Richest Australian worth as much as the country's poorest 2.27 mn (2 Viewers)

[SylviaB]

The circumstances you are born into are highly predictive of future success and attainment.

alternative explanation: smart become earn more money, intelligence is highly hereditary, high earners therefore have smarter kids and hence high-earning kids

Which makes a lot of sense, my SE background suggests I should be stupid and and destined for a low-income job, but that's not the case. The kids who never amounted to anything were already well behind in primary school and never got better. Giving them more money would never have helped them.

Without universal affordable quality health and education, this inequality would be entrenched to a much greater extent. The social goods provided by taxing the rich allow the opportunity of a better life to people who would otherwise be denied, not through laziness or any character flaw, but simply from the unfortunate circumstances of their birth.

I'm fairly certain he's not saying the rich shoudn't be taxed, its that the rich shouldn't be taxed more, which is entirely reasonable. To the extent that sufficient healthcare and education cannot be provided to the masses from the current amount of income tax revenue (which is not really the case), its absolutely because of the egregious wastefulness of the government, not the insufficiency of revenue.

, not through laziness or any character flaw,

I don't know how you could possibly believe that coming from a place like where you do.

 

[Graney]

Well yes it's likely the case that the children of rich people would on average perform relatively well even if they were switched at birth with some poor khunt.

But it's still desireable to level the playing field, for those with potential, which is some people born into poor circumstances.

I'm fairly certain he's not saying the rich shoudn't be taxed, its that the rich shouldn't be taxed more

Oh yeah, I think there's way too much wasteful middle class welfare, entitlement, excessive taxation... I interpreted his post as objecting to the principal of a progressive tax system, rather the practical reality of Aus 2014. To say the rich 'built their way up', and the poor just need to work harder is a bit true but also a bit bullshit.

I don't know how you could possibly believe that coming from a place like where you do.

I'm not sure what you mean by a place I come from? The central coast? Being a grifting welfare layabout?

I know a lot of people are poor due to their character flaw, but I mean there are a lot of people who are poor for no fair reason, and may escape poverty through public services I think.

my SE background suggests I should be stupid and and destined for a low-income job

But you didn't grow up in an environment free of public services, you're essentially proving my point - the public services didn't help some inherently flawed people in your class, but you had potential and those services probably enabled you to be more socially mobile than might have otherwise been the case.

 

[someth1ng]

I don't really know her story, but it's not physical or mental work that makes someone rich. It's not the hours clocked in or sore muscles you get. That's what these people surveyed don't understand. Just because they work hard physically and mentally (let's assume they do) that does not entitle them to anything. Just because someone isn't good with money it doesn't mean they have the right to be angry at those who are.

My response was to nerdasdasd and referring to the fact that the rich aren't rich because they worked hard - essentially, what you have said is what I just said to nerdasdasd and I never said that anyone is entitled to anything.

 

[iBibah]

My response was to nerdasdasd and referring to the fact that the rich aren't rich because they worked hard - essentially, what you have said is what I just said to nerdasdasd and I never said that anyone is entitled to anything.

Not really, it seemed like you were opposing the idea that she built her way up. Whether or not she's the mind behind the big decisions idk, but the fact is she increased her personal wealth significantly and it's not something anyone could do had they started with the same money.

 

[someth1ng]

Not really, it seemed like you were opposing the idea that she built her way up. Whether or not she's the mind behind the big decisions idk, but the fact is she increased her personal wealth significantly and it's not something anyone could do had they started with the same money.

With such an immense amount of money to begin with, that's very questionable - particularly because she chose the mining industry. If she did something that was more useful such as invent something, it would be a completely different story. In that case, you could say it was "not something anyone could do" but to go straight to the mining industry, I think if you start with a ridiculous amount of money, it really isn't that hard.

 

[iBibah]

With such an immense amount of money to begin with, that's very questionable - particularly because she chose the mining industry. If she did something that was more useful such as invent something, it would be a completely different story. In that case, you could say it was "not something anyone could do" but to go straight to the mining industry, I think if you start with a ridiculous amount of money, it really isn't that hard.

When she inherited in 1992, her estimated wealth was <100 mil.

Now it's 19-20 BILLION.

I doubt many people could pull that off. The problem is people think how much money you have or earn dictates financial success, but it really doesn't. Warren Buffet has said himself he picks up coin off the ground. It seems irrelevant, but its the attitude towards money that matter more. Yes she might have gotten a head start, but she had the right attitude to build her wealth, regardless of where or how she started.

