DA at it again

I know R150 000 is not that much, but it is more then a lot of people are earning. A large percentage of people earn minimum wage which works out to about R11000 a year. I said R150 000 because it is an average middle class income, and because after R140 000 you are in the tax bracket of above 25%
Please stop acting like a 2 year old, you have no idea how much my income is.

R11 000?

As far as I was aware pretty much the lowest minimum wage you could get was around R1400 a month (give or take R50). Under those circumstances:

1400 x 12 = R16 800.

Where did you get R11 000 from?

That works out at a monthly salary of: R916.66

Which employment sector lists that as it's minimum wage?
 
You may think this is cold-hearted because you sound kind of socialist but: "Why is this my problem?"

I am not at all a socialist (I like my money too much) but I can be a capitalist and still feel something for those that are less fortunate then I. I can also understand that those earning far less then I can barely afford to eat never mind pay equal taxes then me. I also understand that we live in a country where wealth is very much a minority state, a hefty amount of SA'ns are earning far less then most on this forum, but these people are entitled to human wants and needs.
 
R11 000?

As far as I was aware pretty much the lowest minimum wage you could get was around R1400 a month (give or take R50). Under those circumstances:

1400 x 12 = R16 800.

Where did you get R11 000 from?

That works out at a monthly salary of: R916.66

Which employment sector lists that as it's minimum wage?

Um, so a salary of R16000 a year is a lot? I miscalculated on the amount but minimum wage is R1100 a month.
 
I am not at all a socialist (I like my money too much) but I can be a capitalist and still feel something for those that are less fortunate then I. I can also understand that those earning far less then I can barely afford to eat never mind pay equal taxes then me. I also understand that we live in a country where wealth is very much a minority state, a hefty amount of SA'ns are earning far less then most on this forum, but these people are entitled to human wants and needs.

IMO they are not entitled to receive human wants and needs based on nothing but the fact that they exist. Nobody is allowed to take their stuff away from them, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to these "wants and needs" in return for nothing. Society at large also shouldn't be under an obligation to provide these people with their wants and needs through increased taxes.

EDIT: I can understand helping someone out for a limited period of time while between jobs or something but a lot of the people receiving welfare today have never produced anything and have no skills. The likelihood of them ever being in a position to produce anything is pretty slim because there are no opportunities for them to learn any skills. The government just hands out welfare and leaves the people as passive recipients forever instead of embarking on a system that will empower the populous. At that point I should not be obligated to provide for these people.
 
Last edited:
Taxation for Ronjay
Taxes and Tax Cuts in Terms of Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the
bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill
the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite
happy with the arrangement until one day the owner threw
them a curved ball (or is that a curved beer!).
'Because you are all such good customers,' he
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily
beer by $20.'

Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay
our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They
would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if
they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the
fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to
drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to
reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and
he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And
so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%
savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free. But once outside the
restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared
the sixth man.. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he
got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth
man. 'I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that
he got ten times more than me!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man.
'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The
wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in
unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The
system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks,
so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when
it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They didn't have enough money between
all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our Tax System works. The people who pay
the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy
and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might
start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Universityof Georgia
 
IMO they are not entitled to receive human wants and needs based on nothing but the fact that they exist. Nobody is allowed to take their stuff away from them, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to these "wants and needs" in return for nothing. Society at large also shouldn't be under an obligation to provide these people with their wants and needs through increased taxes.

EDIT: I can understand helping someone out for a limited period of time while between jobs or something but a lot of the people receiving welfare today have never produced anything and have no skills. The likelihood of them ever being in a position to produce anything is pretty slim because there are no opportunities for them to learn any skills. The government just hands out welfare and leaves the people as passive recipients forever instead of embarking on a system that will empower the populous. At that point I should not be obligated to provide for these people.

But we are not talking about people that are just sitting around and doing nothing. We are talking about people who are trying to make a living but have no skills or education to get them a higher paying job but still need to have a roof over there heads, have access to water and clothing and educate their children to stop the cycle of being poor. You know, basic human rights.
 
// goes emo

Acording to Ronjay I need a raise

oh damm and I'm white.. I though only black people are scnaaied.
 
But we are not talking about people that are just sitting around and doing nothing. We are talking about people who are trying to make a living but have no skills or education to get them a higher paying job but still need to have a roof over there heads, have access to water and clothing and educate their children to stop the cycle of being poor. You know, basic human rights.

I think perhaps you misunderstand how human rights work.

The right to receive something for nothing is not a human right. It is not the responsibility of the government, nor is it my responsibility to provide free housing for people just because they exist. I can't take their house away, but they don't deserve a free house just for being human.

