Are Australians really that ignorant?

[Neenie1]

There seems to be this mistaken belief that simply because someone pays taxes they are entitled to something. In any case if that is your argument let me put it another way. You said your husband pays taxes. That implies to me that you don't. If that is correct then because you don't pay taxes you should get no benefit at all from the government. So any benefit your child may be getting should be cut in half because only your husband pays taxes. You should get no kind of family payment on the basis that you pay no taxes. The unemployed should not be given any assistance because they pay no taxes. See where I'm going. Nobody is entitled to anything simply because they pay taxes.

Obviously I don't pay taxes - I am SAHM. My husband works and works for the whole family.


I didn't say that the unemployed shouldn't get benefits. I do believe in supporting people who can't work etc. through taxes.

But since we do pay taxes and choose to send our children to private school why shouldn't the private schools be funded too.

They aren't completely funded, if funding was taken away there would be an awful lot of strain placed on the public system because the private students would be going back to the public system (or homeschooled but that's a whole different situation together)

 

[DavinMochrie]

Because it is a choice to send someone to a private school. A priviledged choice in this day and age.

If it is too expensive may I suggest some of the private Catholic schools that aren't as dear.

I pay taxes and I don't have children, why should I pay for anyone's kids to go to school? The arguements keep going around in circles.

We need to be a nation that stops providing so much help to the rich, who when compared to the rest of workers and employees pay the least percentage in tax because of corporate and private tax shelters.

 

[tigercub]

We need to be a nation that stops providing so much help to the rich, who when compared to the rest of workers and employees pay the least percentage in tax because of corporate and private tax shelters.

Agreed.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Because it is a choice to send someone to a private school. A priviledged choice in this day and age.

If it is too expensive may I suggest some of the private Catholic schools that aren't as dear.

I pay taxes and I don't have children, why should I pay for anyone's kids to go to school? The arguements keep going around in circles.

We need to be a nation that stops providing so much help to the rich, who when compared to the rest of workers and employees pay the least percentage in tax because of corporate and private tax shelters.

presumeably because you enjoy the benefits of living in a literate society, where education is universal

 

[DavinMochrie]

presumeably because you enjoy the benefits of living in a literate society, where education is universal

Education is not universal!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Education is not universal!

It is supposed to be.

If you didn't pay your taxes it would be a dern sight less universal than it is

 

[DavinMochrie]

It is supposed to be.

If you didn't pay your taxes it would be a dern sight less universal than it is

I agree! It should be! Freely available to all! And not just one standard for most people, and a subsidised better standard for the wealthy.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I agree! It should be! Freely available to all! And not just one standard for most people, and a subsidised better standard for the wealthy.

so I guess you don't like private healthcare either... same principal

 

[DavinMochrie]

so I guess you don't like private healthcare either... same principal

Yeah definately not a fan.

I would prefer healthcare to be available freely to everyone who needs it.

I prefer that these drug companies not be allowed to patent these life saving drugs, and that they can be made really cheaply for people who suffer from various things like cancer.

 

[tigercub]

so I guess you don't like private healthcare either... same principal

Not really (as in, not same principle) While private healthcover is subsidised by the Govt, the weight it takes off the public health system far outweighs any Govt financial outlay in subsidies, in a financial sense.

In fact, I think medicare as it is should be scrapped, instead the Govt should ensure very citizen has private health insurence (by subsidising those that require financial aid, making the filthy rich pay full price, etc) but that's a whole other topic!

 

[DavinMochrie]

In fact, I think medicare as it is should be scrapped, instead the Govt should ensure very citizen has private health insurence (by subsidising those that require financial aid, making the filthy rich pay full price, etc) but that's a whole other topic!

Ewww that would be a horror story!

We don't want to become like the USA! What a nightmare!

 

[tigercub]

Ewww that would be a horror story!

We don't want to become like the USA! What a nightmare!

and our current public health-care system is...a dream come true?

 

[Zaphod_Beeblebrox]

Ewww that would be a horror story!

We don't want to become like the USA! What a nightmare!

Fact is, private health care is run far more efficiently than the public system. It would save the Government lots of money to pay private hospitals to take care of people. I'm not sure subsidised private health insurance is the answer for this though, maybe hospitals should be funded in a similar way to GPs (Medicare).

 

[TheDag]

Not really (as in, not same principle) While private healthcover is subsidised by the Govt, the weight it takes off the public health system far outweighs any Govt financial outlay in subsidies, in a financial sense.

In fact, I think medicare as it is should be scrapped, instead the Govt should ensure very citizen has private health insurence (by subsidising those that require financial aid, making the filthy rich pay full price, etc) but that's a whole other topic!

What you mean like it used to!

 

[TheDag]

Obviously I don't pay taxes - I am SAHM. My husband works and works for the whole family.

Hence any family tax benefit you receive should be cut in half if it makes a difference if you pay tax or not like you suggested it did.

I didn't say that the unemployed shouldn't get benefits. I do believe in supporting people who can't work etc. through taxes.

So here you are saying it does not matter if you pay taxes or not you should get support if need be.
On a side not I realise you didn't say anything about unemployed but I was simply taking you logic and applying it to unemployed instead of school funding. I personally have no problem with private schools receiving some funding from the govt.

But since we do pay taxes and choose to send our children to private school why shouldn't the private schools be funded too.

They aren't completely funded, if funding was taken away there would be an awful lot of strain placed on the public system because the private students would be going back to the public system (or homeschooled but that's a whole different situation together)

and here you are saying people are entitled to benefits because they pay taxes even though you just made it clear you didn't think that was the case.

Which is it? Are we entitled to benefits simply because we pay tax which means those who don't pay tax don't deserve benefits eg pensioners & unemployed or does it not matter wheather we pay tax or not in which case why are you saying the private school your child goes to should get govt funding because you pay taxes? You can't have it both ways either the fact a person pays tax makes a difference or it doesn't.

As I said we have to stop this silly thinking that simply because one pays taxes they are entitled to get something. That is not the way the system is supposed to work. It is supposed to help those who really need it not those who can afford to pay for things themselves.

 

[John Spong is wrong]

Wrong. Interest rates peaked under Labor with Whitlam in May 1974.

No, YOU'RE wrong - they did peak under The Rodent (i.e. John Howard). Howard was the worst treasurer this country has ever had. Oh how quickly the electorate forgets the pain of 1980-1982.

 

[John Spong is wrong]

and our current public health-care system is...a dream come true?

We do have the best health care system in the world TigerCub. Go online and have a look at recent reports written by the Fraser Institute in Canada which made international comparisons of different OECD health systems. Australia comes out on top. A key point of their research is that for a health care system to be world class it needs a mix of private and public funding.

 

[John Spong is wrong]

Whats done is done. The Liberal Party are looking for a new structure and new leader, could be the beginning of a new era. Plenty to look forward to, apart from three years in opposition.

It's going to be at least a decade in Opposition for you mate (so get used to it). Good riddance Liberals. Maxine McKew booting The Rodent out of his own seat was the most glorious moment in politics since Gough Whitlam's win in 1972.

 

[GodsoldierClintus]

I really don't think Labor is going to be in any more than 2 terms.

 

[CelticRose]

It's going to be at least a decade in Opposition for you mate (so get used to it). Good riddance Liberals. Maxine McKew booting The Rodent out of his own seat was the most glorious moment in politics since Gough Whitlam's win in 1972.

That was the ultimate joy of this election, seeing Johnny booted out of his seat. Galumptious joy!