your own quote says it: 800M redirected from foreign aid, so not a cent more, and maybe less in the pockets of the various corrupt O/S politicians/oz business dealing in foreign aid.not a bad decision
A sleight-of-hand policy, which doesn't make it a good one, and just makes it harder for the next government.your own quote says it: 800M redirected from foreign aid, so not a cent more, and maybe less in the pockets of the various corrupt O/S politicians/oz business dealing in foreign aid.not a bad decision
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...t/news-story/27873595f64f51a1da24a8064dddeaea
2 Dec 2015
The Foreign Minister is accused of ordering an empty RAAF Challenger jet to fly from Canberra to Perth to pick up her and her boyfriend from a charity dinner on October 18, the Daily Telegraph reports.
Ms Bishop and her partner David Panton were reportedly the only two passengers on the flight, costing $30,000 for the red-eye journey.
At least B.Bishop only spent $5,000.
Like I said, a spending problem.
At least B.Bishop only spent $5,000.
Like I said, a spending problem.
What's in a name eh ... both of them live like Bishops
Yes, but the important question is: Do they feel our pain?
Back in the uni days, a professor was saying some old dude back then argued that a country should only be governed by its elite, its richest, its land owning gentry. Why? Because the rich have so much money that they cannot be bribed or corrupted by it; so much luxury that they will only spend time working for the common wealth and not of their own private interests.
Don't think that argument stacks up though.
The old Plutocrat argument. Wealth is never enough for the rich, even when they label themselves as philanthropists they still derive their power from accumulating wealth and fame.
Indeed. It might have been partly true back in Churchill's day, but far less so in latter days.Yes, but the important question is: Do they feel our pain?
Back in the uni days, a professor was saying some old dude back then argued that a country should only be governed by its elite, its richest, its land owning gentry. Why? Because the rich have so much money that they cannot be bribed or corrupted by it; so much luxury that they will only spend time working for the common wealth and not of their own private interests.
Don't think that argument stacks up though.
Nearly 4 years since the last post on this thread. The Feds have bided their time..
I see the Feds are having another go at trying to increase the rate of GST, to 12.5%. They'll just abolish the States Payroll Tax they say ..We've seen this movie before.
To the PM's credit, and Anthony Albanese's, they have dismissed this notion out of hand. As they should. Raising the rate of GST would be a regressive move. The taxation system should be progressive. You don't slug poor people proportionately more for food and utility bills.
The now defunct Australian Democrats party -made a lasting contribution to societal fairness in this country, opposing GST on food
The political party that opposes raising the rate of GST, is the party that wins my vote.
Spot on Rumpy and not untill that avenue is completely exhausted, should they even think of increasing the GST.While I agree with abolishing State payroll tax there are other ways of raising the replacement revenue than slugging the consumers, like a tax on digital revenue from Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc, or a decent mining tax.
As a concept I'm not opposed to the idea that the GST could be some rate other than 10% but agreed yes - close the various tax loop holes before we raise the rate of anything.While I agree with abolishing State payroll tax there are other ways of raising the replacement revenue than slugging the consumers, like a tax on digital revenue from Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc, or a decent mining tax.
Well Wayne with these cuts how would the fat cats and hanger's on survive in the rareified atmosphere in which they hide.Why does nobody ever mention cutting bullxchit expediture?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?