Blue Flu

29 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

That was my main concern. I could see that the first item (larger filling) needed doing as there's clearly a hole there, along with the scale and clean, but the other items I thought were pretty border line. It's like when you take your car in for a service/MOT, they always seem to find something extra that needs doing!

It is indeed. All out to make money, fine in itself but when un necessarily ?. Even taking a new bicycle in for a free service , a few years back, they still managed to suggest I needed a $60 or was it $90 part. (that wasn't covered in the 'free' first time servicing. 

Cars are a classic example of ease in the ability to find fault in order to charge more. 

37 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

Why, are dental hospitals cheaper then? I've heard of them but I thought they were only for emergencies.

I recall them in WA when young, but they ceased when state funding was cut from recall. No idea if they have been restored ,but other states may be different. They tended to be servicing low income clients and were more reacting to a dental problem than a prevention. 

With dentists though, little to prevent them suggesting un necessary work for monetary gain . I've been a bit dubious when a filling was loosened while checking on one occasion, which later required it to be replaced. 

I just remembered when Aussie dentists were plentiful in London. They were attracted by the income they could make there. much like UK/Irish doctors that come Down Under are these days. 

A bit steep but not too abnormal. More drilling equates to more charges obviously. I only get done what is really needed and leave the rest. The cost of dentists in Australia has many people seeking far cheaper, but excellent treatment in countries like Malaysia and Thailand. 

In fact the former is great for a through medical check up. Most doctors are trained in UK, USA, Australia or New Zealand. Well worth consideration if going to one of those countries. 

15 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Tax rates in the UK have not been continually reduced since the 80s.  Admittedly the stupid high tax rates of the 70s are fortunately no more, but there was the introduction of the higher rate, the removal of the tax free allowance over 100k and the never ending creep of threshold reductions.

Actually a higher tax can be very liberating. When one does not need to worry getting ill, having a good retirement pension, not forgetting free child care at the other end of the spectrum, alongside a better standard of living for most of the population then money well spent.  That's real freedom. No need for illegal activities to supplement social failings or simply promote greed and corrosive behaviour. 

17 hours ago, DrDougster said:

To support people less fortunate.

Your suggestion wouldn't be fairer, it would be treating people the same. That approach would be inherently sexist and increase inequity across society so, yeah, I'd say it would be unfair. Popular with people who think "stars" sexually assaulting women was/is acceptable, but unfair nonetheless.

Exactly. That is why flat tax favours the better off who are already well ahead on the present measurement. 

3 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

 

And the rest of us benefit too. Personally I'd rather pay more tax and live in a world not surrounded by poor, sick, uneducated people who are more likely to resort to crime because there's no chance of escaping poverty. Scandinavian countries are often cited as having the best quality of life in the world (despite their winters), with free healthcare, education and excellent public services, but it all comes at a cost in the form of higher taxes. If you want to see a country in social decline look no further than the UK, where tax rates have been continually reduced since the 1980s.

If they're going to cut taxes then surely increasing the tax-free threshold would be fairer than reducing tax rates by a percentage, which always benefits higher earners the most. The threshold hasn't changed since it was raised to $18,200, 11 years ago. By comparison the UK personal allowance before tax is the equivalent of $23,500, and the cost of living and wages are generally lower over there.

The rising inequality of course does not bid well for most of us. We are already witnessing massive crime in our regional localities in the tropics. All cities have suburban areas spoiled to various extents by increasing crime .

Australia has vastly and rather rapidly increased inequality levels. A very high per cent hold much of the wealth. Corruption is very evident. Again by people in a position to exploit their status. It is increasing hard for those at the lower 25 per cent of the population to get ahead. Very tiring to still sometimes read how egalitarian Australia sometimes claims to be. 

Yes tax threshold remains too low in Australia. It is in part (probably a large part) due to the ease of catching the lower earners than those earning far more who use creative tax accounting in order to limit tax liability. Tightening the 'screws' too much more on those on big earnings simply entices greater tax avoidance. 

