Spics, Jews, Wogs, Trump, Woke and Freedumb to spew suit

[Green Genius]

Even if the system is not changed taxing their vast wealth at the same rate as everyone else's would be equitable.

You are advocating for dismantling the progressive tax system, removing the tax free threshold and implementing a flat tax?
Yikes

 

[Johnny Walker]

You are advocating for dismantling the progressive tax system, removing the tax free threshold and implementing a flat tax?
Yikes

Not at all I'm saying they should pay the same tax rates as everyone else.

Not sure how you twisted it to what you have written above.

 

[HomeBound_Hound]

As for you personally I have no problem with your views and agree with a lot of what you say even with your condescending tone and childish memes.
Remember stay classy.

Wasn’t I weak just a moment ago, part of the problem you railed against? Yet now, it seems, we’re allies—an interesting twist when the argument turns. Curious how respect emerges from being outclassed.

 

[Green Genius]

Not at all I'm saying they should pay the same tax rates as everyone else.

Not sure how you twisted it to what you have written above.

But everyone pays a different rate currently. Thats why its called an "effective tax rate" because it also includes the tax free threshold which you would have to abolish.

 

[Green Genius]

Go to the below website.

income = tax
$15,000 = $0
$30,000 = $2242
$100,000 = $22,967
$300,000 = $105,667

Effective tax rates

0%
7.47%
22.97%
35.22%

calculatorsandtools | Australian Taxation Office

Calculators and Tools

www.ato.gov.au

 

[Johnny Walker]

Wasn’t I weak just a moment ago, part of the problem you railed against? Yet now, it seems, we’re allies—an interesting twist when the argument turns. Curious how respect emerges from being outclassed.

Respect from being outclassed. You really do think a lot of yourself.

The proof of an inequitable system is in the article about billionaires making vast gains while others stay stagnant or fall further behind.

You consider me a defeatist for saying the system needs to change and I consider you the same way for your attitude that they system is what it is and people just need to know how to navigate it properly and don't want change.

Disagreement is fine with me no need for your emense ego to be rolled out for all to see.

No need for much more to be said than tax them fairly.
35% is fine with me but unfortunately that's not happening.

 

[Sun Ra]

Go to the below website.

income = tax
$15,000 = $0
$30,000 = $2242
$100,000 = $22,967
$300,000 = $105,667

Effective tax rates

0%
7.47%
22.97%
35.22%

calculatorsandtools | Australian Taxation Office

Calculators and Tools

www.ato.gov.au

That's all well and good pal. Problem is that high income earners also have the advantage of high levels of tax minimisation/ avoidance not available to those on lower incomes. Not many on $300K actually pay $105,667 income tax. They will take advantage of negative gearing, family trusts, etc. and have an accountant to help set up their tax arrangements. Someone earning $70K for example doesn't have these options for wealth creation and tax minimisation. The rich get richer .....

 

[Green Genius]

Someone earning $70K for example doesn't have these options for weather creation and tax minimisation. The rich get richer .....

Thats not true at all. Everyone has the right do all of those thing, most poor people cant afford to. Poor people cant afford lots of things that rich people can. But the right to accumulation and preservation of wealth is open to all. Thats why the Indian families in my street started off renting, 4 couples to a house. 10 years of solid grinding and now they own 2 houses in the same street.

 

[Green Genius]

No need for much more to be said than tax them fairly.
35% is fine with me but unfortunately that's not happening.

Haha just yesterday you wanted everyone taxed at the SAME rate. I see you've come around to progressive taxes rates real fast. But cant disagree with your underlying premise

 

[Mellow oldfark]

 

[Johnny Walker]

Haha just yesterday you wanted everyone taxed at the SAME rate. I see you've come around to progressive taxes rates real fast. But cant disagree with your underlying premise

I paid 33% my last tax return.
You seem to have trouble with comprehension.
They should pay the same tax rate as the rest of us which with their income would be 35%

I see you like to attempt to twist posts to suit your frame of thinking.
I never said anything about changing the lower end of the tax bracket I said billionaires should be taxed the same but because you like to attempt to twist comments to suit you I'll put it this way.
Billionaires should be taxed at 35% like the rest of the people in that bracket.
Is this clear enough for you to understand?

