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

[SAW]

Can we go back to arguing about lights, nutrients and what makes plants hermie?

Wrong thread

 

[Sedge]

@ hound
He probably called you out over what you reckon you felt sorry about,,fair enough in anyone’s book I reckon,,

If my mentioning it was ,in your words ,a fair call ,,then why say he was asking for it ,,I’m noticing more and more lately cunts firing the first shot then after getting a rightful reply they get upset and blame the other person ,,perhaps you might want to use some of those articulate words you pride yourself on to ask yourself if it was on you ..instead of asking me ,,

And no need to reply to me ,,,I’m the second person in this thread that isn’t interested in your word salads

 

[Johnny Walker]

So to put some context to why I would like the elite to contribute more. This is the NSW health minister saying the Government can't afford to pay nurses more in a country that has 47 billionaires.
Who have amassed between them hundreds of billions which if they were taxed at 35% would of probably been able to pay for the entire country's health system multiple times over.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1985102465274108

This a story of a friend of a friend's son who died from NSWs under funded, under trained and under resourced medical system.
So yeah a bit of extra tax from some people who make fucking $67,000 an hour may have helped.

Kuan Brown’s Sepsis Story: The Death of 18-Year-Old Australian Was Avoidable — World Sepsis Day - September 13

The most difficult sentence we have ever had to read has to have been “ The death of Kuan Brown was avoidable” , as it appeared in the Medical Examiner’s report.

www.worldsepsisday.org

But hay let's not "rail against" these people let's just accept the system as it is and learn how to "navigate it properly"

 

[Harry bootlace]

So to put some context to why I would like the elite to contribute more. This is the NSW health minister saying the Government can't afford to pay nurses more in a country that has 47 billionaires.
Who have amassed between them hundreds of billions which if they were taxed at 35% would of probably been able to pay for the entire country's health system multiple times over.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1985102465274108

This a story of a friend of a friend's son who died from NSWs under funded, under trained and under resourced medical system.
So yeah a bit of extra tax from some people who make fucking $67,000 an hour may have helped.

Kuan Brown’s Sepsis Story: The Death of 18-Year-Old Australian Was Avoidable — World Sepsis Day - September 13

The most difficult sentence we have ever had to read has to have been “ The death of Kuan Brown was avoidable” , as it appeared in the Medical Examiner’s report.

www.worldsepsisday.org

But hay let's not "rail against" these people let's just accept the system as it is and learn how to "navigate it properly"
View attachment 56362

yeah that’s awful. it’s a joke.
not as tragic ( just luck). woman i live with presented herself 3 times in one day to emergency after multiple suicide attempts ( including that day) and was turned away each time as “not posing a threat to herself or others”.
only because myself and her friends were physically stopping her from topping herself.
this was just weeks ago.

i was so pissed off. somehow it’s ok to send someone actively trying to kill themselves home to be with 2 children. luckily we have some good friends and we tag teamed until they agreed they should probably help.

 

[Aye Shroomer]

Let’s deconstruct this moral high ground you’ve claimed, shall we? You’ve constructed a caricature of “people like me”—a nebulous archetype you’ve decided is complicit in perpetuating the system’s flaws. But let’s be clear: this argument is neither groundbreaking nor particularly well-reasoned. It’s the same tired rhetoric of assigning blame to an undefined “other” without meaningfully addressing the complexities of systemic issues.

You accuse me of “accepting the system,” but what you fail to recognise is that acknowledging the system’s flaws and learning to navigate them effectively isn’t acquiescence—it’s pragmatism. Dismissing that as weakness or complicity undermines the reality of how progress is actually achieved. Complaining about the game without participating in it doesn’t make one virtuous; it renders them irrelevant. Addressing inequality and structural inequities demands more than indignation—it requires thoughtful engagement, strategy, and action.

Your fixation on a so-called “rigged game” as the sole domain of billionaires ignores the reality that these systems are upheld by more than just wealth—it’s governance, policy, and collective participation that sustain them. Take, for example, the recent Australian Taxation Office (ATO) investigations into multinational tax avoidance. Corporations exploit complex loopholes to shift profits offshore while paying minimal taxes, yet the everyday person has no access to such mechanisms. These aren’t flaws perpetuated by the middle class—they’re systemic issues that require better enforcement and reform at the top levels.