Actually those who are counted as "unemployed" in our country are those that aren't currently seeking employment. They have given up. They are just "sitting around and doing nothing". If we included people that are actively looking for work and were recently employed and are between jobs as "unemployed" then our official unemployment rate would be far higher.
 
Last edited:
And it is somehow my fault that he had children that he couldn't take care of? He was irresponsible , HE should pay for it, on his own and in full. people don't just pull a trigger by accident, you've got to be responsible in life, and if you aren't responsible, it's not for someone else to pick up ur ****. or forever build where you destroyed.

Forget how to read? where did I say he never took care of his kids? Actually I don't know much about his kids but I do know that they are working and that they do have an education.
 
Lol. I'm not saying we must punish the richer tax payers at all. But how exactly is it the poor mans fault that you make a lot of taxable income and the poor man does not?

This is possibly the craziest thing I have ever read.

It isn't the poor man's fault. However it isn't the rich person's fault that the poor man is poor. The rich man shouldn't now pay more tax just to help out the poor man. If you force the rich man to do this for long enough and raise the taxes high enough eventually the rich man will just move his assets elsewhere.

You say we shouldn't punish rich people but at the same time refer to his income as "taxable". Hilarious. Why should income be taxable? Why punish production and hard work?
 
Last edited:
Lol. I'm not saying we must punish the richer tax payers at all. But how exactly is it the poor mans fault that you make a lot of taxable income and the poor man does not?

I guess you didn't follow the analogy. That's ok there are many who can't (or don't want to)
 
I think perhaps you misunderstand how human rights work.

The right to receive something for nothing is not a human right. It is not the responsibility of the government, nor is it my responsibility to provide free housing for people just because they exist. I can't take their house away, but they don't deserve a free house just for being human.

Actually those who are counted as "unemployed" in our country are those that aren't currently seeking employment. They have given up. They are just "sitting around and doing nothing". If we included people that are actively looking for work and were recently employed and are between jobs as "unemployed" then our official unemployment rate would be far higher.

You are arguing about taxing the people with minimum wage by talking about those that do not earn anything? I think you are confusing yorserlf, i never once spoke about the completely unemployed, only those that are employed but earn very little.
 
This is possibly the craziest thing I have ever read.

It isn't the poor man's fault. However it isn't the rich person's fault that the poor man is poor. The rich man shouldn't now pay more tax just to help out the poor man. If you force the rich man to do this for long enough and raise the taxes high enough eventually the rich man will just move his assets elsewhere.

You say we shouldn't punish rich people but at the same time refer to his income as "taxable". Hilarious.

Usually that Rich man's income is portable.
 
You are arguing about taxing the people with minimum wage by talking about those that do not earn anything? I think you are confusing yorserlf, i never once spoke about the completely unemployed, only those that are employed but earn very little.

I think you are confusing not only yourself, but half this forum as well. Why not reread the dribble you type before hitting "post"...

You are obviously oblivious to all things financial, there is a saying that springs to mind - "When you are as adamant as you are on a topic to which you have no clue, you are probably in the ANCYL" Me.
 
You are arguing about taxing the people with minimum wage by talking about those that do not earn anything? I think you are confusing yorserlf, i never once spoke about the completely unemployed, only those that are employed but earn very little.

Actually I am talking about human rights. You brought up the topic of human rights, not me (see your post quote up ahead). Human rights apply to everyone regardless of their employment status. Whether the person is sitting around doing nothing or is employed and earning a living is irrelevant. Receiving a house for free is NOT a human right regardless of how much you earn. Nobody is entitled to that despite the fact that you seem to regard it as a basic human right:

... a roof over there heads, have access to water and clothing and educate their children to stop the cycle of being poor. You know, basic human rights.


At the same time it is unfair to tax one group and not the other. It is also IMO inherently stupid to tax production. This just makes people less willing to produce more because they know the more they produce the larger the piece the government is going to take. I have actually met people who are on the edge of a particular tax bracket and don't take a small raise because it will push them into the next tax bracket and as a result they will take home less at the end of the day. The same principle applies to production in a factory. The factory will reduce production if overall it means that they will be bumped into the bottom end of the next tax bracket and overall lose profit. Cutting production like this is not good for the country. This sort of tax system can be destructive.

This is obviously a simplistic view of things and it is to be expected because I am not an economist, if I am viewing this topic incorrectly someone please tell me why. This is a genuine request and not some sort of challenging statement (I admit it does come across like that but merely because I am not expressing myself properly.)
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X