 

[Sun Ra]

Thats not true at all. Everyone has the right do all of those thing, most poor people cant afford to. Poor people cant afford lots of things that rich people can. But the right to accumulation and preservation of wealth is open to all. Thats why the Indian families in my street started off renting, 4 couples to a house. 10 years of solid grinding and now they own 2 houses in the same street.

It is true mate. Some of these pricks on $300K+ pay LESS TAX than a poor fucker struggling to get by on $70K.

I don't have a problem with immigrants or anyone else getting ahead but that is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here.

The rich have too may options to avoid paying their fair share of tax as does big business and multi-nationals.

This isn't rocket science - just because you are a self entitled CAPITALIST - and good luck to you, that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidise your fucking uber lifestyle. Just like Dutton's latest brainfart policy about "small businesses" [turnover up to $10 million per year !!!] being able to write off $20K per year on "free lunches".

 

[Green Genius]

I paid 33% my last tax return.
You seem to have trouble with comprehension.
They should pay the same tax rate as the rest of us which with their income would be 35%

I see you like to attempt to twist posts to suit your frame of thinking.
I never said anything about changing the lower end of the tax bracket I said billionaires should be taxed the same but because you like to attempt to twist comments to suit you I'll put it this way.
Billionaires should be taxed at 35% like the rest of the people in that bracket.
Is this clear enough for you to understand?

You’re making the classic mistake of equating wealth with income. If you earned 1 billion in income in 1 year, you would be taxed at 35%.

What you are discussing is a wealth tax.

 

[HomeBound_Hound]

Respect from being outclassed. You really do think a lot of yourself.

The proof of an inequitable system is in the article about billionaires making vast gains while others stay stagnant or fall further behind.

You consider me a defeatist for saying the system needs to change and I consider you the same way for your attitude that they system is what it is and people just need to know how to navigate it properly and don't want change.

Disagreement is fine with me no need for your emense ego to be rolled out for all to see.

No need for much more to be said than tax them fairly.
35% is fine with me but unfortunately that's not happening.

It’s interesting to see how quickly the tone of discourse can shift when the conversation challenges deeply held ideals. First, I’m “weak” and part of the problem, yet now, apparently, we share common ground. The rhetorical backflips here are starting to resemble a high school debate: dramatic declarations, shifting alliances, and attempts to score points rather than engage with substance.

Let’s be honest—discussions like these aren’t just about ideals; they reveal our values. Are we here to genuinely exchange perspectives, or are we indulging in the kind of posturing that makes us feel superior without advancing the conversation? Resorting to accusations of ego or condescension isn’t a rebuttal; it’s an evasion. Dismissing opposing views as “too complex” reduces nuanced arguments to caricature.

Values matter. Ideals matter. But if the best counterpoint you can offer is “remember to stay classy,” then I’d suggest re-evaluating what exactly you’re standing for. The real work—whether in debates or in addressing systemic inequities—requires more than recycled rhetoric and thinly veiled jabs. It demands intellectual honesty and a willingness to confront complexity head-on.

So, I’ll leave it here. My intent has always been to dissect the issues thoughtfully, not to indulge in theatrics. If we’re here to play a game of rhetoric, let’s at least ensure we’re aiming higher than adolescent antics. Otherwise, we’re just spinning our wheels. Cheers.

It is true mate. Some of these pricks on $300K+ pay LESS TAX than a poor fucker struggling to get by on $70K.

I don't have a problem with immigrants or anyone else getting ahead but that is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here.

The rich have too may options to avoid paying their fair share of tax as does big business and multi-nationals.

This isn't rocket science - just because you are a self entitled CAPITALIST - and good luck to you, that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidise your fucking uber lifestyle. Just like Dutton's latest brainfart policy about "small businesses" [turnover up to $10 million per year !!!] being able to write off $20K per year on "free lunches".

Ah, the choir grows louder, but the song remains the same: ‘Tax them fairly, and all will be right.’ It’s fascinating how often the conversation circles back to this one-dimensional solution as if the entire system is a simple equation waiting to be solved. Accountants, financial advisors, and resources exist for those willing to navigate the same maze we’re all placed in—wealth isn’t a birthright for everyone who earns over $300k. Yet, the argument here boils down to envy disguised as advocacy for fairness.

