Endman posted:

My bus is late.

I blame the Greens.

Zenithe posted:

Have you considered adding a inner city metro subway to solve your massive urban sprawl problem?

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Aww, it just ended as soon as I started watching.

gay picnic defence posted:

Anyone else think Turnbull is doing this deliberately to make Morrison look like an idiot because Morrison the only plausible candidate the LNP has to replace him with? Or are they just loving stupid?

BBJoey posted:

so according to herr morrison's interpretation of the change, literally all they're doing is making government bigger by adding to the bureaucracy of collecting income taxes and not actually generating any new revenue? then what's the point?

Anidav posted:

How did the German Colonies go? Never learned much about them. They probably collapsed like Liberia.

quote:

'It is withdrawn': Premiers reject Malcolm Turnbull's push to allow states to levy income tax

State and territory leaders have rejected a push toward "competitive federalism" by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that would have allowed states to levy their own portion of the nation's income tax take.

The decision is a major loss for the government, coming just two days after Mr Turnbull announced the proposal, calling it "the most fundamental reform to the federation in generations" and "the only way that we can genuinely reform our federation". The plan was also spruiked by several government frontbenchers including Treasurer Scott Morrison.

"There was not a consensus among the states and territories to support further consideration of the proposal that would enable states to levy income tax on their own behalf," Mr Turnbull announced on Friday after the Council of Australian Governments meeting in Canberra.

He acknowledged the proposal was dead and it would not be resurrected by the Commonwealth. "There isn't anything like a consensus," he said. "That proposal is not there, it's withdrawn, it's not acceptable."

Instead, leaders agreed to consider a revenue sharing proposal that would mean states gain direct access to the growing pool of income tax, rather than remaining reliant on tied grants from the Commonwealth. Under such a model, the states would have greater autonomy to decide their own spending, but the total amount of revenue would remain fixed.

"We've agreed to consider income tax funding within the current funding envelope," the Prime Minister said.

Mr Turnbull on Friday turned the decision back on state and territory leaders, emphasising that tight budget conditions meant improvements to infrastructure and services would have to be made using the available revenue.

"We have to live within our means, that much is clear," he said. "There will be no raising of income tax. The states will not be levying an income tax and the Commonwealth will not be increasing income tax."

Mr Turnbull insisted the agreement to consider sharing income tax was still "an important step" in reforming the federation. "It will give the states greater financial autonomy to do their job of managing their affairs," he said.

Leaders agreed to a Commonwealth proposal for "Healthcare Homes", a new model of primary healthcare in which chronically ill patients would be encouraged to appoint a GP to take responsibility for their co-ordinated care. The aim was to reduce the number of unnecessary hospital visits made by patients with chronic illnesses such as diabetes.

The Commonwealth will also provide an extra $2.9 billion in hospital funding from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2020.

State and territory leaders welcomed that commitment, although Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said it did not make up for billions of dollars he said had been withdrawn from the health budget under the former Abbott government.

"Hundreds of millions of dollars of extra funding for Victorian hospitals does not replace billions of dollars that have been taken away from Victorian hospitals," Mr Andrews said.

Northern Territory Chief Minister Adam Giles, an early sceptic of the state income tax levy idea, said it would have been better if the proposal "came out in a different format and in a different way".

The plan was reported in national newspapers on Wednesday and then confirmed, in detail, by the Prime Minister at a doorstop interview.

Frogmanv2 posted:

Ok, what other factors should a civilisation be judged by?

Anidav posted:

The Prime Minister says the states cannot any longer credibly ask the federal government to raise taxes for them if they are not prepared to raise taxes themselves.

The Prime Minister has hit back at the rejection of his income tax plan, painting its defeat as a "moment of clarity" that revealed the states lacked the stomach for reform and must live within their means.

Malcolm Turnbull on Saturday brushed off suggestions that the failure of what he hailed as only days ago as "the most fundamental reform to the federation in generations" marked a major humiliation for his government.

He instead recast the outcome of this week's Council of Australian Governments meeting as showing up the inconsistencies of the states, which had appealed to the federal government to give them the proceeds of increases to the GST and income tax.

"The important thing is that what we have seen is the states making it very clear that they are not prepared to contemplate being responsible for levying a share of income tax," Mr Turnbull said.

"What that means is they cannot any longer credibly ask the federal government to raise taxes for them to spend if they were not prepared to raise those taxes themselves when they were given the opportunity."

The proposal, branded "double taxation" by Opposition leader Bill Shorten, would have seen a reduction of the federal government's income tax collection in favour of allowing the states and territories to collect the remainder to fund services like hospitals and schools.

Leaders instead agreed to consider a counter-proposal that would give states direct access to a fixed percentage of a growing income tax pool, replacing tied and special-purpose grants from the Commonwealth.

Mr Turnbull said the defeat of his government's plan was a "wake up call" for the states, which had made it clear that they did not want to put up taxes and "neither do we".

"So this has been a very important moment of clarity, and what it says to us is that we must live within our means," he said.

Friday's meeting otherwise ended with state and territory leaders accepting an extra $2.9 billion for health and hospital spending to 2020.

Mr Turnbull's comments about the states and territories were echoed in Melbourne by his Health Minister Sussan Ley, who denied the proposal's defeat was an embarrassment.

"They're quick to ask the Commonwealth to do their dirty work," Ms Ley told reporters in Melbourne on Saturday.

"We should never make an apology for having big ideas and the courage to make a difference."

Mr Shorten, who appeared at a shipbuilders' rally in Adelaide on Saturday, branded the unsuccessful tax proposal a "humiliating farce".

