Cartoon posted:

Here's a better direct link:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/make-submission

Take the time to say you think we should stop being inhumane to children.

Negligent posted:

telling the Prime Minister to gently caress off is a pretty solid start to his career in the Senate

Clugg posted:

So my maths lecturer got an article on the front page of The Age's website today:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/tony-abbott-is-a-liar-its-a-mathematical-truth-20140529-zrs5h.html

quote:

NSW Who is the Premier: Baird 46 O'Farrell 9 Other 3

quote:

Napthine government faces fresh crisis, as Ken Smith vows to support Labor over Geoff Shaw

May 30, 2014 - 12:17PM
Josh Gordon
State political editor for The Age.


The Napthine government is facing a fresh constitutional crisis, with former speaker Ken Smith vowing to support any Labor vote to oust balance-of-power MP Geoff Shaw from Parliament.

Mr Smith's explosive pledge to support a Labor no-confidence motion against the Frankston MP has the potential to deny the Coalition the numbers needed to govern.

It follows a report by Parliament's nine-member government-dominated privileges committee which found Mr Shaw was "not diligent" for allowing the misuse of his parliamentary vehicle.

But a minority report by Labor committee members concluded Mr Shaw had "wilfully" misused his parliamentary vehicle and was in contempt of the Parliament, an offence generally punished by expulsion or suspension from Parliament.

Mr Smith – who was forced to resign as speaker earlier this year after Mr Shaw said he had no confidence in his ability to control Parliament – said he strongly believed Mr Shaw was in contempt of Parliament.

He said the privileges committee, made up of five Coalition and four Labor MPs, had been hamstrung because it had been denied access to key evidence provided to the Ombudsman by two whistleblowers.

Had the committee viewed this evidence it would have had "no hesitation" finding Mr Shaw guilty of contempt, Mr Smith said.

Under normal parliamentary processes, MPs will first be asked to vote on the majority report and its recommendation that Mr Shaw be forced to repay $6838.

Any amendments proposed by Labor asking Parliament to vote on the minority recommendation that Mr Shaw be found guilty of contempt would normally be defeated. But Mr Smith said his support for the minority finding would ensure the numbers needed for a successful no-confidence motion against Mr Shaw.

He said he had not taken the decision lightly, and was fully aware of the potential ramifications.

"The next step, I believe – and it may even be incorporated – would be that he be either suspended from the Parliament or for him to lose his seat," Mr Smith told Fairfax Media. "Now this isn't something that is done lightly, but then again what he [Mr Shaw] did wasn't done lightly either."

Mr Shaw's misuse of his work car has now been the subject of an ombudsman's inquiry and a police investigation, which concluded there was insufficient evidence to press ahead with charges against him.

Mr Shaw has accused the committee of serial leaks against him to the media, claiming he has been denied natural justice through the process, while describing committee members as "nuff-nuffs".

It remains unclear whether – six months out from an election – a byelection would result if Mr Shaw were cast from the Parliament. That process would need to be decided by the government.

"It is going to be up to the government and their timeframe as to whether they do something," Mr Smith said. "Everything hinges on when that is going to happen."

Mr Smith said he had not had any discussions with Premier Denis Napthine about his decision to support Labor.

"He would understand what is going to happen, he would understand my position regarding this, because I've said all along that what happened was wrong and he should be able to get away with it," Mr Smith said. "There is only one nuff-nuff here and he will be judged."

adamantium|wang posted:

e: the gently caress is a nuff-nuff

adamantium|wang posted:

adamantium|wang posted:

Holy poo poo.


e: the gently caress is a nuff-nuff

adamantium|wang posted:

Jesus loving wept

webmeister posted:

Does this mean Baird only just beat out Don't Know?

Cartoon posted:

Here's a better direct link:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/make-submission

Take the time to say you think we should stop being inhumane to children.

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:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/30/nauru-detention-serious-health-risks-to-children-revealed-in-confidential-report
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/in...-health/1317646
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/12/sadness-and-fear-what-the-drawings-by-children-in-detention-showed-us
https://newmatilda.com/2014/04/10/australia-persecuting-persecuted
https://newmatilda.com/2014/03/05/leaked-psych-report-shows-detentions-toll

The Guardian today reported on awful health risks posed to children in detention on Nauru. This is disgusting, we are a rich country and we can afford to do better.

Community detention is cheap and infinitely more humane than dumping the world's most vulnerable people in places like Nauru and Manus Island where they are clearly at risk to violence and serious threats to their health. I do not trust the Department of Immigration because of stories I have heard about how uncooperative they are. I have heard that they do not pay legal costs in a timely manner. I have heard that they retain law firms with instructions to "fight everything" - an approach that is clearly inconsistent with the government's obligations to behave as a model litigant.

The Department has famously tried very hard to to ensure that assessments happen outside the safeguards of Australian law. There was a High Court case where assessments were found to have been invalidly made because the Department's guidelines stated that Australian law was not binding. The Department cannot be trusted.

Everything I have read about mandatory indefinite offshore detention (including detention of children) has satisfied me that it is a needless brutal and harmful policy that needs to be ended. History will look back on this as a shameful chapter in Australian governance.

adamantium|wang posted:

Holy poo poo.


e: the gently caress is a nuff-nuff

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.

Hypation posted:

In the USA top 40% pays 106.2% of income taxes.

Hypation posted:

Which is discussed in more detail here: http://cis.org.au/images/stories/policy-monographs/pm-63.pdf

quote:

Sinclair Davidson

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.

Sanguine posted:

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%?

Doctor Spaceman posted:

That's some bullshit maths.

E: Specifically the idea that more than 100% of the income tax revenue could be paid in income tax.

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:

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.

Thewlis posted:

Hey Auspol, quick question.
My Mum was notified that her company will begin mandatory drug and alcohol testing for all employees, and if they refuse they will be subject to disciplinary action. She works for a pharmaceutical company, and they're claiming that it's part of the government's OH&S requirements. Are they full of poo poo?

Cartoon posted:

So full of poo poo that I can smell it in another state.

http://www.medvet.com.au/news/workplace-drug-tests-tipped-to-increase

She should immediately join a union.

KennyTheFish posted:

When people refer to lies, drat lies, and statistics. this is what they are referring to.

Cartoon posted:

Here's a better direct link:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/make-submission

Take the time to say you think we should stop being inhumane to children.

Sanguine posted:

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 the a person from the top 1 in 5 works more than twice as hard as 4 people from the remaining population combined.

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:

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

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:

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:

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

quote:

The ACTU have a number of discussion papers on the tax system, especially on misleading claims and self-interested demands of the typical participants in the tax

One example is their paper on Tax Myths and Realities. The section of 'Who pays what? Taxes as a proportion of incomes' goes into the progressivity of the tax system, where personal income tax is the main source of progressivity - many other taxes are proportional or

Therefore the overall tax system is only weakly progressive as a result:

• Households in the top 20% of the income distribution pay an average of 34.5% tax, despite the fact that 25% of their income is taxed. (9.5% of tax is via indirect taxes)
  
• Households in the bottom 20% pay 26.7% despite 0% of their income is taxed. (26.7% of tax is via indirect taxes)
  

Regressive taxes are those which are applied at a uniform rate, hitting lower-income individuals harder. The GST is an example of this, a broad-based consumption tax to generate revenue for the Government. If this then funds an income tax cut, it then leads to even more tax inequality - from the image linked above, the dark blue sections are lowered so there is less progression in taxation.

Therefore I would suggest your notion that the majority of the tax burden is shouldered on the upper class is untrue.