Support NeoGAF

[mjontrix]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/12/tony-abbott-praises-schools-partnership-companies

You cannot be serious - YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!

 

[Arksy]

LOL. No thanks. :S

 

[Yagharek]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/12/tony-abbott-praises-schools-partnership-companies

Gina Rinehart to pay teachers two dollars an hour.

 

[Dastardly Jerks]

Now if I have 5 tonnes of coal, and little Jenny has 8 tonnes of coal, how many parasitic Greens voters will try to tax it?

Kids? Kids?

 

[Yagharek]

Little Johnny: "This answer brought to you by Tom Waterhouse where you get the best odds every day. The answer is none Miss, because we sent them all to Manus Island."

 

[Tim the Wiz]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/12/tony-abbott-praises-schools-partnership-companies

Election ASAP, please.

 

[Danoss]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/12/tony-abbott-praises-schools-partnership-companies

 

[Arksy]

Now if I have 5 tonnes of coal, and little Jenny has 8 tonnes of coal, how many parasitic Greens voters will try to tax it?

Kids? Kids?

Amazing.

 

[DrSlek]

Election ASAP, please.

Who knew the Simpsons could predict the future so accurately?

 

[Dead Man]

Might just be some more door in the face negotiating.

In other happy news:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-13/nrn-green-army-go-ahead/5520566

The Shadow Minister for Environment has indicated that Labor will support the Coalition's Green Army Bill when the Senate votes on it in the next fortnight.

The Green Army scheme would see young people receive an allowance of about half the minimum wage while working on environmental projects for up to six months.

The Federal Government has cut half a billion dollars from Landcare to fund the new program, which will start in July.

 

[mjontrix]

Might just be some more door in the face negotiating.

In other happy news:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-13/nrn-green-army-go-ahead/5520566

So, as we've established that global warming is a scam it's clear that Gina Rinehart mining projects fall under this section amirite guys?


BAHAHAHAHA it's getting worse - now worst Korea wants us to change court rulings to pass agreements!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/06/aus-korea-free-trade-agreement-could-sink-iinets-piracy-ruling/

 

[Danoss]

In other happy news:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-13/nrn-green-army-go-ahead/5520566

An apt name for the government department handling this would be "Claytons Job Agency".

 

[Yagharek]

So, as we've established that global warming is a scam it's clear that Gina Rinehart mining projects fall under this section amirite guys?


BAHAHAHAHA it's getting worse - now worst Korea wants us to change court rulings to pass agreements!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/06/aus-korea-free-trade-agreement-could-sink-iinets-piracy-ruling/

Incredibly ironic given the propensity of Korean corporations to be amongst the biggest offenders when it comes to flouting IP laws, patents and whatnot.

 

[Dead Man]

So, as we've established that global warming is a scam it's clear that Gina Rinehart mining projects fall under this section amirite guys?


BAHAHAHAHA it's getting worse - now worst Korea wants us to change court rulings to pass agreements!

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/06/aus-korea-free-trade-agreement-could-sink-iinets-piracy-ruling/

Yeah, trade agreements that let other countries dictate laws are fucking stupid. Jesus.

 

[Dead Man]

Double posting, don't give a fuck


Edited copy of Hockey's speech from last night.
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/a-...ians-to-the-starting-line-20140612-zs5fr.html

There has been much written and said about the Abbott government’s first budget. Criticism of our strategy has been political in nature and has drifted to 1970s class warfare lines, claiming the budget is “unfair’ or that the “rich don’t contribute enough”.

But I would argue the comments about inequality in Australia are largely misguided, both from a historical perspective, and from the perspective of the budget.

Over two decades, uninterrupted economic growth has served us all well. Australia has enjoyed an economic revolution. And while much focus has been on the “rich getting richer”, the more accurate story is the fact that everyone is getting richer as a result of economic development.

I want to address the claim that the budget is unfair and exacerbates inequality. This misguided cry is based on the claim that not everyone is asked to contribute equally and that in the future some people will pay more for government services or receive less in payments.

Access to government services and payments has never been uniform across the community. Government can only hope to provide equality of opportunity. Even then, as each day passes, forces such as personal empowerment and personal choice, reduce our capacity to equalise opportunity.

