Roast Australian Politics Stuffing Up Australia - Treasurer Joe Hockey Pg26

[blaze036]

Yep definitely a desperately needed social financing innovation

Who doesn't love the ballet?

 

[mattys123]

I've often wondered if a high court challenge could be mounted against tax breaks and funding for anything religious would be upheld.

Does 116 not prohibit the government from "imposing any religious observance" and given that persons are often converted to a religion long before they are old enough to make such decisions, are things such as a school chaplaincy program not by extension imposing religious observance?

They'd argue that the students still have religious freedom through abstaining from being part of the programme.

For example we had a weekly religious education class at the public primary school I went to and I was allowed to refuse to take part in the classes, guessing it would be the same for the chaplaincy programme, parents could refuse their children interact with them at all.

 

[jonbe54]

No cuts to the ABC/SBS - cuts of 44 million.
I have never attended a protest march in my life but if there is a march being organised I feel so strongly about this budget and broken promises by this government, I will be there! Apart fro the co-payments in doctors and scripts, fuel, this barely affects me but I feel so sad for friends that are Already doing it tough.

This budget is framed to attack anyone on less than $60K per year, people who normally have a very comfortable life will be forced to work overtime and even multiple jobs to afford their mortgage, people will stop going on holidays and put off buying that new car.

This of course will have a huge impact on Australian industry but try and tell the liberals that ???

Not a chance, they are the WORST money managers on the planet but unfortunately the totally conservative owned media in this country constantly trumpets how magnificent they are at managing money.

SPARE ME! Life is well designed - 40 years of watching and listening to morons believing such drivel, fortunately I've probably only got another 20 years to put up with it

 

[jonbe54]

They'd argue that the students still have religious freedom through abstaining from being part of the programme.

For example we had a weekly religious education class at the public primary school I went to and I was allowed to refuse to take part in the classes, guessing it would be the same for the chaplaincy programme, parents could refuse their children interact with them at all.

The flip side of that is that WE are being FORCED to pay for the program matty.

 

[mattys123]

The flip side of that is that WE are being FORCED to pay for the program matty.

True, but there's not much we can do about it really now.

 

[jonbe54]

No cuts to the ABC/SBS - cuts of 44 million.
I have never attended a protest march in my life but if there is a march being organised I feel so strongly about this budget and broken promises by this government, I will be there! Apart fro the co-payments in doctors and scripts, fuel, this barely affects me but I feel so sad for friends that are Already doing it tough.

You know what t he problem the libs have with the ABC Maggie??

It's independent and doesn't trumpet how great and wonderful the liberal party is like the totally conservative owned private media.

It's nothing more or less than a stark stifling of free speach.

 

[Maggie5]

I've often wondered if a high court challenge could be mounted against tax breaks and funding for anything religious would be upheld.

Does 116 not prohibit the government from "imposing any religious observance" and given that persons are often converted to a religion long before they are old enough to make such decisions, are things such as a school chaplaincy program not by extension imposing religious observance?

There is a case before the high court at the moment on this.

 

[Pedro]

Thats an argument for means testing medicare not ******* charging every tom dickheads and Harry, my olds are getting on and they barely go to the docs as it is because they are ashamed to come to me and my brother for scripts for their myriad of medication's.

This comes in and pensioners aren't excluded at the very least and it poses massive problems. Same thing with people earning less then 40k.

A low income family on say 34k with three kids, one gets crook then and inevitably they all get crook. And like always it's one after the other.
Today: they go to the doc's as they get sick
Tomorrow: wait until they are all sick as dogs riddled with the flu so they can go to the doc's together and pay $7 instead of $21.

Meanwhile they've all been contagious for two weeks but haven't realised it. Spreading their germs. And pitty if it's something serious and it could end up life threatening sometimes just 12 hours can be the difference.

Want to fix medicare it's quite easy earn over $55,000 you aren't entitled to it, seriously who earns over $55k and doesn't have full health insurance? It's cheap as chips and would allow our doctors to charge more meaning we can arrest the flow of our medical experts to other countries.

Instead of ******* poor people you target those who can afford new cars to begin with.

If you read the gist of what I said, it's not that far off what you are saying. I didn't suggest that low income earners (or those in need for whatever reason) should go without free access to the system. My beef is with those who CAN afford it, but choose to rort it. I pay when I go (very rarely). I can afford it. So I rightly should pay.

BTW, if you think that a family with a couple kids, paying a mortgage, school fees etc on 55K a year can easily afford a luxury like private health insurance, you must live in la la land

 

[Sydney Bloods]

They'd argue that the students still have religious freedom through abstaining from being part of the programme.

For example we had a weekly religious education class at the public primary school I went to and I was allowed to refuse to take part in the classes, guessing it would be the same for the chaplaincy programme, parents could refuse their children interact with them at all.

The argument would be based on the UN rights of the child charter which the government signed off on.

Where in, by the parent endorsing it the child become's "forced" to take part it in. And is accepted as "for the good of the child" The government funding it means that the government is in part endorsing it. Which it is prohibited from doing so as it cannot endorse religious instruction.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

If you read the gist of what I said, it's not that far off what you are saying. I didn't suggest that low income earners (or those in need for whatever reason) should go without free access to the system. My beef is with those who CAN afford it, but choose to rort it. I pay when I go (very rarely). I can afford it. So I rightly should pay.

BTW, if you think that a family with a couple kids, paying a mortgage, school fees etc on 55K a year can easily afford a luxury like private health insurance, you must live in la la land

Insurance is only a few grand for families, if they don't have that then they should have bought a more affordable house.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I've often wondered if a high court challenge could be mounted against tax breaks and funding for anything religious would be upheld.

Does 116 not prohibit the government from "imposing any religious observance" and given that persons are often converted to a religion long before they are old enough to make such decisions, are things such as a school chaplaincy program not by extension imposing religious observance?

The Constitution also says that only the Commonwealth can collect taxes, and all taxes must go into consolidated revenue ... there are always loopholes

 

[76woodenspooners]

Folks,

(1) Please keep it civil.

(2) Please avoid value judgements, they only peeve people off

Thanks

 

[Old Spice]

The argument would be based on the UN rights of the child charter which the government signed off on.

Where in, by the parent endorsing it the child become's "forced" to take part it in. And is accepted as "for the good of the child" The government funding it means that the government is in part endorsing it. Which it is prohibited from doing so as it cannot endorse religious instruction.

Private schools emerged because a group of zealous religious parents wanted to send their kids to a school that had religious instruction, pure and simple.

Good for them, but I don't see why the taxpayer should fund these schools when our public schools are relatively underfunded. It's one of the more obscene aspects of our education system that elite private schools like Kings College in Sydney should be given tax dollars to subsidise an art gallery.

 

[Pedro]

Insurance is only a few grand for families, if they don't have that then they should have bought a more affordable house.

Of course. Only a few grand I don't know what your situation is, but 55K is not a lot of money. Roughly $860 per week nett doesn't go far. Try feeding, clothing and schooling a couple teenagers on that money. Private Health Insurance is an absolute luxury. You can't even rent a shithole here for less than $300-$400 a week

 

[Old Spice]

Of course. Only a few grand I don't know what your situation is, but 55K is not a lot of money. Roughly $860 per week nett doesn't go far. Try feeding, clothing and schooling a couple teenagers on that money. Private Health Insurance is an absolute luxury. You can't even rent a shithole here for less than $300-$400 a week

Hey Pedro, you're not working hard enough.

Maybe pluck a magic wand out of your arse and create a stack of money.

Unreal.

 

[jonbe54]

If you read the gist of what I said, it's not that far off what you are saying. I didn't suggest that low income earners (or those in need for whatever reason) should go without free access to the system. My beef is with those who CAN afford it, but choose to rort it. I pay when I go (very rarely). I can afford it. So I rightly should pay.

BTW, if you think that a family with a couple kids, paying a mortgage, school fees etc on 55K a year can easily afford a luxury like private health insurance, you must live in la la land

Agree on 55K a year not being easy street Pedro, so much depends on outgoings. When I was running my little business I regularly took between 75 and 90K per year but the outgoings were HUGE. By the time income tax, gst,and running costs were deducted was not hugely better off that a working stiff on 35 - 40K and I was working 70 to 80 hour weeks.

Small business in this country is not a cake walk in any manner of thinking.

