I've just read an interesting article from the
BBC - written on 13 May 2016 entitled: "Duncan Storrar:
The instant hero torn down in days."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36263711

It appears that Australia's media has been transfixed by
Duncan Storarr, an audience member on the ABC's Q&A
program. Storrar asked a question about Scott Morrison's
budget measures.

"I've got a disability and a low education, that means I've
spent my whole life working for minimum wage. You're gonna lift
the tax-free threshold for the rich people," he pointed out to
Assistant Treasurer Kelly O'Dwyer.

"If you lift my free threshold, that changes my life," Storrar
continued. That means that I get to say to my little girls -
'Daddy's not broke this week-end. We can go to the pictures.'
Rich people don't even notice their tax-free threshold lift."

"Why don't I get it?" Storrar asked. "Why do they get it?"

Storrar was right. Low income earners did not receive an income
tax cut in Morrison's budget. High income earners did.

Here was a bloke asking a real and entirely relevant question of
his political representatives. Unfortunately, this was a moment
that appeared too much for O'Dwyer who waffled in her reply.

The media reaction on both sides of politics was quite amazing.
One side decided to attack Storrar's personal background, the
other side decided to use this to attack their political opponents.

There was even a charitable fund set up for donations for Storrar.
He certainly could not believe his luck as a result of appearing
on a TV show.

It is worth noting that Storrar never asked for charity.
He asked for a tax cut for low-income earners - a valid question
by an ordinary bloke - that caused quite a stir.

Your reactions please?

Now he is a victim, is he? What a load of bollocks!

Heh, heh, the BBC should be examining its own spin. Isn't it capitalising on the fool and adding its own editorial slant as well?

Quote "a symbol for progressives and a target for conservatives"
He was certainly the first and leftists are still buffing him up. However he wasn't equally a target for the 'conservatives'. Of course where the media are concerned the truth is usually an inconvenience that gets in the road of sensationalising pap.

If this fellow is an ordinary Australian 'bloke' we should give up right now. His nearest relatives say he is anything else but.

The real story here is how the ABC tightly structures (to put it kindly) Q&A. How it chooses its audience and questions which it itself frames (how far?) and manipulates the show. So much for Ray 'The Rug' Martin's assurances. What a tool he is and in both senses of the word.

I agree that poor people should not be taxed, but poor Duncan will now waste all his donations on taking his daughters to the pictures, probably including the junk-food that comes with it. His daughters will have nightmares as a result as well as get all kinds of disturbing Hollywood-ideas in their heads about unrealistic and unnecessary things they are supposed to achieve in life, which might leave them frustrated for the rest of their lives.

Rich American actors and junk-food chains will become even richer.

The getup crowd on q&a have been so dumbed down that they applaud and make heroes out of Islamic terrorist, illegal immigrants and welfare seekers. The ABC are an absolute disgrace. The ABC need to have funding slashed and become more tolerant of truth instead of their warped ideologies

Curiouser and curiouser...

We have an unusual mix of misguided charity on one side
with people donating thousands to a fund for Duncan
Storrar and on the other side we have the savagery
of conservative anger attacks directed at him.
All this as a result of a question he posed to the
panel in the Q&A TV program.

Of course there's always the predictable attacks on the ABC, and
references to the cutting of its funding.

We also got, "The Australian" again, all too predictably going on
the attack. This is a newspaper that likes to call itself
the "Heart of the Nation." It gave Storrar's income
figures all over the front page on the Wednesday - complaining
that Storrar paid "no net tax" and later this was followed
by an unflattering interview with Storrar's estranged son.

This vicious attack on the one hand, and the charitable
donations on the other hand are really curious.
What can we make of all this - when a poor person merely asks
a pointed question on National Television?

Does is show that the government and its cheer-leaders are
concerned about inequality becoming an
election issue?

How did the newspapers get hold of his history from Victoria police or wherever they got it from?

As well as how did they get the salary information looks like someone accessed the tax dept computers, I remember a situation a while ago someone accessed the records of a prime ministers daughter the sh!t hit the fan then, bet nothing happens here.

Should be easy enough to check the data base for his records in the past few days, bet that won't happen.

Just letting you folks know that I'm going into
hospital again early tomorrow morning (Monday,
16th May, 2016) for a
day procedure - a "Coronary Angiography."

It seems that I've got blood clots on my lungs
that haven't disintegrated as a result of my fall
in Sept. 2015,
and my cardiologist has referred me to another
specialist.

Anyway, just in case there are complications - I
wanted you all to know as to why I may not be responding
to your posts. Fingers-crossed that I'll be allowed to
go home tomorrow night.

I must confess that I'm a bit nervous about all this
but I am trying to stay positive.

All the Best to you all.

