- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
Fairfax can be as biased as it likes. It's not publically funded.
The ABC on the other hand is publically funded.
Fairfax can be as biased as it likes. It's not publically funded.Recognise that painting Fairfax and The ABC as Jihadists because they are just doing their job as the Press is just wrong?
Will the "peoples bank" pay a decent rate of interest instead of the paltry <3 % now offered by those private custodians of the cookie jar? If so I am in.
Those thieving bastards pay a disgraceful 0.01% per annum on basic savings (Comm Bank - Complete Access, Smart Access, Streamline, accounts). I am sure many people confuse this figure with 1%.
If you have $1 million in one of these accounts, they pay a whopping $100 interest for the whole f***ing year. How about a Royal Commission into the bloody banks?
ANALYSIS
By Bouris and Joye
Posted 7 Feb 2012, 12:38pm
Prior to the global financial crisis, Australia had a diverse and highly competitive financial system. The four major banks went head-to-head with the likes of St. George, BankWest, Bendigo Bank, Aussie, Adelaide Bank, RAMS, Wizard, and Challenger.
Today every single one of these entities has disappeared as a genuinely independent concern, wholly or partly acquired by the majors (with competition concerns waived by the ACCC), or merged with one another.
Prior to the crisis, Australia's banks were not explicitly government-backed. And taxpayers had never guaranteed bank deposits before (or conceived of providing such guarantees for free as they currently do), nor had they ever guaranteed the banks' institutional debts.
The taxpayer-owned central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), had also never lent to the banks on the much longer-dated and more flexible terms that it offered as the financial markets meltdown started to gather momentum, and continues to offer to this day.
Labor wouldn't nationalise the banks, just the risk.
I refer to what I've already said,Risk is already nationalised through deposit insurance the bank deposit tax would have somewhat defrayed the cost of that insurance but that would have upset Tony Abbott's golf buddies.
Regardless of the rate or account balance, imagine for a moment the banks itemising it on depositor's account statements as they did with former bank taxes such as FID and BAD.Will the "peoples bank" pay a decent rate of interest instead of the paltry <3 % now offered by those private custodians of the cookie jar? If so I am in.
Those thieving bastards pay a disgraceful 0.01% per annum on basic savings (Comm Bank - Complete Access, Smart Access, Streamline, accounts). I am sure many people confuse this figure with 1%.
If you have $1 million in one of these accounts, they pay a whopping $100 interest for the whole f***ing year. How about a Royal Commission into the bloody banks?
A am and I remember who created it.
Borrow and tax is the Labor way and in keeping with that, the bank deposits tax was originally their idea.
Labor wouldn't nationalise the banks, just the risk.
Peter's a dill.
We all know that.
Yes. By LABOR.The risk is ALREADY nationalised.
Labor left many legacies.But then Abbott has added over $100B of new borrowings in 2 years. Is that also a borrow and tax way, because I was under the impression that surpluses were part of the Liberal DNA.
Pop over to http://aofm.gov.au/
Australian Government Securities on Issue* $384,687m
I bet you that figure will not be going down any time soon.
When does it stop being Labor's fault?
Labor left many legacies.
One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.
Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.
So why didn't Abbott/Turnbull ditch the NBN altogether if it was such a bad idea ?
A budget deficit which Hockey has now doubled.
And now he's talking about tax cuts. What deficit disaster ?
Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.
Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,No they're not. The previous governments agreement was a FTTP NBN, now we get a cut down version that has huge technical problems and unconnected services
http://www.afr.com/technology/nbn-hits-roll-out-targets-but-fails-to-connect-services-20140605-jg00k
About 118,000 homes and businesses that should be connected to the national broadband network can’t use the service because of defective fibre connections.
The government-owned company building the network is set to pay *contractors tens of millions extra to fix the problems and resolve a two-year negotiation stalemate
Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,
For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,
http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/
Yes. By LABOR.
I can just imagine every pensioner's 6-monthly savings account statement with the itemised line "LABOR's bank deposit tax".
Labor left many legacies.
One was an attempt to fund and build a nationalised broadband network.
Another was outsourcing immigration to illegal people smuggling operations and another was budget deficits stretching well beyond its time in office.
Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.
Take a look at the date of the article and the timeframe of the issue,
For more background, listen to Simon Hackett's presentation from a year ago,
http://simonhackett.com/2014/09/06/rebooting-the-nbn/
Because Abbott and the Liberal Party are honorable men who honor agreements made by the previous government not like the Labor state Government in Victoria who ripped up an agreement made by the Victorian previous government.
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?