- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,874
- Reactions
- 13,929
The question is will the electorate believe the Santa stuff or will they be worried that if the Libs get back they will revert to type and try on the Medicare co-payment stuff again.
The Turnbull Government
- Thread starter drsmith
- Start date
The question is will the electorate believe the Santa stuff or will they be worried that if the Libs get back they will revert to type and try on the Medicare co-payment stuff again.
The electorate investigate into the budget even less than you do. They will believe whatever scare campaign is put forward. Unions as we speak, are slugging members for a war chest against libs.
They get labor in and then labor has to abolish the ABCC and another govt department. So they can go on with mafia like activities without repercussions.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,874
- Reactions
- 13,929
I suppose you have read it all have you ?
The Libs run a protection racket for big business and Labor do the same for the unions, that's the way it is.
The Mafia leaders in big business are no better than the union Mafioso, just a lot better paid.
The Fizzer just pays for his own war chest
PZ.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,422
- Reactions
- 2,617
Medicare co-payment is political poison, so we can rule that out. The only skeleton in the 2014 closet that I can remember is the pension age going to 70 which is still their policy today.
This budget to me looks like a deliberate contrast with the ALP's tax policies and sets the tone for the next election IMO. Politics will suddenly get very boring now because it'll be dominated by tax and taxes
And the ALP are in a lot of sheet at the moment. So the timing's just right.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,874
- Reactions
- 13,929
I expect that Shorten will outbid the Coalition on tax cuts for low and middle income earners and get some of the edge back. The by elections will tell how both sides are travelling.
I haven't condemned it, or championed it without reading it.
Yes backs his vision with his own money. Not handouts ripped from union members to back an agenda.
Yeah truth.
PZ.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,422
- Reactions
- 2,617
Here you go people > TAX+TAX÷TAXxTAX÷TAX÷[URL='http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/labor-promises-bigger-tax-cuts-for-workers/news-story/dbc64304470c4f34a3657bd2038d92a5']TAX-TAX = [URL='http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/labor-promises-bigger-tax-cuts-for-workers/news-story/dbc64304470c4f34a3657bd2038d92a5']TAX[/URL][/URL]
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
Another way you could look at it.
Don't take my defense as a liberal endorsement.
I won't vote for them, as they are possibly the worst government to encroach on peoples freedom's. The seem to want to get their grubby little fingers in everyone's business. And have destroyed privacy.
Snooping in peoples phones, computers, bank accounts, making cash dissappear, etc. Basically turning totalitarian imo.
The right to privacy is gone. And their push for digital cash just makes it easier for them to take your money.
Turnbull sprouting the old liberal mantra of "Government should keep out of your business" seems laughable under his rule. Freedom is being destroyed.
But given a choice between the budgets at this moment I'd lean lib.
Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
He's like a Marxist wearing a blue riband.
His whimpering endorsement and dead hand with the NBN at Abbott's instruction was a tipping point for me. He should have stood up and been counted on to LNP rebrand it, but push the original idea through.
Agree.
Why spend all that money for a half assed product that won't age well.
Some policy and direction I agree with and other policy I hate.
But realistically its either lab or lib.
Not to mention the new brand of lefty snowflakes give me the shi.ts. So leaning right atm.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,874
- Reactions
- 13,929
No doubt that Labor have gone soft as far as personnel is concerned. Social inclusion by quota is now their game and its not working as the appointment of Nova Peris showed.
They are missing out on talent. There are few Hawkes or Keatings or Tanners in the ranks but I'd still rank them over muppets like Morrison, Pyne and Dutton.
The Libs have had their day I reckon. The farce over the RC into banks, the pathetic NBN delivery, the tax plan that will give massive benefits to the high end who don't need it and don't deserve it, protection of tax avoidance schemes like NG, capital gains, family trusts etc shows that their focus is on the upper end of the income stream while the majority get a few crumbs.
They had their chance and they blew it. Good riddance to them (I hope).
Triathlete
Keep it Simple..!
- Joined
- 10 November 2014
- Posts
- 638
- Reactions
- 88
Since the budget it seems that both sides will be battling it out in regards to how fair and how much should the Tax cuts be for individuals and whether businesses need further tax cuts so hopefully they take a few things into consideration........
This is an old one but appropriate:
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 curve ball.
“Since 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 men would 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 realised 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” 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 benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their 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 government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally 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 have our jobs gone) where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
ANONYMOUS
This is an old one but appropriate:
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 curve ball.
“Since 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 men would 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 realised 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 a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” 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 benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their 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 government ministers, is how our tax system works.
The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally 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 have our jobs gone) where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
ANONYMOUS
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,967
- Reactions
- 26,830
Yep, then when that is all spent, who do you hit next? Those who have done fluck all. lol
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-...-construction-union-bosses-dropped-by/9766648
Pulled over with his family on a blackmail charge
Seriously what has this place become?
