Now this pisses me off, earlier a lib dude said the carbon tax brang in fuck all revenue, just before a labor lady said it brang in a significant amount, how can facts be interpreted so wildly differently it either did or it didnt god one is clearly lieing. Need the karl pilkington bull shit man in there.
also a labor lady earlier.... "why has the gov backflipped on the rollout out of the N........(nbn!!!!!)....DIS" lol massive deflation there.
Yeah, but do you have statistics to back that up.
You know... you could... look that up yourself!
It made
$4.1 billion in 2012-13
Was projected to raise more through 2013-14.
Completely disenfranchised voters generally don't care about politics so long as they get fed or paid.
This is true to some degree I think.
And then there's also the entitled voters Howard created. When you want to win an election you just negligently use the finite profits of the mining boom to give handouts to voters in larger quantities than ever before! Than do it again and again until voters won't ever concede for the greater good ever again.
Scandinavia? Extremely high taxes where a large chunk is a contribution fund of sorts that increases when you earn a higher income. There are also a lot of other taxes that take advantage of whatever natural resources they have. This is particularly obvious with Norway, which has a natural resources tax which goes to invest in things that will help Norway in the future when such resources do not exist anymore.
Man that would be great. I wonder if we can ever get something like that here!
Yeah coz my dads always like "nothing comes free" even though it was free for him.
lol this is it. this is the problem with the approach to politics in Australia by the layperson.
Old Aussies forget how good they had it and aren't willing to let reform through nowadays because they would have to sacrifice a smidgen for the greater good. As Tim the Wiz said it's often the fuck you got mine attitude.
The frightening thing about our aging population in Australia is their growing influence.
In last year's election 48.3% of voters were over 50 and that percentage will only continue to rise.
Whitlam's decision to abolish university fees was an effort to encourage marginalized and disadvantaged groups to take part in higher education. From what I know, this didn't really work too well with those in weak socioeconomic backgrounds but it definitely encouraged a lot of middle class women to seek education that they generally would not have taken.
mmm
"According to Gough Whitlam's private secretary, Peter Wilenski, the effect of abolishing fees was "found to have had no impact on the socioeconomic distribution of the origins of university students, and was in effect a direct handout to the better off"."
The percentage of those from low SES has since been in the mid to high-teens and there's currently a target of making it over 20%. (with low SES peeps making up ~25% of the population)
