M61A1

I reckon you'd notice the difference if they put the tax rate down where it should be, not this 1 and 2 percent rubbish.

Ha Ha......I lived there too....once upon a time

I think his whole point was that a lot people get a lot more value than the tax they paid, while at the same time believing that they pay more than they get back, and then demand that the "rich" should pay more, just because they have more. The idea being to get people to open their eyes and think about what is that they actually get for their money, and how much they are subsidised by those who the want to keep milking.(raping really). That said, it's unlikely that those concerned would be reading the article anyway, if they were to read a paper at all, they would probably checking out which reality show star was wearing what, in the Courier Mail. When you consider that an average person earns significantly less than the published "average wage", using the higher figure actually makes estimates more conservative, as even those who are earning the "average wage and above are still receiving handouts. Things have to change, they give a lot of people health care cards that don't need them. (I know, I was one of them) What has been my experience is that once something is perceived as "free" they just use it with wild abandon. In the case of medical, they visit the doctor quite frequently for almost anything, get heap of tests carried out, get the cheap medication, and when they hit the safety net, they go all out and get every script filled imaginable....it's free right? I've seen what one person can get and in real terms the cost to the tax payer would be substantial. Once again...my experience only.

No, but for an awful lot of them, they worked 110 times harder...:amazon:In any case why is it relevant, why should stuff cost more because you earned more? So what happens they say "f#ck it, it's not worth the effort, I want a housing commission house and free money, I've paid taxes all my life y'know" Reducing spending, makes a lot more sense than increasing taxes. The govt needs to get back to essential infrastructure, and user pays for everything else.

Adam Creighton is not the only one to make this point, and it doesn't take much to understand that a few high numbers raise an "average" significantly. How does the fact that these " but they're useable by everyone for the general benefit of society", make them any less of a benefit? They all cost taxpayers money. The fact is that we have a lot of "middle class welfare". I don't know what your family status is, but I've had kids in the past, and the amount of money that is thrown at families that earn good incomes is staggering. I don't give a damn whether an average earner would be ticked off at being labelled a "welfare recipient", because, if you are an average earner, and collecting what the govt is happy to give you, you are a welfare recipient. ( I have been one myself). I think that a lot of people don't understand that their $20k PA in taxes doesn't really go very far as govt spending is concerned, and that they are getting a lot more than their $20k back. His point is (I think) that we have groups pushing constantly for the so called "rich" to pay more tax, because they can, and that middle income earners a wearing all the load, when this is blatantly crap. As an aside...different thread, but couldn't be arxed to find it... Anther white guy (deaf also) shot by cops in a traffic stop the other day in the US, riots'/protests anyone?

Lucky it didn't happen at QUT, someone would have taken offence and sued someone.

Been watching this case for a while QUT embroiled in computer lab ‘segregation’ furore The poor bastard in the middle of it, according to recent articles , has had to give up a degree in education, as he will be unemployable after this. I wouldn't like to bet my house on getting a reasonable outcome, if I was the person in question. Even if you win, you've already lost.

Probably a bit thin on the ground ( or air) in Tasmangia.

Not every business relies on digging up natural resources, but even those that do are at the mercy of the market. If a customer can get it somewhere else cheaper, they will. While I'm not a fan of trashing the environment for the hell of it, the hypocritical environmental activists keeping companies in limbo by lodging one objection after another,need to remember where their mobile phones, computers, roads houses, shopping centres and money comes from, and just how substandard their life might feel without these things. The hypocrisy of driving around in a ute with a "no to quarrying" Sticker around here is just astounding..

On the first point....I have lived in communities where the bulk of them don't work and most by choice. Admittedly, if you consider them as a percentage of the whole of Australia, they are probably not statistically large. Most of them have a story, of how it's not their fault, no-one will give them a job and so on. When you dig a little deeper, they are just fussy about what they will and won't do, and for how much. The number of times I've heard "I'm not doing that!", or "I make more money on the dole", or " I could get a job, at (name a place), but I don't want to move". It always comes back to being able to get more money for less effort while on welfare, than having to get out of bed and work. On the second...who do you think provides the income for most of the working people, and the properties for them to live in? Those who want to start on the property market in an inner city suburb, or think they can save for a property without giving up the durries, drink and/or spend everything lifestyle need to reassess their priorities. Big business can be high profit, but it's also high risk. The old "tax system explained in beers" story sound amusing, but is very close to the truth. If you penalise those paying for almost everything to the point where it's just not worth the effort, all of a sudden, you will find that you really cant afford the bill.