"He doesn't even have the courage of his convictions," said Mr Shorten said.

Defence Minister Marise Payne, who appeared alongside Mr Turnbull in Sydney on Saturday following an inspection of the HMAS Canberra, separately lashed out at the opposition's shipbuilding record.

Labor had not placed a single order to build a ship in Australia during six years in government, she said.

"It is hypocritical in the extreme and they should be exposed for the absolute hypocrites that they are," Senator Payne said.

quote:

University of Queensland Union to host bake sale that charges based on gender


A bake sale that will charge customers based on their gender for a 'Feminist Week' at the University of Queensland has sparked outrage online with some students calling it discriminatory.

University of Queensland Union posted a list of events for an organised 'Feminist Week' from April 4-8 to their website including a Gender Pay Gap Bake Sale at the campus on Tuesday.

The event welcomes anyone to come and purchase a baked good, but created cost divisions between men and women.

"Each baked good will only cost you the proportion of $1.00 that you earn comparative to men (or, if you identify as a man, all baked goods with cost you $1.00!)," the UQU outlined on their site.

"For example, if you are a woman of colour in the legal profession, a baked good at the stall will only cost you 0.55 cents!."

Many voiced their outrage at the bake sale by commenting on a post put up by UQ student Ashley Millsteed to the UQ Stalkerspace Facebook page that called the bake sale discriminatory, citing the Queensland's 1991 Anti Discrimination Act and the national 1984 Sex Discrimination Act.

"UQU, which is meant to represent all students, is engaging in conduct that's blatantly discriminatory against men to try and make some asinine political point," he wrote.

"What's interesting is that this bake sale itself constitutes discrimination under both Queensland and Federal Anti-Discrimination law."

"This is incredibly disappointing. Shame on UQU for condoning this. This is exactly why more people are starting to reject feminism. It's insulting to the women (and men) who fought, and who continue to fight for equality," wrote another commentator.

The gender pay gap is the difference between women's and men's average weekly full-time equivalent earnings and is influenced by a number of factors including work, family and society.

The gender pay gap sits at 17.3% as of March 2016, the government funded Workplace Gender Equality Agency found.

UQ School of Education associate professor and gender studies co-convenor Liz MacKinlay said the bake sale was a clever way of raising attention.

"When we ask people to check their privilege and think about equality the people who are privileged seem to get the most upset because they have the most to lose," she said.

"The reality is that people who are not privileged don't get the choice to get upset or not because as soon as they raise their voice it is silenced."

"If people are upset about it, the next question that needs to be asked is 'Why are you upset about that? Think logically about the reasons why you are upset.

"You are being asked to think about why it might be that women get paid less over the course of their lifetime."

Professor MacKinlay said she gets "pretty frustrated" when she hears people calling events like the bake sale discriminatory.

"I get pretty frustrated when I hear people saying 'What about the men, isn't that discriminatory, isn't it reverse-sexism?'," she said.

"Many men generally speaking have the extra pay as an unearned privilege while women are disadvantaged and people of colour are disadvantaged and minority groups and people who don't conform to binary genders are disadvantaged.

"If we actually looked at that the work women do to raise children at home, what cost would we be putting on that, how much is that worth to us?."

UQU women's officer Madeline Price helped organise 'Feminist Week', which runs each semester, and said it was interesting that out of all the events, the bake sale had generated the most discussion.

"If people are upset they have to pay 35c more for a cupcake, how do you think the person who earns that much less per dollar each year for the same work feels?," she said.

"(The bake sale prices) look at every identity factor that that person identifies with, we have a comparison chart for all professions, and include such intersections as gender, disability, race, sexual identity and ethnicity.

"Most of the discussion generated online is about how discriminatory it is against men when in reality it is based on a lot of other factors, more than just gender."

thatbastardken posted:

Any y'all nerds coming to the protest this morning?

Comstar posted:

4 Corners has an expose about off shore tax havens tonight. I haven't seen any reference to anyone in Australia or the US mentioned yet. I would think it will impact the election, if any current politicians are mentioned.

Should there be some very worried people looking at their assets right now?

I for one, have full confidence in the regulators not doing anything.

open24hours posted:

Is it illegal though?

quote:

Leaked documents have revealed that two brothers embroiled in a massive Hong Kong corruption scandal were ultimately in control of an Australian security company that earned roughly half a billion dollars in lucrative government contracts.

Key points:

Billionaire Kwok brothers were charged with bribing a Hong Kong official in 2012
The brothers remained covert directors of company that ultimately controlled Wilson's Australian operations
Wilson holds contracts with some of Australia's most sensitive government departments

The two billionaire brothers, Thomas and Raymond Kwok, were charged with bribing a Hong Kong government official in July 2012 in a case that shook the Hong Kong establishment.

Soon after their arrest, the leaked documents, obtained by the ABC's Four Corners, show the brothers covertly remained directors of the offshore company that ultimately controls Wilson's operations in Australia — Wilson Offshore Group Holdings (BVI) Limited.

In a statement to the ABC, Wilson insisted the Kwok brothers were never directors of Wilson Security.

MaliciousOnion posted:

Sure, neo-nazis might be irredeemable morons, but violence against them does nothing to further the left's position. Also i find violence in general morally wrong.

quote:

In June last year, an electrician from Perth emailed Mossack Fonseca asking what he could do to "reduce or zero my tax".

Within 24 hours Mossack Fonseca replied with a range of options for their prospective Australian client.

Tokamak posted: