Goodbye Bronwyn

[Ducatiboy stu]

Well we cant have the rich not being able to become even more rich.

I see our beloved treasurer has made statements that we need to give rich people tax breaks because its the rich who are employing people and if there are no rich people there will be no employment.

I gota go and plant some turnips and spuds, cause thats all I will be able to afford as a result of me not being rich

 

[CoopsOz]

Can we define "rich"? I don't think we can. Some people would say I'm rich whilst others will say I'm not. The reality is, I'm stuck in the middle like the other 90%. Using a term like rich without defining any metrics makes the word meaningless. FWIW, I think the little Irish (?) fella that sits at the head of the table at QANTAS is rich.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Can we define "rich"? I

Anyone earning more than me

 

[manticle]

There's always going to be blurred lines the closer you get to trying to divide between one group or another. Rather than trying to define where middle meets lower, have a look at the extremes. The upper echeleon have concentrated a mammoth portion of the wealth (and not just because they work hard).
If you look at wealth, asset and income inequality statistics they are pretty telling. We're talking top 10%.

This is not a good thing. Having lower income earners earn more is considered by IMF for example to contribute to GDP while increase in top tiers income may have the opposite effect.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

There's still no denying the trend for big companies to drive down workers wages and conditions by employing foreign employees willing to work for lower wages just for the opportunity to hang around busy Australian train stations. Hardly a scare tactic but a proven profit driving strategy. The same reason why so many big companies run the majority of their call centres and IT departments from Bangalore while making "unavoidable" job cuts in Australia yet still posting record profits.

Damn, I'm getting suckered into these fruitless threads. A hex on you all.

Camo there will be no foreign employees working for lower wages that is all ********, as for the fiasco on Friday by Border Force, if the person who ordered it is the same person who informed the media then they are truly a **** head, imagine if they had just gone out and caught 20 or so illegals there would never have been such an outcry, a few of the civil rights crowd would have had a winge and that would be about it.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Rusty roof,musty cellar.

Actually spog out of all the cellars I have, 'Been down', the ones with the fairer skin have been the sweetest.

 

[CoopsOz]

[emoji3]

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Camo there will be no foreign employees working for lower wages that is all ********, as for the fiasco on Friday by Border Force, if the person who ordered it is the same person who informed the media then they are truly a **** head, imagine if they had just gone out and caught 20 or so illegals there would never have been such an outcry, a few of the civil rights crowd would have had a winge and that would be about it.

Why do we need foreign workers in the first place ?

 

[wide eyed and legless]

We might not if the positions can be filled by our own work force.Trouble is how many unemployed tradesmen are there? We may not have enough since we have lost a lot of our manufacturing and there are a lot less apprentices now.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

.Trouble is how many unemployed tradesmen are there?

Quite a few actually.

When there is no work for them, they become unemployed. Pretty simple really.

 

[Barge]

Unemployment could be drastically reduced if we viewed the primary role of the national economy as being a mechanism that supports the betterment of society.

Not a truer statement has been uttered. Take, for example, Australia Post. Now privatisation is probably inevitable, which will invariably lead to more job losses, reduction in services and an increase in prices to satisfy an insatiable demand for record profits every quarter. This always follows privatisation.

Imagine, however, that the government retains AusPost and, instead of seeing it as a vehicle designed to make money, it is viewed as a department crucial in driving the economy. Whilst letter writing has gone the way of the Dodo, more and more businesses operate online, thus increasing the demand for package delivery. AusPost could employ MORE people. Much more. To the point where packages are delivered door to door for free (or at least so cheap that it's as good as free). Couldn't tell you the number of times I've thought of buying something but left it because the postage was more expensive than the item. This would result in increased sales for online businesses, and an increase in the employment rate. This would obviously be funded with tax dollars but would generate much more in terms of economic growth, not to mention that the tax dollars used to fund it would be partially offset by the taxes paid by the people employed and the money saved by not having to pay them welfare.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Be difficult to privatise Australia Post when it makes huge losses on letter deliveries I believe it was $150 million, the parcels already make good profits but the letter side drags it down, it is a difficult position for any government to be in as they have to keep the letters going.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I wouldnt want to be the Goevernment who privatises Auspost..

Not even the LNP would be that stupid.....or maybe they are.....

 

[Barge]

True. They'll probably go the way of Royal Mail and split into 2 divisions - letters & parcels. It's just a shame that it only comes down to profits, not what else they provide in terms of employment and facilitating the economy. Not too mention being able to send Santa a letter just because.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Not a truer statement has been uttered. Take, for example, Australia Post. Now privatisation is probably inevitable, which will invariably lead to more job losses, reduction in services and an increase in prices to satisfy an insatiable demand for record profits every quarter. This always follows privatisation.

Imagine, however, that the government retains AusPost and, instead of seeing it as a vehicle designed to make money, it is viewed as a department crucial in driving the economy. Whilst letter writing has gone the way of the Dodo, more and more businesses operate online, thus increasing the demand for package delivery. AusPost could employ MORE people. Much more. To the point where packages are delivered door to door for free (or at least so cheap that it's as good as free). Couldn't tell you the number of times I've thought of buying something but left it because the postage was more expensive than the item. This would result in increased sales for online businesses, and an increase in the employment rate. This would obviously be funded with tax dollars but would generate much more in terms of economic growth, not to mention that the tax dollars used to fund it would be partially offset by the taxes paid by the people employed and the money saved by not having to pay them welfare.

The LNP would never fall for it

 

[Barge]

You know it makes sense!

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Sam Kekovich

Can this thread get any better

 

[spog]

Quite a few actually.

When there is no work for them, they become unemployed. Pretty simple really.

Yep,I'm one of them. Been there done that.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Yep,I'm one of them. Been there done that.

Been there too.

Got a real shock when I found out how many Tradesman are on the dole...rather scary really....and its not like they dont want to work either

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Can this thread get any better

Maybe tomorrow if Dyson Heydon can make up his mind, sometimes its better the devil you know.