|
For the 2PP I figure Labor have such a deep hole to dig themselves out of (a 5 point swing that puts them still in arse-kicked territory? Yeah), and if you were bothered by the corruption in the Coalition then Labor doesn't present a much more enticing prospect.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:09 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 02:52 |
|
Cartoon posted:Here's a better direct link: Thanks Cartoon, I was just wondering where you go to make that submission before you posted this. Quick tip though for anyone else going to the page: copy your responses in a text file or something before you submit, cause I just had the page crash on me after I agonized over my 1 paragraph, and lost it.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:09 |
|
Negligent posted:telling the Prime Minister to gently caress off is a pretty solid start to his career in the Senate It's going in to the trailer when Working Dog Productions make the movie.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:11 |
|
Clugg posted:So my maths lecturer got an article on the front page of The Age's website today: I used to do IT support for them. Burkard is a cool dude, Marty could be a drama queen.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:13 |
|
quote:NSW Who is the Premier: Baird 46 O'Farrell 9 Other 3 Does this mean Baird only just beat out Don't Know? And let's not forget that about the most notable thing about John Robertson's career as opposition leader so far is that he "forgot" to report a $3 million bribe offer. At least he didn't take it I guess?
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:18 |
|
Finally got the submission to work, Cartoon! You guys should get your rear end over there and submit something too. You don't need to fill in all the fields, I just picked the one at the end and typed my generic rant in there.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:24 |
|
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:43 |
|
quote:Napthine government faces fresh crisis, as Ken Smith vows to support Labor over Geoff Shaw Holy poo poo. e: the gently caress is a nuff-nuff
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:45 |
|
adamantium|wang posted:e: the gently caress is a nuff-nuff Probably some type of grub.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:49 |
|
The one I saw had him listed as "The Dishonourable"
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:51 |
|
adamantium|wang posted:Holy poo poo. Awesome, Geoff Shaw is a loving arsehole and deserves to be kicked out. Ken Smith is retiring in November, so will be a great retirement gift for him. Nuff-nuff: a retard
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:59 |
|
adamantium|wang posted:Jesus loving wept Other highlights: Children in the Nauru detention centre are not adequately screened for disease, resulting in the likelihood that many are carrying undiagnosed blood-borne diseases and up to 50% are carrying latent tuberculosis. There are no paediatricians employed in the centre and no paediatric life support available on Nauru. There is no clear child protection framework for children inside the centre and it is unclear what child protection checks are undertaken for Nauruan staff. This, according to the report, “places them [asylum seeker children] at significant risk of sexual abuse”. In a 14-month period between 2012 and 2013 there were 102 cases of self-harm, including 28 hanging attempts by 18 detainees; 6.3% of the asylum seekers are on psychotropic medication to treat mental illness. There were 53 medical transfers to Australia in 2012-13 at a cost of $85,000 a transfer, with the report also noting that these can take up to 36 hours to complete. Living conditions are “crowded, hot and humid” with children having “limited meaningful play”. Children play with stones. There is an apparent significant risk of groundwater contamination as a result of poor waste management at the detention centre.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 03:59 |
|
webmeister posted:Does this mean Baird only just beat out Don't Know? Yeah I've just gotten through digesting this. Jesus loving wept. 100K NSW voters can't tell the difference between Liberal/National and Lib Dem. Fifty four percent of NSW citizens don't know who our premier is. Are we through pretending compulsory voting is anything but a sham at this point?
