Leyonhjelm - Pensions are charity

Big A.D. said:
renovator said:
Bullion Baron said:
So basically you think younger generations should fund your retirement because you didn't save for it yourself or hold the government of your time to account?

Nice. :rolleyes:
Yep just like the generation before me & the generation before that ...and the generation before that lol .Even if i did save it im not giving away money im entitled to (says the government not just me ) :p: ...what is wrong with you ? :lol:

The generations before you had 15 workers for every retiree on a pension (and the pension age was higher that the average life expectancy to boot).

The generations after you will have about 3 or 4 workers per retiree.

There simply won't be enough younger generations working and paying taxes to be able to financially support all the older generations who are retired.

Or to put it another way, the cold, hard reality of not having enough revenues to pay pensions will ultimatum trump both what you think you're entitled to and also the law says you're entitled to as well.
Its a long time before im entitled to a pension but if its still a government entitlement i will be at centrelink with bells on .

I think thats why immigration laws have changed & baby bonus etc in the last decade to increase the population the only numbers i care about is the amount of taxpayers money in my account when the time comes . Im essentially arguing about nothing at this stage because the rules may well have changed by then .But as it stands im all for taking ANYTHING the powers say i can have & i think anyone that doesnt because of pride or emotions is foolish .
 
renovator said:
FlashInThePan said:
The conversation I think would be better placed at investigating exactly how and why debt was incurred in the first place, then rather than unconditionally accepting this, start laying down some conditions on its repayment as this is there debt not ours.

The people should be requiring firstly, the books be opened for public investigation. Has anyone seen the books, how does anyone know Goverment debt even exists?

Remember the State are trustees who are operating under limited delegated rights who are required to manage the books very carefully persuiant to there oath.

They claim there is a debt, then show us and start explaining ....... Line for line on each and every book entry.
That would be perfect ..but a little fanciful dont you think ?

Yes, from the point of view that it is not spoken in this way. Until the people do, this will continue till we have no personal wealth left to collect from.
 
renovator said:
Big A.D. said:
renovator said:
Yep just like the generation before me & the generation before that ...and the generation before that lol .Even if i did save it im not giving away money im entitled to (says the government not just me ) :p: ...what is wrong with you ? :lol:

The generations before you had 15 workers for every retiree on a pension (and the pension age was higher that the average life expectancy to boot).

The generations after you will have about 3 or 4 workers per retiree.

There simply won't be enough younger generations working and paying taxes to be able to financially support all the older generations who are retired.

Or to put it another way, the cold, hard reality of not having enough revenues to pay pensions will ultimatum trump both what you think you're entitled to and also the law says you're entitled to as well.
Its a long time before im entitled to a pension but if its still a government entitlement i will be at centrelink with bells on .

I think thats why immigration laws have changed & baby bonus etc in the last decade to increase the population the only numbers i care about is the amount of taxpayers money in my account when the time comes . Im essentially arguing about nothing at this stage because the rules may well have changed by then .But as it stands im all for taking ANYTHING the powers say i can have & i think anyone that doesnt because of pride or emotions is foolish .

I prefer not to contract with them at all. Maby through some pride provide for my self and family without putting out my hand. Remember everything they revieve comes from the productive effort from someone else or some other family unit. People look to them for all there needs like some kind of God. I do not worship there doctrine.
 
systematic said:
Bullion Baron said:
renovator said:
Oh dear :rolleyes: .......................... :lol:
So you've got no reasonable discussion to refute the fairness of that suggestion. That's what I thought.


Does this theory apply to bullion assets too? If a person scrimps and saves precious metals most of their life should they sell them before they qualify for welfare ... or if the price of those metals skyrockets upon their death those pms be seized to pay for said "welfare" ... i am having trouble with your logic ...
Yes.
That's why I don't own any PM's. :cool:
 
wrcmad said:
systematic said:
Bullion Baron said:
So you've got no reasonable discussion to refute the fairness of that suggestion. That's what I thought.


Does this theory apply to bullion assets too? If a person scrimps and saves precious metals most of their life should they sell them before they qualify for welfare ... or if the price of those metals skyrockets upon their death those pms be seized to pay for said "welfare" ... i am having trouble with your logic ...
Yes.
That's why I don't own any PM's. :cool:


How about stainless steel sinks and a set of bocci balls .... or a rare set of Peter Mc Kenna footy cards ....
 
Big A.D. said:
...The generations before you had 15 workers for every retiree on a pension (and the pension age was higher that the average life expectancy to boot).

The generations after you will have about 3 or 4 workers per retiree.

There simply won't be enough younger generations working and paying taxes to be able to financially support all the older generations who are retired.

Or to put it another way, the cold, hard reality of not having enough revenues to pay pensions will ultimatum trump both what you think you're entitled to and also the law says you're entitled to as well.

