$900 coming your way, courtesy of your children

Blaxter · Post by **Blaxter** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:13 pm

Probabaly why he earns so much - not on the blow all the time.

shabana · Post by **shabana** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:16 pm

quick wrote:
shabana wrote:
quick wrote:earn too much

shit...blows on you then eh?
please

oops shouldn't be so un-gender-pc...i meant hookers as well...please and thank you!

Post by **huge** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:21 pm

wouldnt it go on base salary anyway?

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:29 pm

huge wrote:wouldnt it go on base salary anyway?

They will prob go by tax return earnings from last year. I'd say commissions from sales and bonuses will be included.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:33 pm

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009 ... e_0778.cfm

quick · Post by **quick** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:34 pm

Hardy wrote:
huge wrote:wouldnt it go on base salary anyway?
They will prob go by tax return earnings from last year. I'd say commissions from sales and bonuses will be included.

my guess is this as well... my boss thinks so too.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:34 pm

I think so too

Post by **huge** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:37 pm

suckers

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:41 pm

of k-rudd's man-meat?

quiet roar · Post by **quiet roar** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:46 pm

$950 per child back to school allowance - woo hoo!!!

almax · Post by **almax** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:37 pm

a snippet from Deviants link

The Government will provide an up-front, lump-sum tax bonus of up to $950 to around 8.7 million Australian workers earning $100,000 or less.

A lump-sum payment of up to $950 will be made to eligible taxpayers from April 2009. The bonus will be available to Australian resident taxpayers who paid tax in the 2007-08 financial year after taking into account available tax offsets and credits.

The bonus is subject to an income threshold test which determines that a:

$950 bonus will be paid to eligible taxpayers with a taxable income of up to and including $80,000;
$650 bonus will paid to eligible taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $80,000 and up to $90,000; and
$300 bonus will be paid to eligible taxpayers with incomes exceeding $90,000 up to and including $100,000.

Taxpayers will not need to apply for the payment. The Australian Taxation Office will automatically make the payment after determining eligibility.

so what, will it just appear in our paycheck? or a cheque in the mail? do they even have my address...maybe we will have to get microchipped to claim the $950

nic · Post by **nic** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:07 pm

weird imo, dont give it back to people you vote buying losers. keep it for a koala sanctuary.

ill take it anyway and funnel it into drugs and a cape, maybe a cane that will definately stimulate the economy
should have a goverment rave imo?

Shifty-Sly · Post by **Shifty-Sly** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:18 pm

Donk for PM

tee193 · Post by **tee193** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:22 pm

i can definately drop to that one

*donks furiously*

nic · Post by **nic** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:37 pm

if we all put our bonuses together we can get Blackout Crew to come an play at a private mbc DONK PARTY???

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:39 pm

nic wrote:if we all put our bonuses together we can get Blackout Crew to come an play at a private mbc DONK PARTY???

FUCK YES

Or at least commision them to do an Exclusive MBC DONK track!

nic · Post by **nic** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:43 pm

yes yes yes i can definately drop to that one

tee193 · Post by **tee193** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:24 pm

i just pictured blackout crew to be playing at a stripclub.. donking out

Polecat · Post by **Polecat** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:01 pm

who the fuck is in charge of this "fight the recession" plan in the Govt? Cash hand outs to spend on the pokies or a plasma?
It's all gone Idiocracy.

Think harder for fuck sake than making people shop more to save the economy.
BLIP! Money gone, back to the same old problem. How much cash and for how long do they think they can do this?

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:05 pm

Polecat wrote:who the fuck is in charge of this "fight the recession" plan in the Govt? Cash hand outs to spend on the pokies or a plasma?
It's all gone Idiocracy.

Think harder for fuck sake than making people shop more to save the economy.
BLIP! Money gone, back to the same old problem. How much cash and for how long do they think they can do this?

In reality, it's a completely fucking retarded idea, and it will fix NOTHING.

nic · Post by **nic** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:21 pm

yeah im making a stand and sending mine back.

when do we get it?
combined with my dole this is going to be a good bonus imo

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:33 pm

You could argue its just what is needed to provide short-medium term stimulus to a system built on ongoing consumer expenditure. Its not like we can convieneiently abandon the current 'model' (and a shitload of jobs with it) is it... well we could let it go to the wall - would that be a worse outcome socially...?

The current context is that fiscal policy (i.e. interest rates) take about 6months to flow through to peoples willingness to spend again. right now people are tightening their wallets and therefore starving many small to large businesses of the sales and services they need to provide to keep afloat, keep employing people, and those people consuming...

there are diff arguments around this. some think tax cuts give people the permanent signal that spending is ok again and therefore people will decide not to delay buying that toaster or getting the house painted... others argue that a cash injection to people who cant afford much will encourage a bit more purchsing over the next few months... i think the latter is probably more correct in terms of the money flowing but its odd in terms of taking from other taxpayers. its not like a raising in the tax free threshold for eg, but this carries the problem of permanently screwing the tax base, which is hard to go back on, and doesn't pay the pensioners etc.

yes there is a lot of unintendeds. some $81 million went to overseas based pensioners for eg, and there are reports that pokie revene increased, many saved (but i suspect then felt more comfortable spending again). But i dont agree with the argument that buying made in china products is pointless - it makes profit for the sales person, retail outlet, wholesaler, shipper etc all in Oz.

