Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 234

Thread: Mortgage Repayments

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    6,151
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stevo68
    Reference....bolded part....how do you know they do not need it

    I know this because he is a close mate and he tells me everything... that's how...
    I understand initially you were referencing a mate, but in the context of the quote that I used, you stated
    Question is Why Should someone on a Lower income get penalised for Payment thru Baby Bonus to someone who is on a much higher income and has absolutely no need for it " and then spend it something absoluetly frivilous like ( LCD TV )...
    , so is it only relevant to your mate, or people on higher incomes in general?

    Regards

    Stevo

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    NSW , Pennant Hills
    Posts
    3,477
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by stevo68 View Post
    I understand initially you were referencing a mate, but in the context of the quote that I used, you stated , so is it only relevant to your mate, or people on higher incomes in general?

    Regards

    Stevo
    Yes Steve initially I was , we often talk about things at work, he works 12 hour shift , i don't so I'm on relatively lower wage, initial point was " Why should someone on a lower income be penalised thru baby Grant to someone on a much higher Income " referance my close mate " I know more people out there who are using this grant from government on things they don't need instead of spending it on things they do need , ie new born medical bills , food , clothes etc which are important...

    that's all .. been an interesting discussion thou...

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Yinnar South, Vic
    Posts
    9,943
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Disco_owner View Post
    Yes Steve initially I was , we often talk about things at work, he works 12 hour shift , i don't so I'm on relatively lower wage, initial point was " Why should someone on a lower income be penalised thru baby Grant to someone on a much higher Income " referance my close mate " I know more people out there who are using this grant from government on things they don't need instead of spending it on things they do need , ie new born medical bills , food , clothes etc which are important...

    that's all .. been an interesting discussion thou...
    Ah so he makes a lifestyle sacrifice to earn more money, but is less deserving of the grant?, whereas someone who doesn't make that choice, and generally reaps the rewards of a decent body clock and time at home with the family aslo is more deserving

    Are all the medicals etc paid? if so what's the problem

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Yinnar South, Vic
    Posts
    9,943
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Still waiting for ANYONE to tell me about these magical rewards for higher wage earners? because I'd like some

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    NSW , Pennant Hills
    Posts
    3,477
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rovercare View Post
    Ah so he makes a lifestyle sacrifice to earn more money, but is less deserving of the grant?, whereas someone who doesn't make that choice, and generally reaps the rewards of a decent body clock and time at home with the family aslo is more deserving

    Are all the medicals etc paid? if so what's the problem
    That's the lifestyle he choosen ,he works 3 days and has 4 days off , it suits him fine , has no issues with body clocking and gets home to spend a few hours with his Kids , There is no problem ... I just said what peed me off is how people ( reference my mate ) earn the grant and spend it on their house Hold items instead of their new born baby. that's all.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Yinnar South, Vic
    Posts
    9,943
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Disco_owner View Post
    That's the lifestyle he choosen ,he works 3 days and has 4 days off , it suits him fine , has no issues with body clocking and gets home to spend a few hours with his Kids , There is no problem ... I just said what peed me off is how people ( reference my mate ) earn the grant and spend it on their house Hold items instead of their new born baby. that's all.
    But its only a matter of which bucket of money, the kids meds are paid for? clothing? food? all the stuff which its supposed to be for.....I'm guessing yes

    So if he bought the telly with his "own money" and used the "grant" for the childrens stuff, it would be ok, I fail to see the difference

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,455
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rovercare View Post
    What are some of these rewards? that wealthy people get, I'll pay 35k in tax, that's 7 baby bonus', But if a I get one I'm being rewarded? but a lower wage earner isn't?

    It IS a matter of bite the bullet and get on with, (we're not getting into semantics here, physical/mental incapacitation etc) I took risks to get myself into a high paid position, oppurtunities that I offered to others, but most people seem to be alot mor lax about it and prefer to whinge. There is money to be made on the side also, whilst playing on the internet or watching payTV, that's cash earning time, then the tears start, But kids, time with the wife, blah blah, all sacrifice and choices that are made, to get to a decent position, life is a choice, If you don't like what you do or what you earn, change.......simple?

    I don't like what I do, but I do it to earn more coin, I could "live" on the money I take in, doing conversion, wrecking cars etc, but I'd be doing that forever and getting nowhere, that's right, more choices I've made

    We're talking willing mind/able bodied people of course, it is their choice
    Hmm... interesting

    Xav

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    St Helena,Melbourne
    Posts
    16,777
    Total Downloaded
    1.13 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot View Post
    Are you serious? When your partner was working, does she earn only 25k over 4 years? For example, if your partner earns 45k a year, and has had 2 years off for two kids, that's 90k. Then unless they go back you're then part time so probably on a reduced wage ... say 30 per year. Then you have to pay child care....... So you're probably only taking home 20. So, 2 x 25 = 50. We're up to $140 now... Yeah... you get some benefits from the govt but that also doesn't factor in lost super etc.

    Can I also make the point that I'm not worried about the money but I was trying to make the point that the baby bonus is insignificant compared to the total cost of children.
    As i said COST, not loss of earnings.
    MY08 TDV6 SE D3- permagrin ooh yeah
    2004 Jayco Freedom tin tent
    1998 Triumph Daytona T595
    1974 VW Kombi bus
    1958 Holden FC special sedan

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Loganlea Qld
    Posts
    1,652
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I realise that this is slightly off the mortgage subject, rather on our taxation system, but having read the previous posts, I feel that this is perhaps more to the point than it at first appears:
    "Taxing the People" Explaining Taxation ...

    Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    * The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    * The fifth would pay $1
    * The sixth would pay $3
    * The seventh would pay $7
    * The eighth would pay $12
    * The ninth would pay $18
    * The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

    So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said "I'm going to reduce the cost of your meal by $20."
    Following the reduction, dinner for the ten would now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested:

    * The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
    * The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
    * The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
    * The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
    * The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
    * The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings... the least proportionate savings)

    Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

    But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

    "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
    "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
    "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
    The wealthy get all the breaks!"
    "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
    As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D

    Professor of Economics

    Regards
    Glen

    1962 P5 3 Ltr Coupe (Gwennie)
    1963 2a gunbuggy 112-722 (Onslow) ex 6 RAR
    1964 2a 88" SWB 113 251 (Daisy) ex JTC

    REMLR 226

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Toowoomba
    Posts
    6,151
    Total Downloaded
    0
    I realise that this is slightly off the mortgage subject, rather on our taxation system, but having read the previous posts, I feel that this is perhaps more to the point than it at first appears:
    "Taxing the People" Explaining Taxation ...

    Sometimes politicians, journalists and the liberal left exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand:

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

    * The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    * The fifth would pay $1
    * The sixth would pay $3
    * The seventh would pay $7
    * The eighth would pay $12
    * The ninth would pay $18
    * The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

    So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers", he said "I'm going to reduce the cost of your meal by $20."
    Following the reduction, dinner for the ten would now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal. So, the restaurant owner suggested:

    * The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
    * The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
    * The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
    * The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
    * The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
    * The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings... the least proportionate savings)

    Each of the six paying customers was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

    But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

    "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
    "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
    "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two?
    The wealthy get all the breaks!"
    "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
    As a consequence, the first nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D

    Professor of Economics

    Regards
    Glen
    Brilliant,

    Regards

    Stevo

Page 13 of 24 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!