If your argument is that complicity exists across society, then let’s be honest about it: we’re all part of the system to varying degrees, whether by necessity, design, or circumstance. But simplifying this to an accusation of complicity without considering the practical constraints of most people’s lives—like making ends meet, navigating opportunities, or simply surviving—shows a lack of nuance. People aren’t pawns for the elite simply because they don’t have the luxury of burning down the system.

Let’s also address this romanticized notion that everyone railing against the wealthy would behave differently if handed the same opportunities. Human nature gravitates toward self-interest—it’s ingrained in our behaviour. Recent discussions around global inequality, like Oxfam’s Global Inequality Report, reveal how the wealthiest 1% accumulated two-thirds of all new wealth created in the past few years. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: many who criticize billionaires would exploit the same loopholes if given the chance. Morality often becomes flexible when power and wealth are within reach, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

Moreover, let’s dispense with the idea that the middle class or “people like me” are the primary enablers of inequality. Australia’s housing crisis is a perfect example of how structural forces—not individual complacency—perpetuate inequities. Policies favouring developers and investors have driven property prices sky-high, locking many out of homeownership. This isn’t the fault of those trying to navigate these challenges—it’s a governance issue that requires reform, not finger-pointing.

Finally, your attempt to reduce me to a symbol of systemic complacency—“people like me”—is as intellectually lazy as it is unfounded. You don’t know my background, my values, or the choices I’ve made to navigate this world. Assuming that my decision to focus on living my life within the parameters of reality somehow equates to complicity or failure to act ignores a basic truth: not everyone needs to frame their existence as a crusade against the system to have agency. Real change doesn’t come from pontificating on imagined high ground; it requires understanding the rules of the game and leveraging them effectively.

At the core, I’m not here to posture as an activist or reformer—I’m simply living my life as best as I can. If that challenges your worldview, perhaps it’s worth examining the assumptions underpinning your outrage. Not everyone who disagrees with your approach is blind to the system’s flaws—some of us simply choose to engage with it differently.
View attachment 56306
View attachment 56305

So to start with so you now what fence I’m sitting on. I vote Greens and I think the systems government needs a huge change as it’s the main problem. They are the ones that enable billionaires to do what they do.

I agree on many points that you’re saying @HomeBound_Hound.
I want to ask your opinion on this next point though. And I’ve mentioned this elsewhere before

What do you think of a wealth cap. Be it national and or international. Obviously hard to enforce but let’s just put up a number for example. People who earn more than $1m per year get taxed a percentage. Earn less and you pay less. Earn more and you pay more. Simple. But then let’s say you earn $5m per year.

What if that was the cap. And anything over that gets taxed 100%?

Again numbers are just there for the sake of the discussion. Actual numbers would most probably need to be adjusted.

 

[Aye Shroomer]

Well, folks, it seems we’ve reached the pinnacle of debating the 'middle-class menace' and the ‘rigged game.’ I’ve got to say, it’s been an absolute pleasure dismantling caricatures and untangling oversimplifications, but my job here is done.

This is HomeBound_Hound, your Socialist Reporter, signing off with the wise words of the legendary Ron Burgundy: 'Stay classy… and maybe try a bit of nuance next time.'

Come get a taste.
View attachment 56307

And it looks like I replied before finishing the whole thread

 

[Green Genius]

What do you think of a wealth cap. Be it national and or international. Obviously hard to enforce but let’s just put up a number for example. People who earn more than $1m per year get taxed a percentage. Earn less and you pay less. Earn more and you pay more. Simple. But then let’s say you earn $5m per year.

What if that was the cap. And anything over that gets taxed 100%?

Again numbers are just there for the sake of the discussion. Actual numbers would most probably need to be adjusted.

Thats income tax. Wealth tax is where your net worth is calculated and a % paid to the govt. Same mistake Johnny was making earlier. Billionaire is a term describing someone's net worth, income tax is paid on someones yearly salary. Two very different things

 

[Aye Shroomer]

Not once did I say taxing the elite would fix everything.
Put it here where I have said that.

