurd like "But you're okay with me supporting your kids because you can't?" It's an inflammatory question that misses my statement of feeling like a lost part of society.

As I stated, I don't begrudge people having children nor the support they get from the government. However, would I like to not be a completely forgotten/ignored part of the community? Yes. I'm not that arrogant or stupid that I think people should not be having children, that all the government's money should come back to me me me and that I should be swimming in a veritable wave of government handouts.

What I don't appreciate, however, is being part of a demographic that all governments have no interest in pandering to. Better family benefits is good for the longevity of the nation but it's also an awesome vote purchase. Let's not pretend that there is an element of 'what's best for the country' as well as 'what will get us/let us stay in power' from the government.

Single? To use a quote from The Simpsons (just replace crackers with voters) "Kirk, crackers are a family food, happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without."

You really have to separate what is good for you personally and what is good for the nation as a whole. I'm a relatively high income earner (especially for my age) and get no help from the government whatsoever, nor should I.

Yet people who have children get the incentives regardless of their income. They are still given tax breaks for having dependents, they can still claim certain amounts of their children's expenses for their taxes, etc, etc.

Once again, I'm not going on some anti-family rant, I'd just like to be part of a demographic that the government gives a shit about. I can support myself and the government shouldn't have to; however, the tax system shouldn't be so heavily focused on people that decide to have children. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Planet_JASE]

I think the whole point i am trying to make is that when Governments enact laws and rebates they always consider families and the impact, this is a good thing.

But they give the impression that they haven't even considered how it would affect singles and couples without kids which gives the impression they don't give a fucking rats arse about those people and in general you know what, they don't

why? Because more families vote then those without kids. That's what it boils down to. If there were more singles than couples with kids then tehy would get the rub of the green, why, votes.

If you think that the governments of the day look beyond the next election in terms of planning you are absolutely kidding yourself.

Shit, we basically wrote the same response at the same time.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

Oh, please. Can we not devolve into this level of argument? Otherwise I'll counter with something absurd like "But you're okay with me supporting your kids because you can't?" It's an inflammatory question that misses my statement of feeling like a lost part of society.

As I stated, I don't begrudge people having children nor the support they get from the government. However, would I like to not be a completely forgotten/ignored part of the community? Yes. I'm not that arrogant or stupid that I think people should not be having children, that all the government's money should come back to me me me and that I should be swimming in a veritable wave of government handouts.

What I don't appreciate, however, is being part of a demographic that all governments have no interest in pandering to. Better family benefits is good for the longevity of the nation but it's also an awesome vote purchase. Let's not pretend that there is an element of 'what's best for the country' as well as 'what will get us/let us stay in power' from the government.

Single? To use a quote from The Simpsons (just replace crackers with voters) "Kirk, crackers are a family food, happy families. Maybe single people eat crackers, we don't know. Frankly, we don't want to know. It's a market we can do without."



Yet people who have children get the incentives regardless of their income. They are still given tax breaks for having dependents, they can still claim certain amounts of their children's expenses for their taxes, etc, etc.

Once again, I'm not going on some anti-family rant, I'd just like to be part of a demographic that the government gives a shit about. I can support myself and the government shouldn't have to; however, the tax system shouldn't be so heavily focused on people that decide to have children. That's all I'm saying.

Why shouldn't it be, given our current conditions? That's all I'm saying.

 

[Bernbaum]

Bottom line: those women who got pregnant just to get the 5k are invariably bogans. Getting pregnant way too young to some unreliable dipshit who's just going to leave her with nothing but a kid and a tattoo that says "Darren" is just what bogans do.

The waitress who served me my steak sandwich at Caloundra yesterday had a 'Shane' tattoo on her wrist.

I haven't met Shane, but I bet he has a really nice ute.

 

[Fredescu]

a really nice ute.

He wouldn't be a "real aussie" otherwise.

 

[BanShunsaku]

Can I talk about video games?

Bulletstorm is great, thanks go to those who convinced me to buy it!

 

[Choc]

let me give you an example of waste VKS


Paid Parental Leave

mother earns 400k a year father 140k

mother takes paid parental leave

as the partner only earns under 150k, DESPITE the fact she earned 400k in the previous taxation year, she is still eligible for it

Chances are being on 400k a year she is an executive and has a maternity leave package built into her contract

so she gets her regular wage plus the PPL on top just because her partner earns less than 150k


Now society can surely expect someone on 400k to save enough fucking money themselves to have a kid.

geez.

 

[Planet_JASE]

Why shouldn't it be, given our current conditions? That's all I'm saying.

That's cool. I don't really want to go on a cyclical argument (which we could easily fall into). The system should be focused on the future as well as non-families but maybe not at a 99/1 split.

I'm fine to let this matter rest because while I do love healthy debates, I really don't want to run the risk that this turns into an argument.

 

[Omikron]

let me give you an example of waste VKS


Paid Parental Leave

mother earns 400k a year father 140k

mother takes paid parental leave

as the partner only earns under 150k, DESPITE the fact she earned 400k in the previous taxation year, she is still eligible for it

Chances are being on 400k a year she is an executive and has a maternity leave package built into her contract

so she gets her regular wage plus the PPL on top just because her partner earns less than 150k


Now society can surely expect someone on 400k to save enough fucking money themselves to have a kid.

geez.

Sigh. How many families are in this situation though? really?

That is what I love about these sort of debates, they take the most extreme version of what *could* happen, instead of the vast majority and the benefits that come with that.