 

[Graney]

You don't really need to be good with money if you have a lot of it. Having capital to start with already is sufficient to make boko cash.

If she'd taken $100 million inheritance in 1992 and just put the lot into S&P500, she would have $616 million today with dividend reinvestment, which is pretty good.

Of course that's a lot less than she did make. But you have to account for the fact that she was born holding an asset that was going to boom from 1992 to 2014. If she'd taken a completely hands off approach to the company she likely still would have outperformed the S&P500 and become a billionaire with zero involvement.

If you look at some of her compatriots, like tinkler and palmer, infamously awful and incompetent businessmen, who just happened to be in the same industry as rinehart in this period, and look at how well they did in that period, it says something about the skill required.

 

[Crobat]

My response was to nerdasdasd and referring to the fact that the rich aren't rich because they worked hard - essentially, what you have said is what I just said to nerdasdasd and I never said that anyone is entitled to anything.

I feel like maybe Gina Rinehart maybe isn't the only rich person in the world, nor does her situation account for every rich person in the world.

 

[kaz1]

When looking at income inequality the discussion should be about how to get poor people rich, not how do we fuck over rich people.

 

[someth1ng]

I feel like maybe Gina Rinehart maybe isn't the only rich person in the world, nor does her situation account for every rich person in the world.

In an earlier post, I clearly showed that I wasn't using Gine Rinehart as a generalisation for all rich people - it was a direct response to the fact that nerdasdasd generalised and gave an impression that all rich people work hard, which is very questionable. In future, consider reading the thread before jumping on a single post.

When looking at income inequality the discussion should be about how to get poor people rich, not how do we fuck over rich people.

Taxing them a bit more will hardly "fuck over rich people".

 

[kaz1]

In an earlier post, I clearly showed that I wasn't using Gine Rinehart as a generalisation for all rich people - it was a direct response to the fact that nerdasdasd generalised and gave an impression that all rich people work hard, which is very questionable. In future, consider reading the thread before jumping on a single post.


Taxing them a bit more will hardly "fuck over rich people".

The super rich already get taxed at 45% if they don't exploit their tax loopholes. How much more do you want to squeeze out?

 

[Crobat]

My response was to nerdasdasd and referring to the fact that the rich aren't rich because they worked hard

In an earlier post, I clearly showed that I wasn't using Gine Rinehart as a generalisation for all rich people - it was a direct response to the fact that nerdasdasd generalised and gave an impression that all rich people work hard, which is very questionable. In future, consider reading the thread before jumping on a single post.


Taxing them a bit more will hardly "fuck over rich people".

And which post would that be? The post where you identified that some rich people actually earned their money through hard work and then only talked about Gina Rinehart from which you somehow went to definitively concluding the bold?

Acknowledging one thing and then concluding another separately after considering one case study does not infer you were not using her as a generalisation for the entire populous.

In the future, consider not phrasing your response to a generalisation in generalised terms instead of telling other people who are well aware of what you have said and have logically followed your comments that they are wrong. For example, consider using the word "some" instead of prefixing a grouped term in the context of the discussion like "rich" with "the" you condescending fuckwit.

 

[Kiraken]

when people are talking about "the rich" in this thread, how rich are you guys talking btw?

 

[JohnMaximus]

when people are talking about "the rich" in this thread, how rich are you guys talking btw?

 

[Absolutezero]

Let's all just be calm, and start being nicer. Come on you guys.

 

[abbeyroad]

The super rich already get taxed at 45% if they don't exploit their tax loopholes. How much more do you want to squeeze out?

why 45%? why not make it 100%???

in fact why not 'communise' everything they own????

proletariats of the world unite111!!!! let's throw off these chains of oppression and rob these dirty rich people blind!1!!!!!

 

[Graney]

Do you feel 45% income tax is a significant injustice?

 

[isildurrrr1]

Do you feel 45% income tax is a significant injustice?

You make taxes too high, people will figure out ways to make it lower.

If I'm paying 45%, I'll just park my money into negative geared properties.

 

[nerdasdasd]

You make taxes too high, people will figure out ways to make it lower.

If I'm paying 45%, I'll just park my money into negative geared properties.

Or declare higher expenses

 

[Graney]

It's not really 'figuring it out', you're using the tax system as intended, because the government perceives there's a social good in orientating the tax system that way. It's not tax evasion or freedom.

Negative gearing is really overhyped, at the end of the day you're intentionally buying a loss making investment, losing one dollar to make $0.50, you're just hoping for capital gains to make up the difference.