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

I will also benefit, but I am also smart enough to recognize that in addition to lots of hard work over many years, I also benefitted from being born white, in an prosperous part of a developed western country with high education standards,  went to a school that encouraged us to believe we could go to university, to parents who believe in hard work and making the most of your opportunities.  I also had a great group of friends at school who helped me stay on the right side of doing too many stupid things, and have been fortunate in being in the right place at the right time career wise.  Lots of people don't get these starts in life, and it is no bad thing to pay a bit more tax to help boost them up.

It is more than that. I've never known a time with people having less scruples.  That goes across the board and inflicts all social classes. Those with high professional standards are just as easily impacted by their peers less than ethical behaviour or corrupt practices. Greed has imposed itself on society increasingly as the guiding factor. (bigging themselves up at the same time) It certainly looks good from afar. 

Mostly it is lip service pretending to be a caring person with the interests of society paramount , when actually too often things are not what they may appear. 

4 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

Why should someone contribute more because they earn more?

The fairer option would be everyone gets $50k tax free and every cent above that gets taxed at 35%

 No one can say that approach is unfair and it delivers more cash to the lower paid than the current system but works out about the same on overall tax take

Simply because as you write they earn more. It depends on the type of society you want. A dog eat dog , where the onus is purely on money and status  (often with a lot of pretense) or a society where everybody as a stake and the difference is not hundreds of times between lowest paid and top. (a very eighties concept) 

Higher tax thresholds may help but usually not favoured as lower paid are easier to get tax from. High paid have numerous ways to lower taxable income or indeed pay nothing. 

4 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

But that money only exists to be taxed because I want it. If someone else wants it they could also work as hard as I do.

 

Nothing to do with working hard . In fact it is the real grafters that too often miss out. It is those that manipulate the system to their advantage that come out best in too many instances. 

1 hour ago, Ken said:

Because there's already a shortage of rental housing and rental controls would only exacerbate that. Government built rental housing (you can call it social housing if you want) is the obvious solution when no one else is prepared to invest in the sector.

The obvious solution is to discourage the policy in way of tax breaks.  That and artificially stimulating the housing market. Controls work all over Europe. Of course they would wok in Australia given the right circumstances. 

The times last century when housing was affordable to most all working people in Australia are long over. Renting needs to be made a perfectly acceptable choice where people have the confidence to remain long term. 

17 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Have the baddies gone?

No mass exodus to the Badlands of Mandurah and environs if that's what you mean. Sadly.

11 hours ago, benj1980 said:

There's some being built in a neighbouring suburb, that suburb isn't very impressed. The houses are going up very quickly (hopefully there's still quality in the build), but look incredibly small with little to no garden. Not exactly the Australian house dream...

As I wrote in other threads, all part of the declining living standards being inflicted upon this country. The dream will be of course over time a roof of any kind , including for some a tent.

1 hour ago, Parley said:

Not the Australian government's job to give people their dream home, or any home for that matter.

People need to work to own a home or rent one.

Like Britain, working no longer guarantees old certainties like the ability to purchase a house. But throwing money on misdirected housing schemes (like first home owners grant) does little but increase prices. 

Since a house has become a commodity with expected never ending price growth, well above inflation, the situation has worsened by the year. 

1 hour ago, Ausvisitor said:

I don't see any problem with the tax cut.

But then I'm in the group that everyone seems to be treating like lepers (you know that group so good at what they do they get paid over $250k for doing it - and in the process also pay for everyone else to get tax cuts and benefits).

This might be the first time in my 40 years on the planet when I actually benefit from something in the budget and you all want to take that away from me

Perhaps because the country can ill afford it. If one has the fortune to be among the highest earners why shouldn't they contribute accordingly? We have an ever increasing inequality in this country. Why increase that? There are countless creative accounting ways in place in order to minimise tax. 

19 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

I think you can add the lack of social housing to that list. My understanding is that hardly any has been built here in decades. Same problem in the UK too.

But is social housing really the answer? It could be a part of the solution, but why not rental controls as in Europe?  

41 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Noooo, its all down to the " house explosions. (much unreported) "..........

Interesting how the same gang on here 'jest' at what is after all besides being illegal is a very serious business causing distress and injury, at times death . Yes it is under reported. 

2 hours ago, benj1980 said:

There was me thinking the housing market was influenced by migration, lack of new builds, supply of materials etc

Well  glad to have been able to shed further light on the matter. Of course turbo migration plays a part. Just  not the entire picture. I will keep an eye out on a rental across from me in regards to if more of the same or indeed once referred to as living a more conventual 'lifestyle'.  

