+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 24 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 238
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,804
    Thanks
    7,291
    Thanked
    9,742
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    One of a few videos that leaves me very worried if Abbot is to lead our country.
    http://youtu.be/9wT9XS_TvzQ

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,246
    Thanks
    6,367
    Thanked
    17,670
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post

    The link does not show holes in the argument that the libs spend less, the link does show that the libs spend in different areas.
    Yes that's right, they still spend, just on different things. Which shows they spend just as much. At least that's how I read it.

  3. #23
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,652
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,740
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Speaking for myself, I'm rather concerned for our family. If Abbott delivers on all the cuts to low and middle income while giving tax cuts to the more wealthy it is going to hurt us quite a bit.

    Not everyone is lucky to earn 150k+ a household.... and of course we know the libs take funding from those that most need it and redistribute it to the wealthy.
    Not sure how any money is "redistributed to the wealthy".

    There's been enough talk about "middle income welfare" and of course that is what people normally talk about when they say money going to people who don't need it. (eg. private health care rebate, child care rebate etc).

    However, given the amount of "middle class welfare" that's available at the moment, I'd like to see an example of where this has even been suggested to be increased at a cost of lower income welfare.

    I am sure that there will be cuts to the "middle class welfare" under the next government - no matter who gets in. There will also undoubtably be tax changes.

    But taking money from those that need it and redistributing it to the wealthy? I'd seriously like to see an example of that - because I can't fathom any time it happens.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Mod-pegasus For This Useful Post:

    kw123  (13-05-2013)

  5. #24
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,652
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,740
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Yes that's right, they still spend, just on different things. Which shows they spend just as much. At least that's how I read it.
    Agreed - but this thread isn't on who spends the most - it's on whether the money when spent is spent effectively, or wasted.

  6. #25
    SpecialPatrolGroup's Avatar
    SpecialPatrolGroup is offline T-rex is cranky until she gets her coffee.
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the messy house, Brisbane
    Posts
    9,481
    Thanks
    2,180
    Thanked
    5,406
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    or that set top boxes could have been done for cheaper. (There was no necessity for HD)
    Nope, the disadvantaged can be further marginalised by not getting all of the channels.

  7. #26
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,652
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,740
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialPatrolGroup View Post
    Nope, the disadvantaged can be further marginalised by not getting all of the channels.
    I'm not really sure how getting less tv channels marginalises people. I can't afford foxtel - much as my kids want the same channels as some of their friends at school, it's not going to happen. Does this marginalise them from the kids at their school who do have an extra 20 channels? I seriously don't think so.

  8. #27
    SpecialPatrolGroup's Avatar
    SpecialPatrolGroup is offline T-rex is cranky until she gets her coffee.
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the messy house, Brisbane
    Posts
    9,481
    Thanks
    2,180
    Thanked
    5,406
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    I'm not really sure how getting less tv channels marginalises people. I can't afford foxtel - much as my kids want the same channels as some of their friends at school, it's not going to happen. Does this marginalise them from the kids at their school who do have an extra 20 channels? I seriously don't think so.
    I'm talking about free to air tv. Free, unless you can't afford a set top box that decodes the signal.

  9. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,246
    Thanks
    6,367
    Thanked
    17,670
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Redistributed through tax cuts, which on higher incomes they get more of. A 10% cut to a middle class family might result in 3k less a year to pay in tax. For someone earning 250k a year, 10% means 30k back.

    Then the proposed increase to the already existing PPL scheme, which is going to cost billions - yep I support it, but not to the detriment of the low and middle income families who he has said he'll take the school bonus from for sure, and he's hinted he wants the BB gone too. Statistically 2 income families are earning much more. He has said, when asked months ago how he is going to fund the huge increases of the PPL that he replied by cutting the school bonus and scaling back the BB, which has already been scaled back. So he has admitted cuts to the poor will fund money to the more wealthy.

    Or other benefits which are usually utilised by the wealthy - injection into the PHI system or increasing subsidies. Increases in private school funding. The libs operate by cutting funding to low and middle income then passing on *some* of those savings to the groups that need it the least in favour of 'incentive to work'. Too bad millions of hard working Australians didn't know that the only ones wanting to work are the rich.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (13-05-2013),beebs  (13-05-2013),OurLittleBlessing  (16-05-2013)

  11. #29
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,652
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,740
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    I get that - SD channels still include 2, 7, 9, 10 and SBS.

    So you get news, current affairs, movies, sport etc.

    I can't see how the fact that you don't get Go, 72, 73, 94 (shopping channels) etc makes you any more marginalised, than the fact that some people don't get foxtel.

    Your statement was that disadvantaged people could be more marginalised by not getting as many channels. I said I don't believe that is true. It is not the number of tv channels which defines whether you'll be marginalised.

  12. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,005
    Thanks
    1,052
    Thanked
    3,524
    Reviews
    1
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    Not sure how any money is "redistributed to the wealthy".

    There's been enough talk about "middle income welfare" and of course that is what people normally talk about when they say money going to people who don't need it. (eg. private health care rebate, child care rebate etc).

    However, given the amount of "middle class welfare" that's available at the moment, I'd like to see an example of where this has even been suggested to be increased at a cost of lower income welfare.

    I am sure that there will be cuts to the "middle class welfare" under the next government - no matter who gets in. There will also undoubtably be tax changes.

    But taking money from those that need it and redistributing it to the wealthy? I'd seriously like to see an example of that - because I can't fathom any time it happens.
    Well said! One example would be great.

    It's like when so many low income earners on here seemed to be delighted about the changes to the PHI rebate. Why? Because high income earners don't deserve their high salaries because they don't work any harder than lower income families and they should just be grateful for their salary and not expect anything back from the Govt that they contribute so highly to. It's not like the dollars they are "taking" from us are going to the more "needy". It's laughable to suggest it.

    That attitude really upset me as I for one am hugely supportive of supporting those who need it. It's the definition of need that differs I suppose.

    Anyway I have digressed!

    Tony Abbott is most likely to put some more money in my pocket. But I would pay to keep him out of power.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Am i in labor?
    By jessTJ in forum Birth & Labour Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-02-2013, 06:50
  2. Nappy bins, essential item or waste of money?
    By Leahmaree in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 09-11-2012, 19:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Green Kids Modern Cloth NappiesGreen Kids manufactures gorgeous washable and reusable modern cloth nappies in Oz plus a full range of super absorbent ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
how to keep it dryGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Tigger warning** advice sexual abuse from siblingGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Baby sleeping bagProduct Recommendations & Questions
House clothes/cleaning clothesGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
Delightful DecemberConception & Fertility General Chat
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›