incentivation
Hmmmmm....
O'Farrell made a good point yesterday. Rees was an advisor to both Iemma and Refshauge prior to entering parliament. It's the same old guard under a different face..
Hmm, lets see... off the top of my head I can name three:withoutaface said:A centralised national education system? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this guy propose that back when he was minister for education?
Edit: When, except when money is spent on subsidizing hecs places (which go predominantly to those from affluent backgrounds) or hiring butlers for millionaire prime ministers, has taxpayers' money ever been spent on making the rich richer? (Hint: if your answer is 'tax cuts', you're wrong).
I completely agree with you there. Rees will be similar to Iemma and he will not gain support with the snob types due to his job as a garbage collector (and I think THAT, at least, is an unfair reason to dislike him since he was just using it to support his way through university). He certainly has the qualifications and experience, but he probably doesn't have the right attitude.incentivation said:O'Farrell made a good point yesterday. Rees was an advisor to both Iemma and Refshauge prior to entering parliament. It's the same old guard under a different face..
Its imperative that rich people get the baby bonus and child careHisNameIsChris said:Hmm, lets see... off the top of my head I can name three:
- GST, a regressive tax system
- Baby Bonus; even Kerry Packer's getting it.
- Child care for people who don't really need help paying for it.
what barry o'f has a facebookRafy said:I too would have difficulty pledging that i will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
No. Please do not place words in my mouth. Rich people are just like any other people and in most cases they're rich because they earned it. I was simply stating that rich people do NOT need help supporting their babies, nor do they need free child care, nor should they be paying the same amount of tax on goods and services as, say, someone earning less than $20,000 a year.Farfour said:^^^ Summary of post: Rich people are EVIL EVIL EVIL!
lolHisNameIsChris said:No. Please do not place words in my mouth. Rich people are just like any other people and in most cases they're rich because they earned it. I was simply stating that rich people do NOT need help supporting their babies, nor do they need free child care, nor should they be paying the same amount of tax on goods and services as, say, someone earning less than $20,000 a year.
The word 'evil' was used to describe the exploitation of workers by employers with the WorkChoices laws. Tell me this: is a law that puts a single worker against a large company that will do anything to cut down costs (ie. cut out benefits such as sick days and place him/her on a lower salary) not evil in some way or sense of the word?
Now, since you were arrogant enough to summarize my post correctly, I'll summarize yours:
Farfour: I'm dumb and I make unfounded conclusions because I can't read properly.
One of my fondest memories of the Howard years was the effort and investment that his government put into education. Thankyou for highlighting Howard's great obsession with making education fairer, better, etc.WAF said:A centralised national education system? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't this guy propose that back when he was minister for education?
And people say state Labor has no chance of improving.Rafy said: