Official : John Howard Australia's Best Prime Minister

[Xsess]

In truth Howards vote has probably been inflated by having Gillard/Rudd come after - those two would make anyone look good. But still he was the stand out best of all for 30 years. Special mention for Keating and Hawke though - they made decisions based on what they believed to be the best for the country, not for themselves or their party. For that alone, I will always admire both men. Gillard, Rudd disgraceful self serving pigs. Doubt that Gillard's position as worst or Howards positions as best - would change markedly if you expanded the poll scope to 50 years and included 100 000 respondents.

 

[subaru]

What a ridiculous assertion.

I think anybody voting for Gillard as the best of the lot is a bit of an idiot. In saying that though I think similarly of anybody voting for Howard or Rudd. But I don't think Gillard's "s**t" either.

I guess if I asked 350 AFL fans who was the best player out of Gary Ablett and Patrick Dangerfield it would show that almost everyone thinks Dangerfield's "s**t" right?

You people really need to lighten up

Gillard was their 5th choice ...you are not talking Patrick Dangerfield v Ablett ...you are talking Patrick Dangerfield, G Ablett and 3 other random midfielders.

Just coz they were PM's does not automatically make them any good.

If I back a horse that comes 5th in a 5 horse race, I doubt it would get a glowing recommendation and front favourite next start.

The 5 candidates just happen to be the last 5 leaders. We are not talking Lincoln, JFK and Churchill here.

Now, take a breath and try hard to visualise irony ....

 

[subaru]

Exactly. Just because somebody chooses Hawke over Keating doesn't mean they think Keating was a bad PM. Yet Subaru seems to think that 95% of people think Gillard is "s**t"...

I'll walk down the street and ask shall I? The numbers may actually stack up to something remarkably like that depending on the question ......

Where do you put her performance in the company of those 5 ?

 

[Footy Smarts]

Where do you put her performance in the company of those 5 ?

Personally I'd put her 3rd. You can probably guess the 2 above and 2 below.

 

[subaru]

Personally I'd put her 3rd. You can probably guess the 2 above and 2 below.

You're kidding me .......

5th all the way for me ,just behind the one she knifed.

 

[evo]

I betcha Keating, if he cared at all, would be more pissed orf that he was beaten by Rudd and Hawkey than that he get flogged by Howard.

 

[Xsess]

Personally I'd put her 3rd. You can probably guess the 2 above and 2 below.

I have no idea how you couldn't possbly have her stone motherless last. How could I possibly untangle who you would have above or below her

 

[PottSie2]

They aren't taxpayers, when they are given their taxes back in the form of welfare.

They are tax payers if they end up paying more taxes than breaks they receive.

Of course you are talking about a family earning 55K and I am talking about the real middle class who pay 30k+ taxes a year.

 

[Dry Rot]

Personally I'd put her 3rd. You can probably guess the 2 above and 2 below.

You've got be ****ing joking?

 

[Footy Smarts]

You've got be ****ing joking?

No I'm not.

Howard was in for over a decade and the sum total of his legacy is his gun control measures. Oh and also splashing out with middle-class welfare to put us in to a structural deficit, leaving our infrastructure in a terrible state and running down our health and education systems.

Apart from the GFC Rudd couldn't make a decision to save himself and couldn't implement a policy. He was also weak as piss when the pressure came. Overall I agreed with most of his aims but that's meaningless if you can't put ideas in to action.

In contrast Gillard's for the most part implemented Rudd's policy agenda. Some of her stuff's been ordinary (some of the education reform and the MRRT in particular, although hopefully the second of these can be easily remedied to a more reasonable level if the ALP is returned at the next election) but she's got some other big ticks in my opinion (carbon pricing, NBN, NDIS and better education funding).

None of them hold a candle to Hawke or Keating but I'd take Gillard over either of the first 2.

 

[PottSie2]

Footy smarts post is extremely unbiased and extremely balanced. Face_roflmao

 

[Hill2Pav]

They are tax payers if they end up paying more taxes than breaks they receive.

Of course you are talking about a family earning 55K and I am talking about the real middle class who pay 30k+ taxes a year.

Since when has an income of about $120,000 per year been middle class?

Is it any wonder we have such high income tax rates when we think it's ok that we pay $32,000 per year in benefits to single parents and 42% of all families in this country pay no net income tax! Is it any wonder when the top 25% of income earners are paying almost 70% of all income tax being paid!

 

[Xsess]

No I'm not.

Howard was in for over a decade and the sum total of his legacy is his gun control measures. Oh and also splashing out with middle-class welfare to put us in to a structural deficit, leaving our infrastructure in a terrible state and running down our health and education systems.

Apart from the GFC Rudd couldn't make a decision to save himself and couldn't implement a policy. He was also weak as piss when the pressure came. Overall I agreed with most of his aims but that's meaningless if you can't put ideas in to action.

In contrast Gillard's for the most part implemented Rudd's policy agenda. Some of her stuff's been ordinary (some of the education reform and the MRRT in particular, although hopefully the second of these can be easily remedied to a more reasonable level if the ALP is returned at the next election) but she's got some other big ticks in my opinion (carbon pricing, NBN, NDIS and better education funding).

None of them hold a candle to Hawke or Keating but I'd take Gillard over either of the first 2.

This post could easily be the subject of a PHD thesis.