In our view it is the responsibility of government to provide equality of opportunity with a fair and comprehensive support system for those who are most vulnerable. After that it is up to individuals in the community to accept personal responsibility for their lives and their destinies.

Our first budget is based on the premise that it is fair to expect those who have the capacity to pay, to accept more personal responsibility for their cost of living, the cost of raising their children, their health services and their education.

Our welfare system is unsustainable in its current form and it is not well-targeted to those who really need our assistance. The federal government will spend $146 billion next financial year on welfare. This is 35% of the federal budget. We spend more on welfare than we spend on any other single policy area including health, education or defence.

Payments are too broadly available to too many people. As a result, less is available for those most in need. At the moment over half of Australian households receive a taxpayer-funded payment from the government. We have a very comprehensive welfare system. But it should not be taboo to question whether everyone is entitled to these payments.

This year the Australian government will spend on average over $6,000 on welfare for every man, woman and child in the country. Given that only around 45 per cent of the population pays income tax, the average taxpayer must pay more than twice this amount in tax to fund welfare expenditure.

In other words, the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full-time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian. Is this fair?

Whilst income tax is by far our largest form of revenue, just ten per cent of the population pays nearly two thirds of all income tax. In fact, just two per cent of taxpayers pay more than a quarter of all income tax. Maybe these taxpayers would argue that the tax system is already unfair.

So with a compromised taxation system we must deal with the pressures on our spending programs ... and they are growing.

As it stands around one in five Australians pays to see their doctor. For these patients the average additional cost was $28.60 per visit – or more than four times the proposed co-payment.

Our universal health care system is certainly not free. Over and above Australians’ individual contributions, Medicare costs the budget around $20 billion each year.

Some critics claim it is unfair to ask a pensioner to pay $7 for each of their first ten visits to the doctor. At the same time those critics argue it is fair to have the very same pensioner pay $360 for their first 60 PBS medicines prescribed each year by that very same doctor.

By introducing a co-payment for Medicare we are able to build a $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund that in the next decade will double medical research funding in Australia. This is fair.

Our universities are overwhelmingly government-funded but the only way they have been able to survive and grow is with international fee-paying students and increasing taxpayer support. But times have changed.

Our reforms not only lift the capacity of our universities to be able to compete in the frenetic and intensely competitive global world of education, but they deliver equality of opportunity on a scale never previously provided.

Student loans will continue to be made available to students to ensure that they don’t pay a dollar upfront, making study more accessible to all, regardless of their socio-economic background.

And most importantly, for the first time, universities will be required to direct $1 of every $5 of additional revenue raised towards the Commonwealth Scholarship fund, to support access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds so they don’t miss out on a university education because Austudy or Youth Allowance is not enough to see them through.

By 2018, our reforms will see the Australian government supporting over 80,000 more students in further education.

As the world becomes more competitive and global, as information becomes more immediate and comprehensive, as disruptive influences from outside our immediate community become more powerful, governments will inevitably have less influence on people’s lives.

In health, it is more medical research combined with new technology and better global partnerships that will deliver better health outcomes.

In education, it is tomorrow’s employer who is driving the new standards in curriculum rather than public policy.

In welfare, it is self-sufficiency and personal empowerment that will help people get off welfare and into productive employment.

It is not the job of government to manufacture the outcome from public policy in such a way as to ensure that every person is an equal beneficiary notwithstanding their personal effort or circumstances.

Some observations of inequality are based purely on outcomes with no regard to efforts or circumstance.

Our duty is to help Australians to get to the starting line, while accepting that some will run faster than others.

In striving to achieve equality, it is not the role of government to use the taxation and welfare system as a tool to level the playing field. We must use the levers of government to help those who are vulnerable and frail.

Provided we ensure that those most in need receive the most support, our ambition must be for equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome. This is what the budget sets out to do.

Joe Hockey is the Treasurer. This is an edited extract of his speech, A Budget for Opportunity, to the Sydney Institute last night. Read the full speech here.

What an utter lunatic. I agree welfare has been available to too many, but it is the middle class welfare that needs to end, not reducing it's availability to those in need. Cutting welfare from the needy to give to the wealthy is sociopathic. He doesn't even seem to care about the disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions.

 

[Yagharek]

Never mind the fact the biggest earners have the greatest ability to minimise their tax paid, and also the means to lobby for it.