Once again your attempting to twist things to suit yourself.
Taxing people who don't pay tax to contribute to services they use is what I've said and they should be paying the top taxable amount because they are earning the top taxable amount.
Yes having more money in the system should make it better for several areas that are struggling like health, education, essentials like police, infrastructure and the environment.
Same as I've said this entire thread.

See this is the point but it’s getting lost in the fight.
Like I said. I’m left and think this is just simple fairness. But I also understand the world we live in and the problems in making it fair.

Honestly if every single person took accountability for everything they did. The world would be better. But the reality of human nature doesn’t work that way.

 

[Aye Shroomer]

Thats income tax. Wealth tax is where your net worth is calculated and a % paid to the govt. Same mistake Johnny was making earlier. Billionaire is a term describing someone's net worth, income tax is paid on someones yearly salary. Two very different things

Hey you’re right. Used the wrong words.
I’m all happy with wealth. And if I had more wealth than I knew what to do with, you know what I would do. Buy stuff. Lots of stuff.

But income. Yes income shroud be cap if you can live comfortably. If you can afford to buy things. While also paying the bills. That’s more my point.

 

[Aye Shroomer]

Hey you’re right. Used the wrong words.
I’m all happy with wealth. And if I had more wealth than I knew what to do with, you know what I would do. Buy stuff. Lots of stuff.

But income. Yes income shoud be capped if you can live comfortably. If you can afford to buy things. While also paying the bills. That’s more my point.

 

[HomeBound_Hound]

So to start with so you now what fence I’m sitting on. I vote Greens and I think the systems government needs a huge change as it’s the main problem. They are the ones that enable billionaires to do what they do.

I agree on many points that you’re saying @HomeBound_Hound.
I want to ask your opinion on this next point though. And I’ve mentioned this elsewhere before

What do you think of a wealth cap. Be it national and or international. Obviously hard to enforce but let’s just put up a number for example. People who earn more than $1m per year get taxed a percentage. Earn less and you pay less. Earn more and you pay more. Simple. But then let’s say you earn $5m per year.

What if that was the cap. And anything over that gets taxed 100%?

Again numbers are just there for the sake of the discussion. Actual numbers would most probably need to be adjusted.

Okay so before I begin.

*Without Prejudice*

A wealth cap is an interesting concept, and I appreciate that you’re thinking critically about solutions to systemic inequality. It’s an incredibly complex issue, and while I don’t claim to have the perfect answer, there are a few challenges with any sweeping proposal like this.

First, history teaches us that no system—whether capitalism, communism, or something else—escapes the flaws of human bias. Systems are created and maintained by people, and people are hardwired for self-preservation. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it often leads to power imbalances, corruption, and the erosion of fairness over time. Governments entrusted with immense power—like those that might enforce a wealth cap—have often left the majority powerless. Egypt, Rome, the Soviet Union, and even modern examples like China—tyranny, no matter how well-intentioned, has always failed in the long run.

A wealth cap, as you describe, raises similar concerns. While it might address inequality on paper, it places a lot of trust in governing bodies to act as neutral arbiters of wealth distribution. History has shown us that this trust is rarely justified, as those in power often fail to balance fairness with opportunity. There’s also the practical challenge of what we’re defining as wealth. As Green Genius pointed out earlier, being declared a billionaire doesn’t mean someone has a billion dollars in cash. Much of that wealth is tied up in assets—investments, businesses, and properties that also contribute to the broader economy. How do you tax or cap something like that without risking broader consequences, like discouraging innovation or dismantling social mobility?

What resonates with me more than these top-down solutions is the idea of pragmatism. Let me clarify—I’m not saying pragmatism is the solution. It’s just what I’ve found works for me personally. I’ve come to realise that navigating the system, however flawed, requires leveraging the tools we already have: financial literacy, education, and opportunities that are accessible to most people if they know where to look. That doesn’t mean the system is fair or that everyone has equal access—but the resources are out there, and they’ve helped me carve out a path forward.

Financial literacy is one area where I think we could make a real difference. Teaching people how to budget, invest, and understand the economy empowers them to navigate this “rat race” more effectively. Capital gains taxes, offshore accounts, and loopholes used by the wealthy are real issues, and addressing them at a systemic level would help. But for individuals trying to get ahead, the key is to understand the system and make it work for you where possible.