 

[Xsess]

Since when has an income of about $120,000 per year been middle class?

Is it any wonder we have such high income tax rates when we think it's ok that we pay $32,000 per year in benefits to single parents and 42% of all families in this country pay no net income tax! Is it any wonder when the top 25% of income earners are paying almost 70% of all income tax being paid!

A family on $120k sit fair and square in the middle of that "25% who pay 70% of all the tax" - but only if that family happens to have a single primary earner. This is a traditional middle class - dad at work, mum at home...family with a mortgage. If that same family earns 120k split between two incomes ie mum 60k and dad 60k then the whole equasion changes and they get every benefit under the sun. Both are middle class but only one receives assistance. In fact Family A fully subsidises family B. Family A will also probably be in a worse off position if mum decides to go back to work for a couple of days a week, because dads income means she wont get help with sky high childcare costs.

 

[Dry Rot]

But a family on $120k sit fair and square in the middle of that "25% who pay 70% of all the tax" - but only if that family happens to have a single primary earner. This is a traditional middle class - dad at work, mum at home...family with a mortgage. If that same family earns 120k split between two incomes ie mum 60k and dad 60k then the whole equasion changes and they get every benefit under the sun. Family A subsidises family B. Family A will also probably be in a net worse off position if mum decides to go back to work for a couple of days a week, because dads income means she wont get help with sky high childcare costs.

Why the **** should a family on $60k or $120K get a cent from the govt?

 

[Dry Rot]

Family A will also probably be in a net worse off position if mum decides to go back to work for a couple of days a week, because dads income means she wont get help with sky high childcare costs.

Why the **** should we pay for their ****ing childcare?

How deep is the trough for the long snouts of these family bludgers?

 

[Xsess]

Why the **** should we pay for their ****ing childcare?

How deep is the trough for the long snouts of these family bludgers?

Why the **** should a family on $60k or $120K get a cent from the govt?

You completely missed the point.

 

[Hill2Pav]

But a family on $120k sit fair and square in the middle of that "25% who pay 70% of all the tax" - but only if that family happens to have a single primary earner. This is a traditional middle class - dad at work, mum at home...family with a mortgage. If that same family earns 120k split between two incomes ie mum 60k and dad 60k then the whole equasion changes and they get every benefit under the sun. Family A subsidises family B. Family A will also probably be in a net worse off position if mum decides to go back to work for a couple of days a week, because dads income means she wont get help with sky high childcare costs.

No a family with an income of $120,000 per year will still be provided government benefits through such items as FTB A&B, the baby bonus and maternity payments. Less welfare payments equals less churn equals lower income tax rates.

http://www.babycenter.com.au/a562850/government-benefits-for-families

http://guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/f**/faguide-3/faguide-3.6/faguide-3.6.1.html

sky high childcare costs.

Caused by the government throwing upto $7,500 per year per child at child care operators who simply increased their fee's to capture this money.

 

[Xsess]

Why the **** should we pay for their ****ing childcare?

How deep is the trough for the long snouts of these family bludgers?

I didn't know you paid taxes on newstart?

 

[harmesy 37]

No I'm not.

Howard was in for over a decade and the sum total of his legacy is his gun control measures. Oh and also splashing out with middle-class welfare to put us in to a structural deficit, leaving our infrastructure in a terrible state and running down our health and education systems.


None of them hold a candle to Hawke or Keating but I'd take Gillard over either of the first 2.

Wow!
Just wow! I wouldn't know where to begin with a post like this. I truly feel sorry (and I am not joking) for you if you believe the waffle you have put in this post. Or is this an attempt at irony?

 

[Xsess]

No a family with an income of $120,000 per year will still be provided government benefits through such items as FTB A&B, the baby bonus and maternity payments. Less welfare payments equals less churn equals lower income tax rates.

http://www.babycenter.com.au/a562850/government-benefits-for-families

http://guidesacts.fahcsia.gov.au/guides_acts/f**/faguide-3/faguide-3.6/faguide-3.6.1.html

I would point out that the benefits scale back as your earnings increase and those on $120k get bugger all assistance. But I agree with you. That single income family on 120k would be far better off with a tax cut for the primary earner which they dont get because they are paying for everyone else.

 

[Hill2Pav]

I would point out that the benefits scale back as your earnings increase and those on $120k get bugger all assistance. But I agree with you. That single income family on 120k would be far better off with a tax cut for the primary earner which they dont get because they are paying for everyone else.

$120,000 per year income with 2 children would see them get about $5,500 per year in government assistance through FTB B, plus potentially money towards their childcare payments.

But I agree with you. That single income family on 120k would be far better off with a tax cut for the primary earner which they dont get because they are paying for everyone else

It's called welfare churn, almost $200 billion per year in taxation/welfare churn.

 

[Dry Rot]

You completely missed the point.

Enlighten me.

 

[Dry Rot]

I didn't know you paid taxes on newstart?

The sign you are losing the argument, or have no argument.

From reading many of your posts, it seems that we both loathe the current govt.

But I reckon the opposition is pretty ****ed too - what do you think?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

http://www.news.com.au/national/joh...t-prime-minister/story-fncynjr2-1226561231526

I guess this poll just confirms what we were all thinking. A time of steady and real leadership. Good policy and good implementation. I guess the results speak for themselves.

lol. The poll is totally pointless.