Unemployed, under-30s, disabled, low skill, indigenous and retired people have very little lobbying power. And even fewer avenues for pay increases and tax minimisation.

 

[Coriolanus]

Double posting, don't give a fuck

What an utter lunatic. I agree welfare has been available to too many, but it is the middle class welfare that needs to end, not reducing it's availability to those in need. Cutting welfare from the needy to give to the wealthy is sociopathic. He doesn't even seem to care about the disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions.

Why not upper class welfare first?

As it stands around one in five Australians pays to see their doctor. For these patients the average additional cost was $28.60 per visit – or more than four times the proposed co-payment.

I don't think he quite understands what he said here.

 

[Dead Man]

Why not upper class welfare first?



I don't think he quite understands what he said here.

Well that too, I should have included both in that sentence but I assumed if middle class welfare was reduced it would include upper class welfare.

Edit: And yeah, saying people already pay so they should be happy to pay more is pretty stupid.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Why not upper class welfare first?



I don't think he quite understands what he said here.

It's actually really really hard to end upper class welfare because large reserves of capital allow you to indirectly benefit from welfare directed to others. Payments to those who get above or equal to minimum wage but below living wage essentially subsidize corporate wages which provides welfare to company owners and shareholders rather than the person actually getting the benefit, since it allows the corporation to pay less than the true cost of labor.

The kind of reforms you'd need to actually end upper class welfare properly would basically require a completely different economic model than is currently used and it would need to be agreed upon on a global basis. Otherwise companies and the wealthy will just flee to wherever gives them the best deal (like they do with tax or labor costs already).

 

[Coriolanus]

It's actually really really hard to end upper class welfare because large reserves of capital allow you to indirectly benefit from welfare directed to others. Payments to those who get above or equal to minimum wage but below living wage essentially subsidize corporate wages which provides welfare to company owners and shareholders rather than the person actually getting the benefit, since it allows the corporation to pay less than the true cost of labor.

The kind of reforms you'd need to actually end upper class welfare properly would basically require a completely different economic model than is currently used and it would need to be agreed upon on a global basis. Otherwise companies and the wealthy will just flee to wherever gives them the best deal (like they do with tax or labor costs already).

Thanks for the well reasoned post, and I do get that any branch but the upper is easier to tax. Thing is, wouldn't it be better to not go after middle and lower, and take steps towards that unifying goal like closing loopholes, marginally increasing the rates, and so on and so forth, than to go after mid and low simply because those are the ones that you can readily reach?

Also for people like Rhinehart, that are reliant on natural resources, escape is not exactly an option, aye?

 

[Elaugaufein]

Thanks for the well reasoned post, and I do get that any branch but the upper is easier to tax. Thing is, wouldn't it be better to not go after middle and lower, and take steps towards that unifying goal like closing loopholes, marginally increasing the rates, and so on and so forth, than to go after mid and low simply because those are the ones that you can readily reach?

Also for people like Rhinehart, that are reliant on natural resources, escape is not exactly an option, aye?

Yes, pretty much agree. Going after lower class welfare is just going to be actively harmful to society.

I'm not even really sure about middle class welfare since the term is ridiculously broad, stretching from people who are effectively working class (no personal wealth of substance) to people who are only millionaires instead of billionaires. Depending on what part of the group you look at , you could make arguments either way, and even various median positions (like only receiving welfare in the case of long term incapacitation).

I agree that its more moral to to cut off upper class welfare before middle class welfare before lower class welfare. The problem is that the lower and middle class are also relatively static, they can't flee measures imposed on them. The upper class can and will relocate to areas that provide them with lower taxes , more loopholes , cheaper labor etc. To end lower and middle class welfare is something a government can do, ending upper class welfare is almost impossible without global action. Basically the upper class has been allowed to obtain so much influence that its effectively impossible to remove it. Look at what happened with Palmer, his party didn't please him sufficiently so he bought his way into political power. Or the Murdochs who will retain enough media punch to play Kingmaker for the next 30 years

And yes, governments could effectively wait for favorable terms on natural resources, but they generally don't want to, since immediate revenue lets them provide services/cut taxes right now, which pleases the voters, so if one party won't do it, the other party can effectively steal a march on them. Some countries have done so though.

Edit - My spelling and grammar is awful tonight.

 

[wonzo]

gerard certainly is the media watch dog!