To me a "fair" tax system doesn't unfairly penalise those who put the effort into making more money so that those who choose not to can have good quality of life. I have read that about 48% of households in this country pay no net tax, so I don't understand the idea that big earners should be paying more. We're not supposed to be a socialist country, and I hope we never are. I like the idea that personal effort, results in personal reward. There is no incentive to work hard to reward someone else. They could do away with most of the FTB crap, it's just middle class welfare, and every dollar they hand out costs us two. The biggest thing the govt should be targeting is waste and duplication.

FactCheck: is 50% of all income tax in Australia paid by 10% of the working population? Why should they be paying more? I am of the opinion that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Also, if you find that whole video of Kerry Packer, the big objection is the rules. The big companies make decisions about what they do ( making jobs and paying tax) based on the rules at the time. When the govt keeps changing the rules, business finds things difficult and packs up and goes elsewhere.Have we seen this anywhere? It is perfectly sane and legal to " minimize" your tax within the rule. As Mr Packer said, "it's not like they're doing a good job of spending it wisely".

While I agree completely about the science thing, they have to foot the welfare bill somehow. Unfortunately if you tell a voter you are going to cut their welfare to pay for some research, guess what's going to happen.

My god is a Goddess....

For the pedants among us..... ASP: How Fast Are You Moving When You Are Sitting Still?

You want funny? Jim Jeffries on religion is funny.....

Religion in general, but my experience involves Christianity. Nothing to do with priests and sexual abuse, just the way they mould a child's ( and adults) behaviour through fear an guilt. That stuff sticks with you for years after you think you got rid of it.

From what I gather, Turbs is trying to tell atheists that they have no idea why the religious people do what they do, and that he feels that your ad-lib version of Abe Lincoln's quote about fooling people is not relevant. Problem is that a lot of atheist have been religious and know exactly what they are doing, but looking from the outside in, you can see how ridiculous it really is, and from that viewpoint it(worshipping an imaginary being) makes no sense at all. If it did no harm and involved only consenting adults, there would be no argument against it, but it is harmful and involves children.

Wasted too much of my life involved heavily in the stuff. You can only see clearly once you take the blinkers off.

Generally atheists know exactly what the religious people are doing and why the religious people believe they are doing it, we just can't understand why any adult, with the knowledge available to them in this day and age would be that mislead. It's like being in CTA , in a non-IFR aircraft, with a controller asking if you need assistance in zero visibility, and saying "no, I believe I'm just fine thanks". We are supposed to have a secular government, but it is virtually impossible for some religious in a position of authority or government to govern without relying on their religious views, and that is just criminal. That goes from the prime minister, down to anyone responsible for making or helping make legislation on behalf of the people.

Been there too.....And that is why I am so very against it. Like porn, drinking and voting, it should not be allowed to expose minors to it. If this god thing is so great, why do they need to pump into the heads of kids? Surely by the time they're 18, they will just be flocking to it, if it is worthwhile.

For some, you only need to watch them for a few minutes, for the other end of the scale, you may need to observe them for a few years, like a proper psychiatric assessment. I used to work with a Mormon, who a few seconds after the moment he was spouting "cleanliness is next to godliness" to a manager, then swept the pile of dirt under the wheel cover of the 737 in maintenance. After working with him for a few months, most had established that he was a complete hypocrite or liar. I've met quite a few people who use their religion to hide behind and manipulate scripture to cover whatever it is they're doing.

Cant vouch for the accuracy, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were close to the money.... [ATTACH]47959._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]47960._xfImport[/ATTACH] And in Oz... Churches reap the benefits of belief: $500 million in tax exemptions - National

They always want go to heaven and live with god, but never seem keen to get there.

Just making sure that you noticed that I have differentiated between, Islam and Islamic extremism..... Also, I have seen doctors often remove something, "just in case it turns nasty", then test it afterwards. (depending of the level of invasive procedure they need to remove it)