And lets shine some light on a few other holes in your theory of “self-reliance”.

Those people who have “forgone immediate indulgence and gratification to save for their own future through negative geared investment” in fact “rely” completely on the existence of other people who are not in a position to own their own home, and are using money earned by their tenants - from their work - to pay off the mortgage. You call that “saving” for their future – more like stealing for their future (legally of course). Not only that, when the rent paid doesn’t cover all of the outgoings, they put their hand out to the tax payers of this country for a tax deduction.

Their ability to do so is “reliant” upon the laws of this land which are administered and enforced by the state. But you detest people who rely on the state for their every need, don’t you Col?

Indeed, the profitability of every other “investment” is “reliant” upon the work done by others, and the laws of the state.

So in reality – you know – the real world, not your little bubble world, the only thing you do with your little plans and schemes is work out how already wealthy people (including yourself) can further extract money from the people who do the real productive work i.e. you are a parasite. And you rely on the state to make it “legal”.

Col when you bragged about your income, your self reliance and your attitude that because you are financially successful, if others aren't they must be losers. You like to emphasize your total independence from others. For these reasons it was entirely apt for me to emphasize your isolation from the general populace such as myself, by the method I used.

I note that you still have nothing to say about tax fraud and appear unable to justify negative gearing in ethical terms.

Yabby, mate, you had a go at people receiving welfare living in their own homes - in other words you started it. Also it is a shame you hold such a dim view of the younger generation. Perhaps they just value friends and family over isolation and $ working in a mine. Strange how every generation views the up and coming one as ungrateful.

Money is not what it is all about.

Scout, I don't take a dim view of the younger generation at all.
There are plenty out there thriving, doing their thing in life.
I take a dim view of the Tristans of this world, who complain about how bad things are and how taxpayers should provide bigger handouts.

Most of those doing the loudest complaining, could quite easily
get off their little arses and do something for themselves, rather then expect life on a plate.

Depends what you call having a go btw. Yup I highlighted the fact that many on welfare own their own homes and cope quite well with
their budgets. Lucky them, go to Europe to see how many own their
own homes, lots of workers can't even afford that there. So things
in Aus are relatively actually pretty darn good for welfare recipients.

Money is not what its all about, but money matters to pay the bills
for services and goods that we expect others to provide for us.
I'll work to pay my own bills and don't expect others to do it for
me. But I'm also aware that Govts spend about 40% of GDP, so most of us who do work, work about 5 months of the year for the common good, we do our share

Tao “the self-reliant one- actually rely on the work of others to meet your every material need.”

Hardly but attempting explaining it to you would be akin to “casting pearls before swine”.

As for “When you actually recognize and acknowledge this fact, you may find that you are indeed well on the way to “developing into a complete person and individual”

I will develop more as a “complete and individual person” than those cripples who covet the constriction of co-dependent relationships with their fellow humans, as promoted by the politics of socialism (I experienced growing up with that crap in UK in the 1950’s and saw the collapse of the British economy in the late 1960’s as the outcome).

Now “using money earned by their tenants - from their work - to pay off the mortgage.”
Nothing comes free in this world, get used to it. I suggest you stop looking for the state or your landlord to support you in the manner you have come to expect. Parasitism is not becoming – (although you would claim it of me, the real parasite is you).

“But you detest people who rely on the state for their every need, don’t you Col?”

I detest no one, I am not responsible for them. However, do not assume I lack compassion or altruism You just do not know, the likely cry of the co-dependent is to value themselves on what they “claim” to do for others. The self-reliant do what they see as needs doing, without expectation of social acclaim or return.

Tao, in the real world, the self-reliant can trade with other self-reliant people to mutual benefit.
Your piffling rubbish would enslave us all to the dictates of some central committee (doubtless controlled by you and your parasitic ilk, who do not care one iota about the people just power and to “rule”. You just talk the talk of division and envy.

Scout, you have judged who are “losers”, not me.

“Money” is never what it is all about, It surprises me you can get off your "envy-platform" to even realise that.

Col

Yes, attempting to successfully and coherently explain your (patently unoriginal) theory which is completely underpinned by an unsound and unsupported premise would be a bit difficult, even with your “reliance” on your multiple qualifications taught to you by others, and the theories left to you by your ideological forebears a few hundred years ago.

The result is diversionary tactics, upside down logic, introduction of further completely unsupported statements and judgements, and just plain obfuscatory vituperation.

An entirely unconvincing effort, displaying the intellectual rigour of a year nine boy.

Scout, once again, there is nothing enticing about negative gearing. IT IS A LOSS MAKING VENTURE. People do not buy properties to negatively gear, they buy them because they believe they will increase in value, and this speculation adds even more demand, further increasing the prices of property. So wouldn't the obvious question be: "where are they getting the money from to fuel this demand?" Clearly, it is obscenely loose monetary policy causing speculation, NOT negative gearing.

----"Low¨Incomes:¨logic¨simply¨states that¨the¨more¨money¨a¨consumer has¨available¨to¨spend¨on¨commodities the¨more¨profitable¨the¨market. I¨certainly¨restrict¨my¨purchases according¨to¨income¨and¨need. I¨am¨hardly¨unique¨in¨this. Also¨low¨incomes¨further¨restrict people¨from¨purchasing¨their own¨homes¨–¨hardly¨a¨positive for¨the¨economy."

Naturally, more wealth equals more wealth, but redistribution of wealth does not create more wealth. It is idiotic to say there is an advantage in redistributing wealth from person A to person B so person B can buy more of person A's goods. Where is the new wealth? How does this benefit the economy as a whole? It just creates distortions and retards wealth creation in general by removing incentive. The state cannot create new wealth - if it did then it wouldn't have to leech off private individuals through taxation.

* * * *

tao, what is your point exactly? Of course people can't be completely self-reliant. They can be self-responsible though. I believe there has been a confusion between these two concepts which you have exploited to subtly try and justify collective responsibility. If this is not the case, then again, what is your point - how does this relate to taxation or provision of public services? The need to rely on others in no way necessitates forceful redistribution of wealth.

----"Not¨only¨that,¨when¨the rent¨paid¨doesn’t¨cover¨all¨of¨the outgoings,¨they¨put¨their¨hand out¨to¨the¨tax¨payers of¨this¨country¨for¨a¨tax¨deduction."

Tax not paid is not a subsidy received.

Why should anyone pay tax on net income they aren't earning?

----"Their¨ability¨to¨do¨so¨is¨“reliant”¨upon the¨laws¨of¨this¨land¨which¨are administered¨and¨enforced¨by¨the¨state. But¨you¨detest¨people¨who¨rely on¨the¨state¨for¨their¨every¨need,¨don’t¨you¨Col?"

This point is fallacious, as it is the INACTION of the state that results in negative gearing, as negative gearing is a deduction. In fact without a state, nobody would be paying ANY tax. Saying you need a state to obtain deductions is like saying you need to have a door to walk in to a building.