Reasons Gillard should go...
#76
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,230
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
I dont think she's actually said it that much, aside from that one famous tirrade and then mentioning it again yesterday. It seems the media that keeps dragging it up. It clearly worries the libs though, which is why they got Bishop to drive a lot of the accusations this week.
#77
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,555
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
She is far better performer in parliament. This one proves your point.
http://media.smh.com.au/news/nationa...e-3843407.html
http://media.smh.com.au/news/nationa...e-3843407.html
I dont think she's actually said it that much, aside from that one famous tirrade and then mentioning it again yesterday. It seems the media that keeps dragging it up. It clearly worries the libs though, which is why they got Bishop to drive a lot of the accusations this week.
#78
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
because she's a woman.
women should only iron clothes, make dinners, babysit, and such other household chores.
women should only iron clothes, make dinners, babysit, and such other household chores.
Last edited by commonwealth; Nov 30th 2012 at 9:03 am.
#80
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
I dont think she's actually said it that much, aside from that one famous tirrade and then mentioning it again yesterday. It seems the media that keeps dragging it up. It clearly worries the libs though, which is why they got Bishop to drive a lot of the accusations this week.
#84
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
The first four men, who were the poorest, would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man, the wealthiest, would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
Moral of the story, be careful what you wish for because it might come back and bite you on the arse.
#85
Joined on April fools day
Joined: Apr 2012
Location: 30 miles from a decent grocery store.
Posts: 10,642
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
A group of ten friends go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. They had a discussion of the fairest way for them to pay their bill and they decided it should be structured the same way as the tax system and each should pay an amount relative to their income.
The first four men, who were the poorest, would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man, the wealthiest, would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
Moral of the story, be careful what you wish for because it might come back and bite you on the arse.
The first four men, who were the poorest, would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man, the wealthiest, would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
Moral of the story, be careful what you wish for because it might come back and bite you on the arse.
#86
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
Except that the tenth guy in reality would pay $0 because he didn't actually earn anything in country, his wealth was routed through an offshore tax haven and repatriated via a non-profit trust.
Oh, and he wouldn't be drinking with the plebs in the first place. They are just layabouts and don't deserve special treatment; they need to work harder, don't they know he could hire a hungry african to do their jobs for a fraction of their wages.
Oh, and he wouldn't be drinking with the plebs in the first place. They are just layabouts and don't deserve special treatment; they need to work harder, don't they know he could hire a hungry african to do their jobs for a fraction of their wages.
#87
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,442
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
Except that the tenth guy in reality would pay $0 because he didn't actually earn anything in country, his wealth was routed through an offshore tax haven and repatriated via a non-profit trust.
Oh, and he wouldn't be drinking with the plebs in the first place. They are just layabouts and don't deserve special treatment; they need to work harder, don't they know he could hire a hungry african to do their jobs for a fraction of their wages.
Oh, and he wouldn't be drinking with the plebs in the first place. They are just layabouts and don't deserve special treatment; they need to work harder, don't they know he could hire a hungry african to do their jobs for a fraction of their wages.
The fact is, reduce the amount of income tax and the govt. receives a larger amount of tax revenue because more wealthy people are repatriated back into the system. Increase the tax too much and they move offshore.
It's much better to get a certain % of something rather than 100% of nothing.
#89
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,230
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
Even for this forum, that is a particularly ridiculous comparison.
#90
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2008
Location: Perth.
Posts: 425
Re: Reasons Gillard should go...
Semantics.
The fact is, reduce the amount of income tax and the govt. receives a larger amount of tax revenue because more wealthy people are repatriated back into the system. Increase the tax too much and they move offshore.
It's much better to get a certain % of something rather than 100% of nothing.
The fact is, reduce the amount of income tax and the govt. receives a larger amount of tax revenue because more wealthy people are repatriated back into the system. Increase the tax too much and they move offshore.
It's much better to get a certain % of something rather than 100% of nothing.
Doesn't matter if they are in the country or not, if the money disapears so does the tax.
Should Guillard go? Hell yes!
Do we have a viable alternative? Hell no!