The tools are out there, but too often, people don’t take the time to use them because it’s easier to vent frustrations than tackle the hard work of figuring things out. Yelling about the problem might feel good in the moment, but it doesn’t actually fix anything where it matters.

 

[Green Genius]

It is true mate. Some of these pricks on $300K+ pay LESS TAX than a poor fucker struggling to get by on $70K.

Someone one $300k is paying less than $13k in tax?? That’s amazing and highly unlikely

and good luck to you, that doesn't mean the rest of us should subsidise your fucking uber lifestyle. Just like Dutton's latest brainfart policy about "small businesses" [turnover up to $10 million per year !!!] being able to write off $20K per year on "free lunches".

Lowered revenue is not an expense.

 

[Sun Ra]

The tools are out there ....

And YOU are a fucking tool so you 're well placed to say this .....

 

[Sun Ra]

Someone one $300k is paying less than $13k in tax?? That’s amazing and highly unlikely

Lowered revenue is not an expense.

I've seen a cunt on over $300K bring their taxable income down to below $20K - a former captain of the AFL club the Melbourne Demons. This prick's wife then claimed and was paid full Centrelink family payments based on their "taxable income" including rent assistance as they rented their home off a "mate / relative". He had a "Tennis School" [cash business] as a sideline that his wife worked for / ran which made big losses on paper that he wrote off against his AFL income. He also had 2 negatively geared properties with not much equity [asset test] so he wrote that off too. Scum landlord too - wouldn't pay tradies who did work for him until they sent mates to threaten to bash the cunt. So yeah, this goes on. Cunt paid ZERO tax but still could afford to pay his accountant huge money that he could also claim as an "expense". Prick also had THREE family trusts.

 

[HomeBound_Hound]

And YOU are a fucking tool so you 're well placed to say this .....

Foghorn Leghorn vibes—lots of noise, not much substance. Let me know when you're ready to step out of the cartoon antics and into an actual conversation.

I've seen a cunt on over $300K bring their taxable in come down to below $20K - a former captain of the AFL club the Demons.
This prick's wife then claimed and was paid full Centrelink family payments based on their "taxable income" including rent assistance as they rented their home off a "mate / relative". He had a "Tennis School" [cash business] as a sideline that his wife worked for / ran which made big losses on paper that he wrote off against his AFL income. He also had 2 negatively geared properties with not much equity [asset test] so he wrote that off too. Scum landlord too - wouldn't pay tradies who did work for him until they sent mates to threaten to bash the cunt. So yeah, this goes on. Cunt paid ZERO tax but still could afford to pay his accountant huge money that he could also claim as an "expense". Prick also had THREE family trusts.

Yeah right, preaching fairness while sitting on a career-built enforcing system you now claim to despise. I guess ranting about billionaires is easier than chasing your cosmic fantasies. Stick to the aliens, mate—they might be more forgiving of your contradictions.

 

[Sun Ra]

Foghorn Leghorn vibes—lots of noise, not much substance. Let me know when you're ready to step out of the cartoon antics and into an actual conversation.

Yeah right, preaching fairness while sitting on a career-built enforcing system you now claim to despise. I guess ranting about billionaires is easier than chasing your cosmic fantasies. Stick to the aliens, mate—they might be more forgiving of your contradictions.

You don't know me or my motivations you fuckwit so just fuck right off there. I gave you a pretty specific example of the shit fuckery I'm talking about, that is frankly indefensible which I guess is why you didn't have the balls or brain cells to respond to.
Also - in this instance I was talking about millionaires - not billionaires but go ahead and conflate things coz that's what you do.

 

[HomeBound_Hound]

You don't know me or my motivations you fuckwit so just fuck right off there. I gave you a pretty specific example of the shit fuckery I'm talking about, that is frankly indefensible which I guess is why you didn't have the balls or brain cells to respond to.

Not pretending to know you, mate—just reading the autobiography you volunteered with those flexing photos of being a retired customs agent. You’re the one putting your credentials on display like a badge of honour while ranting against the very systems you once enforced. Irony much? But hey, if contradictions are your style, who am I to interrupt the show?