Its all a bit screwy but thats the system we live in - without this wanton continuous improvement we could well have massive increase in unemployment. well we will anyway i guess but no pollies in the mainstream are trying to disband the current setup anyway.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:35 pm

nic wrote:yeah im making a stand and sending mine back.

when do we get it?
combined with my dole this is going to be a good bonus imo

I'm going to donate mine to NAMBLA

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:36 pm

^^^ so in summary - yes it will fix nothing, but no one is trying to fix it anyway. its like pumping up a tire with a slow leak in it

nic · Post by **nic** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:40 pm

too long cant read
thats a no i dont agree but ill take it from everyone

must be the poor people pushing thsi angle tbh

aroes · Post by **aroes** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:24 am

I wonder if not being enrolled to vote will affect my chances of getting the payment

Shifty-Sly · Post by **Shifty-Sly** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:26 am

Those of you havent done a 07/08 tax return can still lodge TR before 30/06/09 and be eligble for the payment.

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:28 am

What really gets my goat is the intentional exlussion of the long term unemployed and those on youth payments from both stimulous packages. fuking hell, the most in need are the ones to go the most without?

Jesuit Socail Services Press Release wrote:Single people aged 21 or older who are unemployed currently receive a base rate payment from Centrelink of $224.65 per week ($11,680 per year). Younger unemployed people, including those who have no choice but to live independently from their parents due to factors such as domestic violence or sexual abuse, receive even less. People who are unemployed were not included in the range of people eligible for a $950 bonus in the mini-budget. Nor did they receive the bonus given to pensioners in the previous economic stimulus package. Whether it’s in the context of an economic crisis, or just plain common decency and fairness, our society should be looking to include and support our most disadvantaged citizens, not leave them further behind.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:38 am

Regardless of 'fairness', I can't see any politician selling the idea of giving money to long term unemployed (i.e. today tonights 'dole bludgers').

Note also none of the changes involve restructing of any taxation measures (beyond what was already in the pipeline) or changes to social security payments. Not that im saying this is eaither right or wrong, but marginal changes in these areas carry perpetual cost increases to government.

The silver lining (i say this with some sarcasm) for these groups is that we may be in a deflationary environment, and there will be increased hounsing supply from the measures

L-J · Post by **L-J** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:43 am

You can only do tax returns via an account this time of year cant you?

Any recomendations in the city?

DBoy · Post by **DBoy** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:49 am

FoundationStepper wrote:Regardless of 'fairness', I can't see any politician selling the idea of giving money to long term unemployed (i.e. today tonights 'dole bludgers').

And there in lies a problem in itself. The misconception of long term unemployed as dole bludgers. It is not easy to be long term unemployed and receiving payments unless there is a legitimate reason (although admittedly some do). The majority of long term unemployed are that way because of social exclusion.

FoundationStepper wrote:Note also none of the changes involve restructing of any taxation measures (beyond what was already in the pipeline) or changes to social security payments. Not that im saying this is eaither right or wrong, but marginal changes in these areas carry perpetual cost increases to government.

Yeah, the point here was to display how little they have to begin with. The fight for increases in those payments is a long one that needs to be raised at every opportune moment.

FoundationStepper wrote:The silver lining (i say this with some sarcasm) for these groups is that we may be in a deflationary environment, and there will be increased hounsing supply from the measures

Yet to see the housing plan in details, but suspect it will not be community housing at all, but seems like it is going to be more housing for middle income owners, end up as investment properties for upper middle and only stimulate the building industry (which is good) but not (once again) do anything for the groups outside the margins altogether.

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:28 am

Polecat wrote:who the fuck is in charge of this "fight the recession" plan in the Govt? Cash hand outs to spend on the pokies or a plasma?
It's all gone Idiocracy.

Think harder for fuck sake than making people shop more to save the economy.
BLIP! Money gone, back to the same old problem. How much cash and for how long do they think they can do this?

i reckon this money could be a lot better spent. is it just me, or does it seem like they sat around a table and said "ummmm so like, let's just throw money at it and hope it goes away?!?!"

i will be using it on debt, which i have a feeling a lot of people will be doing

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:34 am

I will be spending it on a new camera,,,,, pref from OS just to fuck shit up.

same o · Post by **same o** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:38 am

Polecat wrote:who the fuck is in charge of this "fight the recession" plan in the Govt? Cash hand outs to spend on the pokies or a plasma?
It's all gone Idiocracy.

Think harder for fuck sake than making people shop more to save the economy.
BLIP! Money gone, back to the same old problem. How much cash and for how long do they think they can do this?

i dunno it a pretty good way to get cash flowing through the economy..

this $950 will imo keep people in there jobs to an extent and at the moment that is what is most important isnt it?

i mean yes it is a short term fix, but the whole system needs to be fixed and that cant happen over night can it..

almax · Post by **almax** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:40 am

http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcour ... ture-shock

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:41 am

So how many of us are employed in connection with a good or service, being a discretionary expenditure of consumers?