 

[Primetime Pricey]

Loving John Hewson right now on TV slamming the budget. Always good when someone calls out their own party

 

[Pedro]

Agree on 55K a year not being easy street Pedro, so much depends on outgoings. When I was running my little business I regularly took between 75 and 90K per year but the outgoings were HUGE. By the time income tax, gst,and running costs were deducted was not hugely better off that a working stiff on 35 - 40K and I was working 70 to 80 hour weeks.

Small business in this country is not a cake walk in any manner of thinking.

It is certainly not the pot of gold a lot of people believe it to be. A lot of people assume you are rolling in it, but most are just paddling like everyone else.

 

[Pedro]

Hey Pedro, you're not working hard enough.

Maybe pluck a magic wand out of your arse and create a stack of money.

Unreal.

Or go live in a tent

 

[jonbe54]

It is certainly not the pot of gold a lot of people believe it to be. A lot of people assume you are rolling in it, but most are just paddling like everyone else.

Again agree, if I had to come up with a definition of 'rich' I would say anyone who has got themselves into a position to sidestep or at least minimize the outgoings most of us take for granted whilst still making good money.

This type of activity is generally restricted to those who can afford tame accountants and lawyers unfortunately.

What I find funniest is the push to 'recognize' richness as an acheivement in its own right

FFS its a simply matter of keeping outgoings well below incomings, you can train a monkey with Alzheimer's to do as much

 

[Maggie5]

Again agree, if I had to come up with a definition of 'rich' I would say anyone who has got themselves into a position to sidestep or at least minimize the outgoings most of us take for granted whilst still making good money.

This type of activity is generally restricted to those who can afford tame accountants and lawyers unfortunately.

What I find funniest is the push to 'recognize' richness as an acheivement in its own right

FFS its a simply matter of keeping outgoings well below incomings, you can train a monkey with Alzheimer's to do as much

Come and join me on the Australian Politics thread, some true blue Libs there.

 

[PieNSauce]

I have no desire to enter into any political debate but I'm guessing anyone here will know how I feel when I tell you that I have a son in his last year of university and a daughter in her last year of school. How the hell they are going to get on is beyond me. I don't evn know what the hell to say to them. All of that doesn't even touch on how the budget affects me personally but clearly I'm devastated.

 

[Pedro]

I have no desire to enter into any political debate but I'm guessing anyone here will know how I feel when I tell you that I have a son in his last year of university and a daughter in her last year of school. How the hell they are going to get on is beyond me. I don't evn know what the hell to say to them. All of that doesn't even touch on how the budget affects me personally but clearly I'm devastated.

I've got two girls about to enter University. I'm a bit scared to look at how the deregulation of fees will effect them. They will probably enter their working life with HECS debts a bit bigger than anticipated

 

[PieNSauce]

I've got two girls about to enter University. I'm a bit scared to look at how the deregulation of fees will effect them. They will probably enter their working life with HECS debts a bit bigger than anticipated

Add to that the fact that their chances of finding work any time soon are not that great and the government is now removing support for them. It's a very different world than the one I grew up in.

 

[ant22]

GQUOTE="PieNSauce, post: 33042546, member: 111132"]I have no desire to enter into any political debate but I'm guessing anyone here will know how I feel when I tell you that I have a son in his last year of university and a daughter in her last year of school. How the hell they are going to get on is beyond me. I don't evn know what the hell to say to them. All of that doesn't even touch on how the budget affects me personally but clearly I'm devastated.[/QUOTE]

I'll give you the tip. Tell them to go spend a month in a third world country and see how good we have it. I didn't vote for either party and don't have an opinion either way on the budget. What I will say is that I have now lived long enough to see countless budgets and in reality they don't make a huge difference to most people, the doom and gloom on this site is a little hysterical. I wonder how many people complaining have iPads, iPods, a decent house , drink regularly , eat well, go on holidays etc etc etc. I am by no means a rich man but regardless of who is running this great country I will consider my self very fortunate. I bet your kids have more luxuries than you had at their age because most do. So I would tell them to be extremely grateful they live in a country which is still a land of opportunity. Yep it's not perfect but no where is. Be grateful that if you are not happy then in 2 years you get the chance to vote in a new government because many don't have that right.