|
# ? May 30, 2014 04:06 |
|
Counterargument: The recent EU elections show what can happen when only the passionate supporters turn up.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 04:09 |
|
Cartoon posted:Here's a better direct link: Thanks Cartoon. In case anyone cares, here's a copy paste of bits I put in the different boxes: quote:ABC, The Guardian and New Matilda have published comprehensive reports which show that offshore mandatory immigration detention is having a disastrous effect on young people:
|
# ? May 30, 2014 04:09 |
|
adamantium|wang posted:Holy poo poo. Holy poo poo is right.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 04:10 |
|
Mr Chips posted:Does anyone know where to find the quintile breakdowns for a)income earned and b)fraction of total tax paid? (ie the top 20% of income earners make X% of all earned income and pay Y% of all income tax paid). I've been trawling the ABS but haven't found anything explicit. See below from CNBC - The Rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101264757 In the USA top 20% pays 94% of income taxes. In the USA top 40% pays 106.2% of income taxes. In Australia the numbers are more [insert adjective here] There is a chart here showing the top 20% pays roughly 60% of all taxes in Australia. http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/Paper.aspx?doc=html/publications/papers/report/section_3-03.htm Which is discussed in more detail here: http://cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-63.pdf Hypation fucked around with this message at 04:53 on May 30, 2014 |
# ? May 30, 2014 04:50 |
|
Hypation posted:In the USA top 40% pays 106.2% of income taxes. Well, with numbers like that consider me won over, sir. e: when you include the bottom 3 quintiles, does the total income tax paid amount to over 200%?
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:05 |
When you factor in indirect taxes, which tories don't, there's not much difference in effective tax rate. http://mattcowgill.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/playing-games-with-tax-statistics/ Hypation posted:Which is discussed in more detail here: http://cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-63.pdf quote:Sinclair Davidson
|
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:06 |
|
That's some bullshit maths. E: Specifically the idea that more than 100% of the income tax revenue could be paid in income tax.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:06 |
|
Nah the maths is sound. They're factoring in social services, so when you add up all those foodstamps that the poors are living it up on, they actually pay negative taxes! Lucky duckies.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:08 |
|
They're factoring in social services and rebates and poo poo but are only talking about income tax because it lets them say misleading stuff like "one group is paying more than 100 percent of individual income taxes".
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:10 |
|
It's legit. For every 100 cars GM makes, for instance, they make 106 cars. I've noticed than when I started earning over 60k a year for each $100 I spent on hookers I spent $106 on hookers.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:13 |
|
Sanguine posted:I've noticed than when I started earning over 60k a year for each $100 I spent on hookers I spent $106 on hookers.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:16 |
|
Sanguine posted:Well, with numbers like that consider me won over, sir. Doctor Spaceman posted:That's some bullshit maths. So the math works by considering the tax burden on individuals which is the tax they pay minus the deductions and rebates they receive. For example, suppose you divide an economy into two groups A and B and: Group A pays $10 in Tax to the Government and receives $3 in deductions and rebates. Group B pays $2 in Tax to the Government and receives $4 in deductions and rebates. The Government receives total tax net of deductions and rebates of: $10 + $2 - $3 - $4 = $5. That $5 is the amount of tax that the government actually gets and is the amount of tax that the taxpayers actually bear the burden for paying. The other $7 is netted off the gross amount of $12 and returned to the population. In looking at the tax burden of each group: Group A's tax contribution is $10 - $3 = $7. Group B's tax contribution is $2 - $4 = -$2. Group A pays +$7 / $5 of the total tax take = 140% Group B pays -$2 / $5 of the total tax take = -40% --- Bottom line is whenever there are rebates and deductions such that there is a group of people who pay less than zero tax in net terms (tax-takers), the remaining group (tax-payers) will end up paying more than 100% of the tax burden.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:17 |
|
Hypation posted:So the math works by considering the tax burden on individuals which is the tax they pay minus the deductions and rebates they receive. For example, suppose you divide an economy into two groups A and B and: When people refer to lies, drat lies, and statistics. this is what they are referring to.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:20 |
|
Thewlis posted:Hey Auspol, quick question. Cartoon posted:So full of poo poo that I can smell it in another state. http://www.nuw.org.au Covers the pharma industry, get your mum to give them a ring and see what they say. Ring ACTU and find out if there is a more relevant union for you.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:22 |
|
KennyTheFish posted:When people refer to lies, drat lies, and statistics. this is what they are referring to. When people say don't shoot the messenger for not giving you the news you want, this is what they are referring to.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:22 |
|
Interesting, interesting. I also notice from that report that over half of all income is in the first quintile. I can only assume this means that a person from the top 1 in 5 works more than twice as hard as 4 people from the remaining population combined. Interesting issue. Clearly there is a vast conspiracy cutting down the poor hard-working US citizens to provide funds for the sector of society that just mooches off their hard work. Pidgin Englishman fucked around with this message at 05:30 on May 30, 2014 |
# ? May 30, 2014 05:25 |
|
Cartoon posted:Here's a better direct link: Submitted. My role is "Concerned Australian citizen".