 

[bomma_man]

God what a fucking croc of shit.

Equality of opportunity my arse. Tell that to someone born in a shit hole. Tell that to an aboriginal.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Basically the TL;DR is "we think Australia is too fair and equal."

This year the Australian government will spend on average over $6,000 on welfare for every man, woman and child in the country. Given that only around 45 per cent of the population pays income tax, the average taxpayer must pay more than twice this amount in tax to fund welfare expenditure.

In other words, the average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full-time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian. Is this fair?

Can anyone make sense of this or am I just an idiot?

Some critics claim it is unfair to ask a pensioner to pay $7 for each of their first ten visits to the doctor. At the same time those critics argue it is fair to have the very same pensioner pay $360 for their first 60 PBS medicines prescribed each year by that very same doctor.

Is that $360 before or after your proposed increase in PBS fees Joe?

 

[Jintor]

You're supporting other people who aren't as lucky in life as you. What a crock of shit, right? Why aren't you fuckers all as selfish as I am? Why don't you like our budget?!?!?

 

[Coriolanus]

I agree that its more moral to to cut off upper class welfare before middle class welfare before lower class welfare. The problem is that the lower and middle class are also relatively static, they can't flee measures imposed on them. The upper class can and will relocate to areas that provide them with lower taxes , more loopholes , cheaper labor etc. To end lower and middle class welfare is something a government can do, ending upper class welfare is almost impossible without global action. Basically the upper class has been allowed to obtain so much influence that its effectively impossible to remove it. Look at what happened with Palmer, his party didn't please him sufficiently so he bought his way into political power. Or the Murdochs who will retain enough media punch to play Kingmaker for the next 30 years.

I understand, i just... can't see the sense... in tackling middle or lower class welfare unless you have an inflation problem, and.... Australia simply does not. And yeah, the murdoch thing is pretty damn sad, especially since that effectively nukes from orbit the midlow-class relocation option (relocating their vote to someone that doesnt despise them) and promotes working class conflicts.

That the man impacted at least 3 great countries so far is a testament of how good the bugger is.

Can anyone make sense of this or am I just an idiot?

He is pretending that poor people don't pay taxes. Promoting working class interfighting and whatnot. Cuz income tax is the only type of tax that exists. Obviously.

 

[Arksy]

Does he mean net contributor? That's the only way I can make sense of the statement...but even then it's weird.

 

[bobnowhere]

If you saw the press club address with Howard and Hawke last week, Howard made a salient point when taking about introducing reforms. You need to do two things, one you have to take the populous along on the journey, educate them, don't sloganeer to them and secondly there has to be a sense of fairness in what you are doing. No matter how many speeches Hockey and co. make to friendly institutes and donors, they are losing on both accounts.

The most interesting thing is the Labor party have surprising successfully framed the argument to be one of fairness and the fact the Hockey speech is trying to explaing why it's fair puts the ball firmly in the Labor court. With the Greens already screaming fairness, Palmer jumping on whatever bandwagon is going past and even some independents framing it the same way, and negotiations come July 1 will be all about fairness. It will take something extraordinary to come back from this for the Libs.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

The way Hockey's phrased it it almost sounds like he believe the average teacher, plumber or cleaner pays $6000 a month in income tax, which would make for a total income of what? $250, 000 a year? $300, 000? Either that or he's taking a more reasonable monthly earning figure of $6000 (still inflated compared to the median) and pretending it has some causal relevance to the welfare and tax systems.

"The average person earns $6000 a month. The average person receives $6000 a year in welfare. Coincidence? I think not. That's right, the poors are stealing a month's worth of your pay every year!"

I understand, i just... can't see the sense... in tackling middle or lower class welfare unless you have an inflation problem, and.... Australia simply does not. And yeah, the murdoch thing is pretty damn sad, especially since that effectively nukes from orbit the midlow-class relocation option (relocating their vote to someone that doesnt despise them) and promotes working class conflicts.

That the man impacted at least 3 great countries so far is a testament of how good the bugger is.

He is pretending that poor people don't pay taxes. Promoting working class interfighting and whatnot. Cuz income tax is the only type of tax that exists. Obviously.

Yeah, nevermind that half of taxpayers earn under 50 grand. Definitely shades of Romney's 47% comment. I imagine Labor will use that. Also, good point re: inflation.