The generations before us also did not have the fu*king massive erosion of the tax base that we have only just found out is far worse than publicized (thanks to analyze of info from a FOI request):

As of 2012:
* 26% of the biggest Australian companies pay no tax.
* 30% of the biggest multinational companies operating in Australia pay no tax.
* Many more pay some tax, but very little.
* There is a push to shut down proposals for greater tax transparency
* The "big four" accounting firms the architects and promoters of profit shifting lifted their collective contribution to political parties by almost 20 per cent last year.

Tax haven explosion puts hole in corporate tax

Confidential documents obtained from the Tax Office under the Freedom of Information Act show Australia's corporate tax base is in crisis because of the explosion in tax haven dealings by multinational companies.

The alarming data in these internal documents is at odds with the public position of the Australian Tax Office (ATO), which maintains the tax regime in this country is functioning well and most large corporations pay their fair share of tax.

One of the most telling FOI findings is a comparison between real trade and international related party dealings. In 2012, Australia's largest trading partner, China, accounted for 20 per cent of total trade but just a fraction of related party trade, whereas Singapore and Switzerland accounted for 40 per cent of related party trade.

In layman's terms, the purpose of these related party deals is often to siphon profit out of Australia to avoid paying tax on it. Because Australia has a 30 per cent corporate tax rate, the aim of the game is to declare as little profit in this country as possible, and instead to somehow transfer the profit to a low tax regime such as Singapore, which touts rates as low as 5 per cent for big deals.

One of the most cherished tricks is for a related company in, say, Singapore to award a large loan to its related Australian business. The Australian business pays interest on the loan - payments that are funnelled off to Singapore, often tax effective to boot, thanks to the interest deductibility on loans.

Besides interest on loans, the two other ruses for the multinational tax trickster are to get the money out via dividends on shares or by royalty payments on intellectual property.

In recent years there has been a dramatic escalation in related party dealings - that is, in multinational companies striking deals with themselves. Not to put too fine a point on it, Australia's budget is being plundered by Switzerland, Singapore and an array of islands in the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

The documents show there is " a disparity between IRPD (international related party dealings) transactions and the pattern of Australia's international trade. Given the level of IRPD, Switzerland and Singapore should be the giants of Australian trade and China relatively insignificant."

YwSIsAp.jpg


The other most telling findings are that at the nadir of the global financial crisis in 2009, 29 per cent of Australia's largest companies paid no tax. Three years later that figure was 26 per cent. It had barely recovered by 2012, even though the economy had bounced and the resources boom had reached its zenith.

The figures are worse for foreign-based multinationals: 34 per cent paid zero tax in 2010 and 30 per cent paid zero in 2012. What doesn't show up in the FOIs is that, thanks to aggressive profit shifting into tax havens, many pay some tax but very little.

The Tax Office document "Corporate Transparency Overview" showed that between 2005 and 2011 there was a 49 per cent rise in the number of controlled entities in havens and low-tax jurisdictions by companies in the ASX Top 100. Bear in mind things will have deteriorated, with these figures all at least two years old.

Moreover, the FOIs are quite heavily redacted, particularly when it comes to identifying individual offenders.

Still, the numbers are enormous, and suggest that even if part of these related party dealings were clawed back, and profits were kept in the country, Australia's budget deficit would be repaired quickly.

Thanks to globalisation and the expansion in e-commerce, cross-border trade ($600 billion in 2012-13) has increased dramatically in recent years and so have international related party dealings ($400 billion in 2012-13).

In 2012, there were 7834 International Dealing Schedules lodged by taxpayers in Australia covering IRPD totalling $272 billion. Singapore accounted for about 33 per cent of total IRPD expenditure, while Switzerland accounted for about 35 per cent.

Between 2006 and 2012, the IRPD dealings of these multinationals rose by 64 per cent, from $154 billion to $253 billion, and account now for about 7 per cent of their total income and expenses.

Their $271 billion in related party borrowings (interest-free and interest-bearing loans) accounted for 26 per cent of their total debt in 2012. The financial services and resources sectors between them accounted for more than 70 per cent of total related party borrowings.

Another document from July 2014, "Offshore hubs mitigation strategy overview", said:

"Foreign and Australian-based MNEs (multinationals) use offshore arrangements to inappropriately transfer profits from Australia to related offshore party hubs, which:

"* Result in profit in Australia not being taxed, or the exclusion of profits that were previously taxed in Australia, where this is not commensurate to the level of economic activity that takes place in Australia.

"* Where the transfer of function or risks is involved, the transfer does not appear to have a commercial justification, or does not appear to be to the benefit of the Australian taxpayer."