I'm not, being in gvt... but i imagine many are

sameo - i think it will help delay the knock on effect - given that our economy is a big supermarket anyway - but the question is, if we require the same $1k every 4 months to ward off contraction, is it really worth it? would it be better cutting tax, and gvt expenditure and letting people spend thier own money that they earn?

witty_pseudonym · Post by **witty_pseudonym** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:45 am

might not even happen:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/oppos ... -7x4q.html

same o · Post by **same o** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:46 am

FoundationStepper wrote: sameo - i think it will help delay the knock on effect - given that our economy is a big supermarket anyway - but the question is, if we require the same $1k every 4 months to ward off contraction, is it really worth it? would it be better cutting tax, and gvt expenditure and letting people spend thier own money that they earn?

but wouldnt tax cuts reduce the base ammount which the goverment can get which i effect fucks everything up for every1???

imo spending money on infastructure is the best way to go, but doing things like this cant hurt.

almax · Post by **almax** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:49 am

same o wrote: imo spending money on infastructure is the best way to go, but doing things like this cant hurt.

what needs to happen is for governments to start looking long term a little more and stop only doing what is needed in the short term just so they can get re-elected!

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:51 am

almax - not a bad summary.

our current model seems based on this constant aspiration - to build or buy a house, or fill the house with nice things, or fix up the house. it keeps everyone busy.

if we cant do things this way, as energy starts costing more and people tighten thier belts, where can the $$ come from?

i understand for example massive expenditre on rail systems and pt to reduce oil reliance provides a lot of work for the construction sector. a

nd something like free insulation gets people spending on homes, but in a way that reduces long term power costs, brining a more lasting benefit - but can we really find a substitute in PERSONAL expenditure that carries longer term benefits in terms of structural reoorginisation in how we consume and where our power comes from.

some would say a solar panel on every roof, but i think thats baloney, as we wont be shutting down any coal given the non-peak supply. certainly solar hot water though makes sense... but governments should be careful in picking winners.

i think along the lines of things which encourage personal expenditure on eneregy efficienty certainly will carry a long term benefit. but at the same time, with population growth, i dont think we can get around issues of centralised supply - ie. coal, nuclear etc...

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:52 am

shutup nay-sayers!!! I want my $950 goddammit!

witty> beat me to it

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:53 am

same o wrote:
FoundationStepper wrote: sameo - i think it will help delay the knock on effect - given that our economy is a big supermarket anyway - but the question is, if we require the same $1k every 4 months to ward off contraction, is it really worth it? would it be better cutting tax, and gvt expenditure and letting people spend thier own money that they earn?
but wouldnt tax cuts reduce the base ammount which the goverment can get which i effect fucks everything up for every1???

imo spending money on infastructure is the best way to go, but doing things like this cant hurt.

we have a bloated system where middle class welfare is entrenched. many avaerage families pay no net tax once family payments are factored in. this money in and out from gvt carries a substantial implementation cost. if we reduced taxes, there could be many areas where we could reduce inefficient expenditure as well.

if our system is largely based on people buying shit, then we can letthem just get on with it.

this is the conservative argument anyway. im not sure which works.

same o · Post by **same o** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:55 am

almax wrote:
same o wrote: imo spending money on infastructure is the best way to go, but doing things like this cant hurt.

what needs to happen is for governments to start looking long term a little more and stop only doing what is needed in the short term just so they can get re-elected!

but goverment dont have a choice to help in the short term..

u cant just look at long term cuz that will fuck people, u need to be able to produce enough of a buffer that you
can look at both.

doing the 950 i think is good, but this does need to go hand in hand with spending on infastructure/creating jobs.

i know of some things that are going to k-rudd in the terms of the creation of green jobs, i cannot say a thing as i am
not supposed to know and my dad would get shat on if it got out.

but this $950 thing isnt the only thing which is apparently going to happen

almax · Post by **almax** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:06 am

FoundationStepper wrote: but governments should be careful in picking winners.

aroes · Post by **aroes** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:49 am

same o wrote: but the whole system needs to be fixed and that cant happen over night can it..

but it will heppen

spiral · Post by **spiral** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:52 am

devilfish the tb303
or half a refurbed macbook pro

shabana · Post by **shabana** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 8:56 pm

almax wrote:so what, will it just appear in our paycheck? or a cheque in the mail? do they even have my address...maybe we will have to get microchipped to claim the $950

i'd say it'll be dependent on your filling in a tax return for 08-09

nic · Post by **nic** » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:40 pm

it goes straight into your bank in april if you lodged a tax return last year.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:05 am

FoundationStepper wrote:So how many of us are employed in connection with a good or service, being a discretionary expenditure of consumers?

I certainly am.

I would think that the people affected by this would be in the majority - by far.

Retail, wholesaler, hospitality, tourism, etc etc etc.

Flow on effect is what it's all about. As long as the money stays in the country that is.

same o · Post by **same o** » Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:09 am

i am going straight to www.redeyerecords.co.uk
huhuhuhuhuhuhuhu