*The GFC was all the fault of government employees, wasn't it*

Nope, the GFC was the fault of the American people. They voted for
George Bush twice and Bush turned the SEC into a toothless tiger.
The rest is history.People get the politicians which they deserve.

*A pimple well worth squeezing*

A pimple simply does not matter. Being penny wise and pound foolish
does not get you far.

*Well then allow me to offer you some information - for free!*

Well I should hope that its for free, when its so flawed, lol.

Perhaps you should check what nominee companies actually do, they
are of course not the actual owners of shares. Many super funds use
them for a host of good reasons, to hold shares on their account.
HSBC provides financial services such as that, as do our banks.
Fact is that Australian workers have around 1.3 trillion $ in savings,
which is as much as the whole ASX is worth and banks make up for
around 25-30% of the ASX.

If the poor really want a few billion a year extra, they should stop
throwing those billions down the pokie machines, making Australians
the worlds biggest gamblers. If they spent that money buying bank
shares instead, they not only would be paid a dividend, but
participate in improving the Australian economy, as well as their
own lives. But of course, people like yourself, think that you are
entitled to something for nothing.

Yabby,

We are discussing the banks and their shareholders because I suggested that a bank super profit tax was one way to fund Tristan's suggested projects. I listed other ways, such an increased mining tax, a closing of the super rebate rort, reduction in military expenditure, eliminating the health insurance rebate, etc etc. I could add more, such as removal of commonwealth funding for private schools (such as Geelong Grammar).

You have chosen to focus on only one of these income streams, perhaps the one closest to your heart, the profits of our big 4 banks.

You have claimed that this would not be good for Australia because of the effect it would have on "Australian workers" superannuation entitlements.

Firstly, we know that not all the bank share profits are going into superannuation funds. Much of it finds its way into the hand of wealthy individuals, in Australia and overseas, through share investment, without super funds at all.

Secondly, when superannuation equals 1.3 trillion, any reduction in the share value that of the Big 4 banks would (to use your language) be but a pimple -the funds have numerous other investments which would dilute the effect.

And because the working poor will have have the smallest funds, any such effect (small) would automatically be borne by those who can afford it most - holders of larger funds.

In short, the average worker is likely to see very little difference at all in their super entitlements as a result of a bank super profit tax. They would, however, see its beneficial results through the sort of services Tristan suggests which a bank super profit tax would help pay for. I think you know this.

I don't think you're actually concerned with Australian workers at all Mr Yabbi. Your comments make clear you are principally concerned with the rich end of town, those who "deserve" all their wealth and should be protected from paying any of it for services which might be used by the rest of us. In that, we have a fundamental difference in values.

*I don't think you're actually concerned with Australian workers at all Mr Yabbi.*

I certainly am, Mrs Talk. Those millions of mums and dads who do the
right thing, get out of bed, get a job, get qualified, start a
business etc. The miners, shearers, mechanics, trckdrivers and all
the rest. They paddle their canoes and help themselves. I am
simply against those who stand around saying " I want, I want, I want,"
because they feel a sense of entitlement, for what everybody
else has worked for.

I am for those self funded retirees, who worked all their lives,
saved their pennies, did the right thing all their lives, who you
now seemingly want to call rich.

I am not against taxation at all. I am against super taxation,
when those with their sense of entitlement, want ever more, for
doing ever less. I believe that Govt assistance should be for
those who cannot help themselves, not for those who are too lazy
or can't be bothered.

So its kind of simple, Mrs Talk. Get off your butt, help yourself
and don't throw all your money down the pokies, then you can afford
the dentist.

Yabby,
One third of all Australians can't afford to see the dentist:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-01/dental-care-disgrace-back-under-the-spotlight/3981822

Many of these will be what are known as the "working poor". Some of them play the pokies. Most don't.

Those will include some shearers, mechanics, and truckdrivers.

It will also include telemarketers, waiters, shop attendants, social workers, super market check out operators... lots of different professions that help our society out, but who don't earn a lot.

The working poor won't include any miners, because mining is one area of the economy that is doing fabulously well, though only employing 2% of the workforce.

And yes, that third will include many, many people on NewStart, or the Disability Allowance, or the Aged Pension - people you seem to think unworthy of assistance, if not perhaps worthy of your derision and hate.

Don't try and pretend you support even a large number of *workers". The people who would notice any sort of difference to their super entitlements, or to their share portfolio under a bank (or mining) super profit tax would be a very small minority of the population.

The group you are so hasty to protect has a disproportionately large of people born with a silver spoon in their mouths - the Pratts, the Murdochs, the Fairfaxes, the Murdochs and the lesser versions of these families - who were wealthy the day they were born.

And for the rest, they will have used just as much luck and privilege as hard work to get them where they are.

The people who you are so keen to protect are doing just fine, they can afford to give more, and they really don't need you to stand up for them

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8684.0

Oh come on, Let's Talk. Australians in 2005 lost 15 billion $ on
gambling. Where is your evidence that the "working poor" mostly
don't gamble? In my experience its exactly the working poor who
do gamble, that is why they don't have the money to go to a dentist.

People make choices every day and some simply don't care about their
teeth, until they have toothache. So if you want to really help
the poor, limit the pokies and the poor will save billions.

If you take a close look at the statistics, you will find that there
are actually very few rich people in Australia. But you read their
names in the paper and arn't even aware of it, because envy gets to
you first. Fact is that people like the Pratts and Murdochs can
just as easily domicile their tax affairs elsewhere and pay little
tax in Australia.

If you really want to raise more taxes, I pointed out in my first
post, where it can be done. International companies like Google,
Apple and similar, can easily transfer price their profits out of
the country and pay little tax here. If the Govt was serious about
raising extra revenue, they are free to change the laws and do
something about it.

I'm about fair taxes all round, not just suggesting dumb taxes,
because other options are too hard for the bureaucrats

Yabby,

Firstly, is your position is really that a third of all Australians can't afford to visit the Dentist because of gambling problems? That is really quite an extraordinary claim, and much stronger than mine, which is simply of the same third of Australians, *most* don't play pokies. Consequently, you have the burden of proof I believe.

I come in contact with people in that "lower third" wealth group every day in my job. I wonder, how often do meet these people in your job? Do you have any knowledge about gambling addiction?

Secondly, your statement "take a look at the statistics and you'll see there a very few rich people in Australia" is close to meaningless unless we agree on what "rich" is. There are always less rich than poor of course, but that hardly supports your arguments at all.

What is more meaningful is to look at Australia's wealth and income distribution and compare it with countries of similar wealth. We come are slightly more equal in distribution than UK, considerably more than USA, but have higher income and wealth dispaarity to almost all the rich European countries, bar Portugal. Especially if we use Japan, Norway, Sweden or even Germany as models, our rich are large in number and are quite wealthy. See www.equalitytrust.org.au for more details.

The other interesting findings on recent research is that, as services improve and wealth/income equality increase in wealthy countries, *everyone* tends to share in the social benefits. So, if Australia moved towards those European and Japan models mentioned above, even our millionaires could enjoy lower crime rates, a better health system, better educated population, better public services etc. Compare that with all the social problems in the USA, which shows that even a huge GDP doesn't help your society much if you squander it on wars and let social services lapse for fear of taxing the rich.