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:26 |
|
Huh I guess the top 40% are just dumb idiots for not throwing their money to the wind and living it up on food stamps.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:26 |
|
Sanguine posted:Interesting, interesting. Some would work harder - as in full time wages will be compared with casuals; but more significantly there are people who are just smarter and more talented and command a higher salary as a result; and finally a group of people who chose to get off their rear ends to take a risk, had luck on the side of their effort and are now being vastly rewarded for it.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:31 |
|
Hypation posted:Some would work harder - as in full time wages will be compared with casuals; but more significantly there are people who are just smarter and more talented and command a higher salary as a result; and finally a group of people who chose to get off their rear ends to take a risk, had luck on the side of their effort and are now being vastly rewarded for it. What about those who got lucky in life being born to rich parents?
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:32 |
Hypation posted:Some would work harder - as in full time wages will be compared with casuals; but more significantly there are people who are just smarter and more talented and command a higher salary as a result; and finally a group of people who chose to get off their rear ends to take a risk, had luck on the side of their effort and are now being vastly rewarded for it. Hypation posted:As an investment banker, adjunct lecturer in accounting and finance, fellow of FINSIA and all-round financial whiz/nice guy
|
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:33 |
|
Hypation posted:Some would work harder - as in full time wages will be compared with casuals; but more significantly there are people who are just smarter and more talented and command a higher salary as a result; and finally a group of people who chose to get off their rear ends to take a risk, had luck on the side of their effort and are now being vastly rewarded for it. Jesus christ you are an odious prick.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:34 |
If these are the life lessons being imparted onto business and finance students, it is little wonder that most of them grow up to be liberal-voting FYGMers with little to no human empathy
|
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:35 |
|
Hypation posted:Some would work harder - as in full time wages will be compared with casuals; but more significantly there are people who are just smarter and more talented and command a higher salary as a result; and finally a group of people who chose to get off their rear ends to take a risk, had luck on the side of their effort and are now being vastly rewarded for it. How about those who straight-up illegally scam their workers, those who profit from not having to pay for any of the externalities they impose on the rest of us, like not just carbon emissions but contaminating groundwater and so on, those who rake in extra profits by only paying sweatshop wages and not even bothering to make sure that those sweatshops probably won't burn down, and those who just get handed a high-paying job thanks to having a wealthy and influential family member? Did you just think these types of rich people went without mentioning, or do you not believe they exist?
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:38 |
|
Hypation posted:See below from CNBC - The Rich do not pay the most taxes, they pay ALL the taxes: quote:
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:38 |
|
Wait, no, that's fair enough. Surely reading and signing documents, maybe typing something for someone else to check, is easily worth 4 or 5 times more per hour than scrubbing poo poo out of a toilet stall. I know I'd happily spend 5 hours doing the later to avoid an hour of the former. Oh, sorry, yes. Skill. My bad. Clearly janitors can't read or make decisions, they need the smart people to do it for them or else they might
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:38 |
|
|
# ? Jun 9, 2024 02:52 |
|
Does anyone seriously have a problem with the rich paying most, or even all, tax? Seems pretty reasonable to me, it's not like anyone is forcing them to remain rich.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 05:40 |