As the parliamentary inquiry into corporate tax avoidance looms, lobbying by vested interests has been furious, commensurate with the size of the dollars at stake.

Among recent developments, the "big four" accounting firms the architects and promoters of profit shifting lifted their collective contribution to political parties, mostly the Liberal Party, by almost 20 per cent last year to $551,498.

PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG were the most enthusiastic, collectively doubling their "contribution to the democratic process" during 2013-14.

Moreover, the push to shut down proposals for greater tax transparency proceeds apace. In its submission to the inquiry, peak accounting body CPA Australia has called for the government to abandon plans for increased disclosure. Incredibly, its argument is that disclosure leads to uninformed public comment.

"Accordingly, to review taxpayers based predominantly on information they disclose will inevitably continue to lead to uninformed public comment," CPA said. "This could be both unfair and damaging to company reputations and their businesses, where companies complied fully with their legal obligations but are perceived by some commentators to have paid insufficient tax."

On this logic, if the CPA was about a few thousand years ago it would have advised Moses to stage a cover-up of the Ten Commandments, just in case the Israelite commentators got the wrong idea and challenged the views of the Rabbinical elite.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/tax-haven-explosion-puts-hole-in-corporate-tax-20150213-13dnh8.html
 
mmm....shiney! said:
I applaud the ingenuity of companies who can do this.

It doesnt take a genius to exploit loopholes while the public bears the burden ..... it takes shifty accountants ....
 
systematic said:
mmm....shiney! said:
I applaud the ingenuity of companies who can do this.

It doesnt take a genius to exploit loopholes while the public bears the burden ..... it takes shifty accountants ....

I applaud their tax minimisation strategies because unlike you or the government or the majority of the public I don't lay claim to their income.
 
"If they pass the means test and are eligible why not? Just because bankers drive down interest rates and create a real estate bubble doesnt make a person "rich" when they are cash flow "poor""

The point is the house should be included in the means test.
The arguments about 'it's not my fault my house appreciated in value' - what if someone had millions of dollars of picasso paintings and wanted to claim the pension, do you want to be the one funding them because they have an emotional attachment to something they can sell and live off?
Renters are openly treated like second-class citizens in Australia.
 
Revils said:
"If they pass the means test and are eligible why not? Just because bankers drive down interest rates and create a real estate bubble doesnt make a person "rich" when they are cash flow "poor""

The point is the house should be included in the means test.
The arguments about 'it's not my fault my house appreciated in value' - what if someone had millions of dollars of picasso paintings and wanted to claim the pension, do you want to be the one funding them because they have an emotional attachment to something they can sell and live off?
Renters are openly treated like second-class citizens in Australia.

Food water and shelter are basic human rights .... but i dont think Picasso paintings are ...
 
mmm....shiney! said:
systematic said:
mmm....shiney! said:
I applaud the ingenuity of companies who can do this.

It doesnt take a genius to exploit loopholes while the public bears the burden ..... it takes shifty accountants ....

I applaud their tax minimisation strategies because unlike you or the government or the majority of the public I don't lay claim to their income.


I dont applaud Enron or Arthur Andersen either ....
 
mmm....shiney! said:
I applaud the ingenuity of companies who can do this.
+1

If anything, what SlipperyPete's article tells me is that Australia should adopt the company tax policies of countries like Ireland, Singapore, Switzerland etc and attract more head offices here.
 
systematic said:
Thats all we need ... more desk jobs .....
"Desk jobs" invent, design, finance and protect a lot of the really important stuff in life. Nearly anyone can move some dirt around with a shovel. The "desk jobs" work in conjunction with the shovel jobs to enhance the productivity of all to the mutual benefit of all.
 
bordsilver said:
systematic said:
Thats all we need ... more desk jobs .....
"Desk jobs" invent, design, finance and protect a lot of the really important stuff in life. Nearly anyone can move some dirt around with a shovel. The "desk jobs" work in conjunction with the shovel jobs to enhance the productivity of all to the mutual benefit of all.

like the "GFC" ....
 
systematic said:
bordsilver said:
systematic said:
Thats all we need ... more desk jobs .....
"Desk jobs" invent, design, finance and protect a lot of the really important stuff in life. Nearly anyone can move some dirt around with a shovel. The "desk jobs" work in conjunction with the shovel jobs to enhance the productivity of all to the mutual benefit of all.

like the "GFC" ....

Systemic, there are many underlying factors to the way our economy is setup, where jobs are located and especially in the boom-bust business cycle we are experiencing.

My suggested readings are:

"How an economy grows and why it crashes" by Irwin and Peter Schiff

"economics in one lesson" By henry Hazlitt

"What has government done to our money" Murray Rothbard

This will give you a good foundation and set you up for further readings if you are so interested.
 
Back
Top