 

[Lafiel]

The welfare thing is fucking stupid coming from Joe Hockey. Honestly for me as someone who is going be a school teacher, I rather my tax dollars go towards to a welfare recipient no matter what the fuck they do with the money eg if they are using it to buy video games or go clubbing or some shit, I don't care, and I personally believe it's a far better use of my tax dollars and labor then going towards corporate profits or welfare. ;p

 

[Elaugaufein]

I understand, i just... can't see the sense... in tackling middle or lower class welfare unless you have an inflation problem, and.... Australia simply does not..

This sounds entirely reasonable to me.

 

[viciouskillersquirrel]

The welfare thing is fucking stupid coming from Joe Hockey. Honestly for me as someone who is going be a school teacher, I rather my tax dollars go towards to a welfare recipient no matter what the fuck they do with the money eg if they are using it to buy video games or go clubbing or some shit, I don't care, and I personally believe it's a far better use of my tax dollars and labor then going towards corporate profits or welfare. ;p

My answer to people complaining that people abuse the welfare system is that I prefer that to having our towns and cities ringed with slums. Taxes are just the price I pay for being able to walk down the street at night without fear of being stabbed for my wallet.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Does he mean net contributor? That's the only way I can make sense of the statement...but even then it's weird.

Because you haven't heard it for thirty years from 1 1/3 of your two major parties. As an American's, this sounds like every Republican (or Bill Clinton in the mid -90's) speech about welfare I've ever heard.

 

[Shaneus]

 

[Dead Man]

If you ever post an image like that again I will track you down and hurt you. Hours bleaching my eyes will be needed.

Wanker should move to the US though, he obviously loves the whole fucking mes of a country.

 

[Shaneus]

If you ever post an image like that again I will track you down and hurt you. Hours bleaching my eyes will be needed.

Wanker should move to the US though, he obviously loves the whole fucking mes of a country.

A friend posted it on FB as his new profile picture. Had to share the love.

 

[Dead Man]

A friend posted it on FB as his new profile picture. Had to share the love.

 

[Dead Man]

Double posting again because I can.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/fed...ment-infrastructure-spend-20140615-zs675.html

The Abbott government has been accused of pork-barrelling after analysis of the budget's infrastructure spending revealed Coalition electorates are favoured for new money by a ratio of three to one.

A Fairfax Media analysis of the Abbott government's 2014 budget has calculated that, of the new projects announced and funded, just under three-quarters were in Coalition electorates.

Including the infrastructure projects which aren't new but which have received more funding under the incoming Coalition government, such as the Warrego Highway in Queensland and the Swan Valley Bypass in Western Australia, there was a total of 50 projects benefiting Coalition electorates.
<p>

In comparison, the majority of projects which lost federal funding in the 2013 election were in non-Liberal electorates, such as Melbourne Metro Rail in Victoria.

Monash University professor of transport Graham Currie said it was common for Liberal or right-wing leaning governments to be concerned about infrastructure in rural areas.

But while it was not uncommon for governments to use public money to prop up their own electorates, he said the government had to decide whether it was going to be political or professional.

"A real truth is that there's always a bit of a silver lining or a bit of gold plating around your own electorates [but] I'd like to point out that a three to one ratio is to a new level," he said.

Professor Currie said Australia's independent body for infrastructure decisions, Infrastructure Australia, was not being used by the current government to decide which projects to fund.

"The question is whether they want to be a professional government or they want to pork barrel, and whether we'll forge the idea of trying to be professional about how we manage resources or just do it on a political basis.

"I don't think that's how a country should be run."

The shadow Infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese has joined Mr Currie in accusing the federal government of using publicly funded projects to gain votes in marginal seats.

But a spokesperson for Infrastructure minister Warren Truss said the government had decided on infrastructure projects based on advice from the states and territories and the independent body Infrastructure Australia.

More at the link.

 

[Shaneus]

Professor Currie said Australia's independent body for infrastructure decisions, Infrastructure Australia, was not being used by the current government to decide which projects to fund.

Sounds like another department the government can cut funding to. Must've been overlooked in the budget.

 

[Dastardly Jerks]

Amount of protests I'd been to prior to Abbott: 0

Amount as of today: 5

Hooray for a shit government for making an average slob like me start to be passionate about politics.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Professor Currie said Australia's independent body for infrastructure decisions, Infrastructure Australia, was not being used by the current government to decide which projects to fund.

