The $900 was for people who paid >$1 in tax with incomes under $80K with reduced payments up to a capped level of $100,000 income. So "rich" people definitely didn't get it (except those who channel their earning through trusts etc).
That is not tax avoidance, it is tax evasion and it is illegal. But go ahead and proclaim your intention on a public forum....
:lol: Labour definitely have not been "picking up the pieces". Yes, Howard pissed stuff up against the wall buying votes and pork barreling but the current mob have have created far more troughs of money for their cronies (especially for the Greens to buy them power) and tried every trick in the book to get any cash lying around into their bank accounts and still can't balance a budget. Further they rapidly increased the encroachment of Government, gave a plethora of jobs out to the boys, undertook retrospective taxation not to mention the horrendous and repeated attacks on privacy and freedom of speech.
yep so that is exactly why australia voted the liberal scum out in a landslie in 07 in a protest against work choices yep I must have dreamed that
Nah. It was the whole "Mr. Sunrise" effect. It was largely a popularity contest then and still is now.
lol sure it was, work choices had nothing to do with it. So why arnt they reintroducing it and hose down any suggestion at it being re introduced (a lie)
You dreamed that it was a protest against work choices. It wasn't. People just wanted a change and were tired of Howard and wanted something different.
If your a good worker and make the boss money you have nothing to fear from work choices. I think its fair to pay some1 what they are worth.
lol typical liberal right wing mentality work choices was great it was the people that were wrong in voting agains it. and sorry you are both wrong work choices were used by bad(a vast majorty) bosses to screw their workers over. In a if you dont like it there is the door attitude. that is fact and that is why the libs run away screaming in the opposite direction when work choices is mentioned as they know it sunk them last time if it was so loved and good after all it would be on their (public) adjenda.
That's a bit too simplistic an explanation. People were certainly sick and tired of "little Johnny" but that they turned against him so convincingly across the country says something for the significance of the issues he had created, or at least presided over. Consider the national stress levels within the population induced by the growth in private debt. John Howard and Peter Costello watched while housing became unaffordable and the opportunities for our children to own their own homes in the country of their birth dwindled. Krudd and Swan pulled out all stops to ensure housing remained unaffordable by opening up residential property to foreign buyers and sold the country into debt slavery with their deficit spending under the directions/cover of the IMF. Yep. You've got to love those career politicians! Pick a colour, any colour ...
NFI don't vote. But if your going to vote, why the f*ck would you vote for the current lot of incompetent Reds. better for the workers what a ffn joke, unless you mean the workers o/s. anyway a vote for labor is a vote for the UN, and more debt for your grand kiddies. CGAF
nothing wrong with showing dead wood the door. The dole is waiting for those that dont want a fair days work for a fair days pay
One thing I do agree with, is that some employers under work choices did exploit and abuse their workers. My mid sized employer certainly did, although just about all their employees were "good workers" no bludgers. They were gambling on most of their staff, which was of an older demographic, staying put. Which they understandably did, knowing how ageist the system is and how hard it would have been to find another job.
