You do realise that Gina does not have some massive vault where she hoards away that $22,000,000,000? I imagine you think she unlocks the door each evening and counts it all and has a big cackle.Liam_snorkel said:Let's put it this way, if she donated or lost 95% of her wealth, she would still have $1.1 billion to play with.
That isn't just rich, that is unimaginably wealthy. Think of the things that could be achieved if 95% of her $22,000,000,000 were invested in something worthwhile. Medical research. ******* space exploration. But instead she will hoard it and condescend the people who need to work day to day just to eat.
Couldn't have put it better and to emphasise how those fortunes change is aptly detailed in the following article in todays Financial Review When the **** hits the fans those with most to loose loose most!!!stm said:Actually, that value is all invested in productive businesses that employ huge numbers of people, generate a huge amount of additional wealth for those people each year, and pay directly and indirectly massive amounts of tax to the Australian government each year. The value of those businesses is the measure of her wealth. If she can increase the value of those businesses by making more profit, then that flows directly through as more wealth and prosperity for the country.
Thanks for the economics lesson, wow I have now seen the light . Next time I get the urge to donate to charity or give someone a leg-up, I'll say no bugger that, the best way for me to help you is to do a few extra hours at my job & maybe some of the wealth I generate will trickle down...stm said:You do realise that Gina does not have some massive vault where she hoards away that $22,000,000,000? I imagine you think she unlocks the door each evening and counts it all and has a big cackle.
Actually, that value is all invested in productive businesses that employ huge numbers of people, generate a huge amount of additional wealth for those people each year, and pay directly and indirectly massive amounts of tax to the Australian government each year. The value of those businesses is the measure of her wealth. If she can increase the value of those businesses by making more profit, then that flows directly through as more wealth and prosperity for the country.
If she does accumulate some money in the bank, then the bank can use that money to lend to other start-up businesses so that they can grow and employ more people, pay more taxes etc.
What won't work very well is if everyone just handed over all their wealth to the government and then let the government decide how it should be invested and/or spent. It's been tried before and has not worked. Indeed, it has led to the greatest numbers of mass murders, deaths from famine, and general misery and poverty ever seen (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim il Sung etc).
Actually... I reckon she does.stm said:You do realise that Gina does not have some massive vault where she hoards away that $22,000,000,000? I imagine you think she unlocks the door each evening and counts it all and has a big cackle.
Like playing two-up inside a blue whalewide eyed and legless said:And wide -eyed - if you could really put your face between those legs, then I consider that punishment enough.
Sorry Manticle I have changed my mind about that, I keep thinking of that old joke where the guy asks if he can go inside the womans fanny and see's someone else in there, he asked the guy what he was doing and he said he was looking for his shoe.
Lang, noting the changes he saw taking place in his daughter after her second marriage, famously remarked in a letter to her: "At least allow me to remember you as the neat, trim, capable and attractive young lady of the 'Wake Up Australia' tour [when she was married to Greg Milton], rather than the slothful, vindictive and devious baby elephant that you have become. I am glad your mother cannot see you now."
Rinehart has no public policy experience beyond lobbying and rent-seeking. She is a businesswoman but not an economist nor an expert on politics or political economy. She has no expertise on social issues or social work or psychology. She is neither a lawyer nor a tax expert.
Rinehart’s views on the economy -- tax cuts, lower spending and wage cuts -- share an uncomfortable cohesion with her denial of climate change. They are a thinly veiled attempt to make herself richer at the expense of other Australians.
full article:But misguided and opportunistic politics is one thing. The real concern is that people will look at Rinehart’s success and use that as evidence that she must know what she is talking about. Unfortunately, really smart people can be incredibly silly on topics outside their specialty. Instead, we should look to actual experts to provide clarity on the issues of the day.
Don't believe everything that former Treasurer Wayne Swan tells you! In fact, the tax rate that mining pays (as a proportion of taxable income) is higher than the average across all industries. Actual facts and evidence can be found here:Airgead said:Less than 10% of mining profit is paid in tax according to the latest figures.
I'd love my tax rate to be under 10%. And to have all my fuel subsidised on top of that. And to be able to write off capital investment at will. And all the other subsidies they get.
Actually... not Swan... ATO figures. I can dig out the links later.stm said:Don't believe everything that former Treasurer Wayne Swan tells you! In fact, the tax rate that mining pays (as a proportion of taxable income) is higher than the average across all industries. Actual facts and evidence can be found here:
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/publications/mca_backgrounder_FINAL.pdf
Hope this helps.