But a spokesperson for Infrastructure minister Warren Truss said the government had decided on infrastructure projects based on advice from the states and territories and the independent body Infrastructure Australia.

Who are we to believe?!?!?

 

[Shaneus]

Who are we to believe?!?!?

Sounds like these "Infrastructure Australia" people have a bit of an agenda. If they didn't go to them for advice, I reckon they dodged a bullet.

 

[Dryk]

CEFC saved again, DD trigger acquired, Opposition to reintroduce bill next week

 

[wonzo]

try and shut down a public owned finance corp thats making money and facilitating new jobs in a rapidly growing and sustainable industry brehs

 

[Dryk]

try and shut down a public owned finance corp thats making money and facilitating new jobs in a rapidly growing and sustainable industry brehs

The free market tho

Fuck the free market. People think 'free market' is a goal in and of itself. Like they think "the left" is a valid criticism with nowt more to say one you throw out the label.

The free market has directly stolen several trillion dollars and led to tens of thousands of suicides in the last decade in the western market alone.

I was being sarcastic. I think the CEFC is fantastic because it gives power companies the gentle nudge they need to move out of their comfort zones and turns a profit doing it.

 

[Yagharek]

I think its clear, globally, that fiscal conservatives do not understand the potential financial impacts of climate change one bit. I assume they are genuine that they believe it is happening if they say so, for sake of argument.

If global warming is real, there are trillions of dollars at stake. In such a scenario, renewable energy sources that are cleaner and dont add to the problem are only ever going to get cheaper and more profitable.

It might mean everyone has a solar array at home or local power storage by means of a battery system. It might mean we have to build some fancy new geothermal or solar collector arrays around the place but we already have the distribution infrastructure for that. Who cares if its cloudy? I already get electricity now and I dont live near the coal burning plant that generates it.

What we are seeing is the pre-emptive moves from the industries with most to lose.

The free market tho

Fuck the free market. People think 'free market' is a goal in and of itself. Like they think "the left" is a valid criticism with nowt more to say one you throw out the label.

The free market has directly stolen several trillion dollars and led to tens of thousands of suicides in the last decade in the western market alone.

 

[Fredescu]

I think its clear, globally, that fiscal conservatives do not understand the potential financial impacts of climate change one bit.

I think there are a reasonable number that do but are aware that the majority of the pain will take place after their death, and therefore the reduction in their net worth is not worth any action on their behalf. Witness the worlds biggest banks, insurance companies, even oil companies like Shell, all account for climate change in their financial reports and predictions. I don't doubt that there are a considerable number of people that "don't understand", but I think those with real power understand fully and are doing everything in their power to delay action on it. These that do understand are largely responsible for the creation of people that don't.

 

[Fredescu]

I think there are a reasonable number that do but are aware that the majority of the pain will take place after their death, and therefore the reduction in their net worth is not worth any action on their behalf. Witness the worlds biggest banks, insurance companies, even oil companies like Shell, all account for climate change in their financial reports and predictions. I don't doubt that there are a considerable number of people that "don't understand", but I think those with real power understand fully and are doing everything in their power to delay action on it. These that do understand are largely responsible for the creation of people that don't.

Genuinely curious, does this sound reasonable, or does it sound like crazy conspiracy man stuff like you'd expect to hear something about chemtrails or 9/11 truth to come out of my mouth next?

 

[senahorse]

I would take it a step further (so call me crazy) and change:

I think there are a reasonable number that do but are aware that the majority of the pain will take place after their death, and therefore the reduction in their net worth is not worth any action on their behalf.

to

I think there are a reasonable number that do but are aware that the majority of the pain will take place after the next election, and therefore the reduction in their net worth is not worth any action on their behalf.

 

[Dryk]

It's entirely reasonable, it will barely affect their lives because they can afford to maintain their standard of living in the event of climate disaster.

What's the point of reintroducing the bill? It's just going to get shut down again. I can just picture Tone with his snake grin and head that shakes like a Parkinsons victim trying to stammer his way in a debate about why it's bad.

Ammunition. They want to be able to point at it and say that Labor/The Greens have been repeatedly obstructing their mandate. This is possibly the worst bill to try that on though.