Power Raid
We Exist To Win Premierships
comparing personal tax rates to total federal tax you can see a stronger correlation
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Revenue take in the last 10yrs has increased from approximately $260b to $360b. Stop writing big long-winded bs about lies. Revenue have slowed in the last 3 or 4yrs but they are still increasing. Your post is a myth, like you!The Howard/Rudd tax cuts are a big part of the reason we are in deficit. They were made when the economy was going gangbusters. Gangbusters cannot last forever and sure enough a year later it was gone. The supposed rise in revenue from cutting taxes has categorically not happened. Unsurprisingly cutting taxes has cut revenue. Just like when you give the Clubhouse less money, they give you less golf balls to smack onto the driving range.
And back on topic - the Liberals have been worse for the economy. Confidence is down, economic performance is down, deficit is trebled, unemployment up, etc. etc. The Daily Telegraph lies regularly to its readers.
As I've told you in the past. Inflation and a growing population always means revenue (and spending) goes up. You know this. Yet you accuse me of posting lies? I know you have strong opinions, but do you really want to end up like Power Raid - posting non-sensical ideas in the hope someone doesn't ignore it?Revenue take in the last 10yrs has increased from approximately $260b to $360b. Stop writing big long-winded bs about lies. Revenue have slowed in the last 3 or 4yrs but they are still increasing. Your post is a myth, like you!
As I've told you in the past. Inflation and a growing population always means revenue (and spending) goes up. You know this. Yet you accuse me of posting lies? I know you have strong opinions, but do you really want to end up like Power Raid - posting non-sensical ideas in the hope someone doesn't ignore it?
Looking at revenue and spending as a % of GDP is the most common way of assessing long-term trends. Of course there are flaws to it and so the context also needs to be explained (e.g. the mining revenue going bananas at the same time as the GFC hit, meaning that the % of revenue has a steeper-looking cut) but if you have any desire that people will actually believe your point of view you need to base it on common understandings of the world. Not cheap political rhetoric designed to appeal to those not paying attention.
Haha. Facts are too much for you. Come on, write another long-winded reply spinning your bs. $100b increase in revenue over the last 10yrs with inflation averaging 2%. Think about what you are going to post now. You don't want to embarrass yourself!As I've told you in the past. Inflation and a growing population always means revenue (and spending) goes up. You know this. Yet you accuse me of posting lies? I know you have strong opinions, but do you really want to end up like Power Raid - posting non-sensical ideas in the hope someone doesn't ignore it?
Looking at revenue and spending as a % of GDP is the most common way of assessing long-term trends. Of course there are flaws to it and so the context also needs to be explained (e.g. the mining revenue going bananas at the same time as the GFC hit, meaning that the % of revenue has a steeper-looking cut) but if you have any desire that people will actually believe your point of view you need to base it on common understandings of the world. Not cheap political rhetoric designed to appeal to those not paying attention.
It's clear you don't feel you have facts on your side by the fact you selectively reference what I said. People who are confident of their opinions don't need to massage what the other person has said in order to turn it into something they can argue against. They also don't think 2 paragraphs are "long-winded".Haha. Facts are too much for you. Come on, write another long-winded reply spinning your bs. $100b increase in revenue over the last 10yrs with inflation averaging 2%. Think about what you are going to post now. You don't want to embarrass yourself!
Media mogul uses influence to frame debate.A conservative whistleblower at Facebook yesterday claimed in a report that the influential “trending news” tab was deliberately biased toward liberal news – something the social network denies.
“I’d come on shift and I’d discover that CPAC [Conservative Political Action Conference] or Mitt Romney or Glenn Beck or popular conservative topics wouldn’t be trending because either the curator didn’t recognize the news topic or it was like they had a bias against Ted Cruz,” the former news curator told the tech blog Gizmodo.
Whoa hoa. $5b over. You know where you can go with this!It's clear you don't feel you have facts on your side by the fact you selectively reference what I said. People who are confident of their opinions don't need to massage what the other person has said in order to turn it into something they can argue against. They also don't think 2 paragraphs are "long-winded".
Plus you've misled or have been misled about what inflation has averaged (the mean is ~2.7%):
View attachment 245552
Plus you appear to not understand the power of compound interest. Even if we use your incorrect figures, then $260B at 2% inflation p.a. over 10 years would become $317B, only $43B short. Now add the ~15% extra population we've had in the last 10 years and you get $365B, $5B over your target.
So again, you have to ask yourself if you want to argue based on real life, or based on what you imagine helps your argument.
No, I don't know what that means. I used your incorrect figures and found that with zero tax rises we would've still ended up with more overall revenue than you said we actually have. AND our point was meant to be that taxes must've been going up because revenue has gone from $260B to $360B in 10 years.Whoa hoa. $5b over. You know where you can go with this!
Surely not?
Nah. It pretty well nails it!
This is satire, right?
Apparently it was in the Telegraph.
Agreed. It absolutely nails shut the coffin that holds their journalistic integrity.Nah. It pretty well nails it!
What was untrue about it?Agreed. It absolutely nails shut the coffin that holds their journalistic integrity.
No one is surprised you can't see stupidly blatant propaganda. Now that the election is here you appear to have decided to follow the same path.What was untrue about it?
Lay into a man with a criminal history whilst glorifying criminal underworld figures on the same page.Today's Hun :
Whilst the statements are true they are misleading, whilst it is true that the Coalition is traditionally regarded as the stronger economic manager the facts are that they actually aren't, it's merely a perception/myth that is widely believed.What was untrue about it?
If I say "all Liberal Party members are intellectually disabled" I'm making a statement of fact in this case an incorrect one. However if I was to say "people believe that all Liberal Party members are intellectually disabled" I'm just telling you what people believe and as long as I can find some person that does in fact believe that then it is a correct statement, despite the belief having no factual basis.
Whilst the statements are true they are misleading, whilst it is true that the Coalition is traditionally regarded as the stronger economic manager the facts are that they actually aren't, it's merely a perception/myth that is widely believed.