manticle
Standing up for the Aussie Bottler
AmenLiam_snorkel said:Think of the things that could be achieved if she donated $1 to charity for every dim sim she ate
AmenLiam_snorkel said:Think of the things that could be achieved if she donated $1 to charity for every dim sim she ate
That would fund Medicare for 10yrs....just the interest alone would build a nice new hospital every year.Liam_snorkel said:Think of the things that could be achieved if 95% of her $22,000,000,000 were invested in something worthwhile. Medical research
That's a long way from half.Overall, in the three years, 0.04 percent of customers were convicted of fraud.
Yep.. Anecdotes (the plural of anecdote is anecdotes not data) and gossip.Anecdotes about people feigning illness or disability, living on welfare while avoiding work, or collecting benefits while working, became a standard part of social gossip
In fact, that is how the OAP started here - with contributions going into a separate fund (ie, not consolidated revenue). But the pollies' greed got too great and they just rolled it all into one (back in the 1950s I think) so they could access that money for general handouts.Bribie G said:The UK welfare system is based on the National Insurance Contributions Scheme set up after the Second World War, and is basically a State run super type scheme. Every week, a contribution is taken out of your pay and accrues in your Nat Insurance account, and if you are unemployed for a while and when you retire, this contribution .. did you see the word Insurance above? pays out.
Perhaps a big mistake made by Australia (whingeing pom cap on) is that this was not adopted in Australia at that time because there was huge economic growth and low unemployment, mostly due to immigration, and ever onward and upward etc... no need ever to have a contributory system like the UK.
You do realise that Gina does not have some massive vault where she hoards away that $22,000,000,000? I imagine you think she unlocks the door each evening and counts it all and has a big cackle.Liam_snorkel said:Let's put it this way, if she donated or lost 95% of her wealth, she would still have $1.1 billion to play with.
That isn't just rich, that is unimaginably wealthy. Think of the things that could be achieved if 95% of her $22,000,000,000 were invested in something worthwhile. Medical research. ******* space exploration. But instead she will hoard it and condescend the people who need to work day to day just to eat.
Couldn't have put it better and to emphasise how those fortunes change is aptly detailed in the following article in todays Financial Review When the **** hits the fans those with most to loose loose most!!!stm said:Actually, that value is all invested in productive businesses that employ huge numbers of people, generate a huge amount of additional wealth for those people each year, and pay directly and indirectly massive amounts of tax to the Australian government each year. The value of those businesses is the measure of her wealth. If she can increase the value of those businesses by making more profit, then that flows directly through as more wealth and prosperity for the country.
Thanks for the economics lesson, wow I have now seen the lightstm said:You do realise that Gina does not have some massive vault where she hoards away that $22,000,000,000? I imagine you think she unlocks the door each evening and counts it all and has a big cackle.
Actually, that value is all invested in productive businesses that employ huge numbers of people, generate a huge amount of additional wealth for those people each year, and pay directly and indirectly massive amounts of tax to the Australian government each year. The value of those businesses is the measure of her wealth. If she can increase the value of those businesses by making more profit, then that flows directly through as more wealth and prosperity for the country.
If she does accumulate some money in the bank, then the bank can use that money to lend to other start-up businesses so that they can grow and employ more people, pay more taxes etc.
What won't work very well is if everyone just handed over all their wealth to the government and then let the government decide how it should be invested and/or spent. It's been tried before and has not worked. Indeed, it has led to the greatest numbers of mass murders, deaths from famine, and general misery and poverty ever seen (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim il Sung etc).
Actually... I reckon she does.stm said:You do realise that Gina does not have some massive vault where she hoards away that $22,000,000,000? I imagine you think she unlocks the door each evening and counts it all and has a big cackle.
Like playing two-up inside a blue whalewide eyed and legless said:And wide -eyed - if you could really put your face between those legs, then I consider that punishment enough.
Sorry Manticle I have changed my mind about that, I keep thinking of that old joke where the guy asks if he can go inside the womans fanny and see's someone else in there, he asked the guy what he was doing and he said he was looking for his shoe.
Lang, noting the changes he saw taking place in his daughter after her second marriage, famously remarked in a letter to her: "At least allow me to remember you as the neat, trim, capable and attractive young lady of the 'Wake Up Australia' tour [when she was married to Greg Milton], rather than the slothful, vindictive and devious baby elephant that you have become. I am glad your mother cannot see you now."
Rinehart has no public policy experience beyond lobbying and rent-seeking. She is a businesswoman but not an economist nor an expert on politics or political economy. She has no expertise on social issues or social work or psychology. She is neither a lawyer nor a tax expert.
Rinehart’s views on the economy -- tax cuts, lower spending and wage cuts -- share an uncomfortable cohesion with her denial of climate change. They are a thinly veiled attempt to make herself richer at the expense of other Australians.
full article:But misguided and opportunistic politics is one thing. The real concern is that people will look at Rinehart’s success and use that as evidence that she must know what she is talking about. Unfortunately, really smart people can be incredibly silly on topics outside their specialty. Instead, we should look to actual experts to provide clarity on the issues of the day.
Don't believe everything that former Treasurer Wayne Swan tells you! In fact, the tax rate that mining pays (as a proportion of taxable income) is higher than the average across all industries. Actual facts and evidence can be found here:Airgead said:Less than 10% of mining profit is paid in tax according to the latest figures.
I'd love my tax rate to be under 10%. And to have all my fuel subsidised on top of that. And to be able to write off capital investment at will. And all the other subsidies they get.
Actually... not Swan... ATO figures. I can dig out the links later.stm said:Don't believe everything that former Treasurer Wayne Swan tells you! In fact, the tax rate that mining pays (as a proportion of taxable income) is higher than the average across all industries. Actual facts and evidence can be found here:
http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/publications/mca_backgrounder_FINAL.pdf
Hope this helps.