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Taxing the illegal activities would make one complicit no?  Hard to justify.  Also illegally earned money is often laundered, which does tend to attract tax.

Well no as obviously the government would bring  a sense of order by decriminalising drugs  so stated activity under a degree of control. Thus removing the incentive of tax free money at minimal risk. 

It just requires the incentive and wiliness to act. Illegally earned money is of course laundered into various things especially the real estate market. This of course raises the cost to others and allows drug syndicates ever more influence in the housing market with the potential to corrupt all in its wake. 

There is a huge amount going untaxed by means of illegal activities. Highly disruptive to the economy not to say ethics. This comes at an equally high price to our hospitals, crime, road accidents and house explosions. (much unreported) 

On 01/05/2023 at 17:28, Jon the Hat said:

It is quicker in a lot of cases to commute from the home counties then across London though.  At least it was until the Elizabeth line, might be better now.   Same in Sydney I guess, all road/trains/trams lead to the CBD.

I've done both and found much of a muchness. Obviously depends on where boarding and alighting.  I found it equally hard to get a seat on either, but got lucky more times on London tube than rail. Not familiar with Sydney trains, and no experience at all during rush hours. 

4 hours ago, InnerVoice said:

It's the same mentality that Londoners have in thinking that they are somehow better than everyone else because they live in 'the capital', whilst spending half their lives commuting, living in an overcrowded polluted environment, and leading an unaffordable lifestyle just to keep up with the Joneses.

No thanks.

It wasn't always like that. (I recall when it was still a working class city)  London (these days) still offers very high salaries if in the right area of employment. It most certainly is not well rounded though or inclusive. But commuting? Those living in the Home Counties maybe. But London has probably the best public transport system in the world . It's just a shame it is expensive to use. 

3 hours ago, Skani said:

But most people don't select  their location in Australia based on the narrow,    often ignorant (and mistaken) view of the country by foreigners who have never visited.   Kangaroos, koalas, heat, an opera house and bridge don't contribute to daily quality of life for most people - they are holiday attractions.

There is nothing more insular in Australia than Sydneysiders who consider that Sydney is Australia and somehow superior to every other place in the country.  It isn't.  It suits some people  but it's anathema to others.  Internal migration stats show that it's consistently been losing 30,000+ residents annually to other parts of Australia  - and they're not all leaving for affordability.

I suppose a flip of the coin those living in Sydney would state the same with regards to those (insular) living in other far flung outposts of The Commonwealth of Australia. Possible exception being Melbourne of course. 

Sydney, like London and Paris and a host of principle nation cities around the world share this common critique. Internal migration impacts all these cities. Quite simply they are places to cash out of in due course, either due to massive property inflation, allowing the owner to cash in and perhaps head into early retirement with the lucre left over , grow ones profession and move to less expensive location, or indeed flee (common in London) to locations where could probably afford (with luck) the purchase of a house. 

This is to a large part purely economic reasons. Not because they don't continue to think Sydney, London, Paris etc don't continue to offer things that only a city of a certain status can offer, but situations change, people care less for the excitement and seek another lifestyle. 

48 minutes ago, InnerVoice said:

Well that hasn't taken long! 

Not sure what you mean?. All I know is that not a lot of reflection is required to arrive at the conclusion that Perth has drifted into a less than satisfactory place.

19 hours ago, Bulya said:

Must have changed, as it was pretty damn good at night when there for race meetings.  

A 'damn good night' is not the same as being a vibrant city. Most activity, even now is confined to a couple of streets, it would be fair to say. Perth is simply not a 'night time' city. That doesn't infer one cannot have a decent time in a bar or find perhaps a good place to eat. 

There remains 'another' side to Perth later in the night as well. 

Lots of smiles  or could that be a 'smugness' around me in Perth Inner City. Cafes doing a great business. Yet few seem to work , at least in what was once thought of as main stream jobs. 'Home work' all the rage. 

Perth City has become more livelier, a lot to do with the sudden influx of Chinese (in the main) International students. Less crack heads visible, at least during the day helps as well. But I doubt if many would term Perth a specifically vibrant city. Especially at night.