I also want to acknowledge the human element here. I’ve been painted as the “bad guy” for challenging certain ideals, but the truth is, the injustices caused by systemic flaws break my heart as much as anyone else’s. I’ve seen the pain they cause, and it’s that pain that fuels my perspective. I’m not blind to the problems—we all see them. But replacing one flawed system with another isn’t the answer. It’s why I think any real solution needs to go beyond politics or human governance.

In the long run, I believe we need something neutral and sustainable—something that transcends human bias entirely. AI and technology might play a role in creating such a system, but even that is far from perfect. For now, the best we can do is keep having conversations like this, stay open to new ideas, and push for systemic reforms that address inequality without losing sight of opportunity.

Pragmatism has worked for me, and I believe it can work for others too—with the right education and access to financial tools. It’s not about compliance; it’s about making the most of what’s available while we advocate for a better future.

 

[Johnny Walker]

Thats income tax. Wealth tax is where your net worth is calculated and a % paid to the govt. Same mistake Johnny was making earlier. Billionaire is a term describing someone's net worth, income tax is paid on someones yearly salary. Two very different things

Gina rinehart made 3.2 billion last year.
I'm talking about taxing their income like everyone else.
It's only because of the broken system that she has been able to amass such wealth.
Never have I said their accumulated wealth should be taxed as a whole.


You don't really understand what's being said in this thread do you.

 

[Johnny Walker]

So to start with so you now what fence I’m sitting on. I vote Greens and I think the systems government needs a huge change as it’s the main problem. They are the ones that enable billionaires to do what they do.

I agree on many points that you’re saying @HomeBound_Hound.
I want to ask your opinion on this next point though. And I’ve mentioned this elsewhere before

What do you think of a wealth cap. Be it national and or international. Obviously hard to enforce but let’s just put up a number for example. People who earn more than $1m per year get taxed a percentage. Earn less and you pay less. Earn more and you pay more. Simple. But then let’s say you earn $5m per year.

What if that was the cap. And anything over that gets taxed 100%?

Again numbers are just there for the sake of the discussion. Actual numbers would most probably need to be adjusted.

I would have no problems with this system.
I have no problems with people being billionaires but when they don't contribute and then use that money to influence/bribe to further that wealth it becomes a problem.
Which let's be honest is probably 90% of billionaires.

The problem lies in that once such wealth is amassed it gives them privileges that others don't have access to.
Like access to tax minimisation and lobbying/bribing to further their interest and wealth at the expense of others.

 

[Green Genius]

Gina rinehart made 3.2 billion last year.
I'm talking about taxing their income like everyone else.
It's only because of the broken system that she has been able to amass such wealth.
Never have I said their accumulated wealth should be taxed as a whole.


You don't really understand what's being said in this thread do you.

She did not earn 3.2B in income. Her net worth increased that much, which makes your last sentence even more ironic.

 

[Mellow oldfark]

People live to there means,I see a lot of very well paid people all around near me.
But many are in a shit ton of debt cause they want to live in "that" suburb,drive a new LandCruiser wagon with boat or caravan and the disposable list goes on and on.....which is fine if that's what your into.

 

[Johnny Walker]

She did not earn 3.2B in income. Her net worth increased that much, which makes your last sentence even more ironic.

Wow you really don't understand do you.
How did her net worth grow?
I'll tell you its call earnings.

Or did someone just give her 3.2 billion?

 

[Green Genius]

Wow you really don't understand do you.
How did her net worth grow?
I'll tell you its call earnings.

Or did someone just give her 3.2 billion?View attachment 56372

Did you just try and pass off a private companies annual profit as an individuals yearly income??

I rest my case..

 

[Johnny Walker]

Did you just try and pass off a private companies annual profit as an individuals yearly income??

I rest my case..

She owns 70% and took 2.8 million in earnings.

It says it in the pic.

 

[Harry bootlace]

while the plebs sit around arguing, the rich are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Dotts]

assuming there is 25millon australians,

If that 3.2b profit would be shared with every single australian,

we all would be 128$ better off...

Greedy Bitch!