Printable View
True, but the GFC was very successfully dealt with, albeit with some wastage. It's finalised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
The current situation is still very much a work in progress, and it remains to be seen how well it is dealt with. Certainly the way the fires were dealt with at a Federal level wasn't well done. Perhaps SmirKo has learnt a little something from that. Also, the fires were ultimately dealt with by Mother Nature. Covid 19 won't be.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Tccp123
now your sounding like Trumpy - what’s another trillion or two:oo:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
Yes it's a very simplistic concept and a large proportion of the population believes that's how it works :-)
I think you are exactly right. I think that everyone should get exactly the same payment - that would be by far the most equitable way to do it. Just give everyone the exact same payment that is theoretically sufficient to stop anyone starving to death and maintaining a roof over their heads (not paying their mortgage but enough to pay a median rent). We will all be paying for the stimulus so it seems fair to me that everyone should benefit. Otherwise it's abstract wealth distribution and therefore inherently unfair and inequitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tccp123
Cheers, Dom
But if they give me the money, I'll just put it into the stock market. That's probably good for future me, but does nothing for current Australia. To do the "right" thing for the Australian economy would be to buy something I wasn't already going to buy. Apart from food and utilities, what else is there to buy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuffy
OK no problem. Give it to everybody except Kuffy :)
Because it's a supply shock not a demand one I don't think trying to stimualte the economy is the right way to look at it. It doesnt matter how much money you print - people can't work or produce. This is about allowing people to service debt - keep money flowing to prevent a collapse in the debt market - and also to stop people starving to death/gaining minimum living standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuffy
And my logic is - rather than steal money from people who have savings to facilitate that, and stealing from future taxpayers, they should distribute an equal amount of free cash to at least make it fair. Some will gain the ability to maintain min standards, others will benefit from future spending/savings/investment returns - because otherwise one group just gets wacked with inflation and higher taxes as a thankyou for bailing out many people who have lived beyond their means and irresponsibly taken on too much debt - not saying all, but definitely many.Quote:
Originally Posted by DomAU
With government allowances, this argument is too old. It has been shown a thousand times over in studies that every dollar spent on welfare improves the economy by many multiples.
Any argument otherwise is simply political ideology. Or sour grapes.
Taking TCCP123's comments (arbitrarily chosen, as they are short and succinct) it seems that people should be given an official/approved list of what any money may be spend on?
Lettuce? Cucumbers? Books?
Cigarettes...alcohol... car repairs... new cutlery...
Makes no difference.
If anything, spending on the grog is the best for the government as : 1: its made here, generally 2: its high in taxes, so the government gets it back almost instantly 3: by letting the Peons buy this they are shortening their lives, so 4: less pension to pay!
If we are going to argue about economics, the best one to have is corporate welfare, tax minimisation and moral hazard!
Corporatism is the lethal toxin of our society. Not the peasants. The peasants will do as they always do. They are simple, pay their taxes and die. Corporations are the untouchable and ravenous machines of environmental death we should really be concerned about.
Let me find a graphic of the last US bailout. People get NOTHING. Corporations take the lion share. Rich get richer.
edit 1 - here is one of the graphics. The other Im trying to find is much better.
Attachment 470580
edit 2 - here it is
Attachment 470582
Went to the park with dogs again this morning. We sat in a quiet corner on camping chairs and had breakfast. I threw ball for dogs. About the same number as usual of people on cycleway/footpath about 150 m away from us that runs alongside Swan River.
About 100m away there was an outdoor exercise class going on. I counted 13 in the first lass and 9 in the second and they looked like they were observing >5m separation.
We got an on-line delivery of groceries yesterday but there were about 5 items missing/unavailable so we decide to go to Spud Shed at shopping centre about 5km from our place to see if we could get some of these items. We scored a parking spot next to the disabled parking bays just outside one of the main doors of the centre. SWMBO donned mask and gloves and went in and did the shopping. I stayed in car with dogs and decided to do a mask/glove survey.
While waiting I counted about 600 people exiting the doors.
38 (6%) were wearing masks (I know masks offer little protection - to me its a sign of how serious people are about what is going on)
13 (2%) were wearing gloves (that includes SWMBO and the trolley collection guy) I'd rate gloves significantly more useful than masks - the feeltiest thing they're probably handling is the shopping trolley.
About half the shoppers were in groups of two or more. Mum/Dad plus a couple of kids, gaggles of seniors/middle ages plus a kid or two, many couples.
About 1/3rd were seniors, most were couples.
Most of the mask/glove wearers were asians
A few portraits:
A guy in gloves and mask comes out to his vehicle and carefully places shopping in car.
Gets into car takes gloves off and chucks them out window
Santises his hands and drives off.
A senior walking along blows his nose copiously into a hanky and gets something on his hands and then wipes his hands on his daks.
A senior was using plastic bags as gloves.
Based on all this I'd say we are a looooonnnnggg way from the vast majority of these folks taking COVID19 seriously.
It won't work. Give everyone the money and let them make their own choices. If they choose a coffee hit first thing in the morning on their $1,400 Italian espresso machine over a loaf of bread then that's their choice. Or they can make a mortgage payment if they wish. But heaven help them if they then come cap in hand asking for another handout!
OK, you guys have convinced me. I now require the 2 x $750 payments because the casino will eventually re-open and I do enjoy freerolling (not to be confused with freeballing!). :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tccp123
Thank you for your contribution, my memory may be wrong but I thought anyone that lodged a tax return the previous year got paid money.
FYI I pay a substantial amount of money in tax, I don’t judge how the money is spent. I actually enjoy living in a social that allows me to walk outside without fear for my personal safety.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
I agree with the last part. The government shouldn't be bailing out the corporates, including the banks. I agree that the government shouldn't be handing out money to anyone. I also believe that the market should determe the interest rate - not be manipulated by central banks - which is the cause of most of the mess we are in.
Just some light relief
Warning lots of rude words.
Well actually just one starting with F.
Cheers Matt.
Self awareness lol - Matthew Phillips | Facebook