Take care.

Corrected

Should be easy enough to check who accessed the data base for his records in the past few days, bet that won't happen.

Hi there FOXY...

I'm so sorry to hear that you're scheduled to have another visit to your local hospital for a 'Coronary Angiography' procedure. I'm absolutely positive you'll be OK FOXY, nevertheless one can't help but worry about such invasive approaches, irrespective of all the assurances our friendly Doctors may give us.

For what it's worth, I'll be thinking of you tomorrow, and despite all your earlier concerns, you'll find the test itself will be over quicker than you can imagine, and then they'll simply pack you off back home, together with a 'substantial account'?

Please...don't worry FOXY, everyone here on OLO and the Forum will be rooting for you OK?

Speak with you again very soon until then, please try not worry.

Well, it transpired that Dodgy Duncan is a convicted criminal as well as a liar, not having 'worked in minimum wage jobs', but relied on the dole, while carrying on his nefarious activities. There is no doubt about the dippy left - they always fall for a good yarn and 'evidence' of how cruel Australian society is. Lord love a duck, they even got $65K together for Dirty Duncan and his kids, one of whom quickly revealed what a scumbag he is.

I haven't watched Q&A for years, but I did last week because I was interested to see what people with different ideas made of the budget. I thought the business representative on the left side was the best, the toothy Coalition assistant treasurer the worst, and the others quite reasonable, even the Greens Senator Bandit. But, thanks to Dirty Duncan, the bigoted audience, and the poor, pathetic tweets moving boringly across the screen, I was reminded why I don't watch the trashy program.

Of course, it's always good to see the lefties making fools of themselves over a crook.

What people think and how they behave is something
we can all find interesting since it relates to
our world and covers personal beliefs, feelings,
and values. And of course we should realise that it
is extremely subjective.

Most of the time I enjoy "Q and A," because it is a
program that like Waleed Aly makes people think, feel,
and listen. And of course entertain.

As we grow older hopefully we learn how to deal
with all sorts of people. It's not always easy - but
as I'm learning - it's important to at least try.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Thank You for your well wishes.
They're deeply appreciated.
I'm now going out to visit my
mum in her Nursing Home.
She gets stroppy if I miss a day.
And who knows where I'll be after tomorrow.
Hoping for the best.

Hi Foxy, wishing you the best for tomorrow.

On the subject of Duncan Storrar, and the many like him.

Mr Storrar, like so many other Australians is guilty of a very serious crime. Not a crime that shows up on his police record, or a crime he has been haled before the courts for. But never the less a crime he is punished for every single day of his life. A crime that not only he is stigmatized with, and pays the penalty for, but one that is readily applied to his family, his children, anyone he supports.
The crime of being poor! That's what Duncan Storrar is guilty of, more so than anything else he may have done in his life. The forums 'Usual Suspects'were quick to rile against the unclean Duncan, Runner applied his 19th century Protestantism, the sin of being poor. Beach, hit out at all things left with his usual predictable vitriol. The off the planet ttbn, quickly resorted to name calling and condemnation of the bloke and his children.
But the cruelest comment of all for me, comes from the well meaning Yuyutsu, who's comment reinforces the notion that the poor are guilty of wrong doing, simply because they are poor. The decadence of this wasteful Duncan for wanting to take his kid to the pictures, wanting to buy the kid an ice cream. Such comment reinforces the notion that the poor of society must be subservient and grateful to the rich.

Foxy,

Duncan Storrar is drug addled violent career criminal and child abuser who has lived off welfare most his life, and whom I believe was popped on the show to ask a question that was fed to him. He instantly became the darling of the superficial left whingers who routinely laud nobodies that say things they agree with.

What has happened is that when the true nature of this scumbag came to light, all these sycophantic fawning lefties were exposed as complete twats.

Shadow, like so many conservatives you would rather shoot the messenger than hear the message. Are you a supporter of the $6,000 toasters for the privileged few?

Paul,

The message was a heartfelt claim for an extra few dollars that Duncan could spend on drugs.

Maybe we should call the left whinger campaign Mugs for Drugs.

Dear Paul,

<<But the cruelest comment of all for me, comes from the well meaning Yuyutsu, who's comment reinforces the notion that the poor are guilty of wrong doing>>

Let's get things straight: no guilt is involved. Nobody is or should feel guilty for being poor.

Being poor is neither good nor bad, it's just what it is.
Some are poorer, some are richer and both have their role in the grand scheme of things. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.

What is obvious, is that once someone is rich, it is very difficult for them to adjust to and being content with becoming poor. On the other hand, the happiness on becoming rich is short-lived: new ambitions quickly arise and eat up that happiness.

I am not blaming Duncan for decadence (and I'm not up-to-date with the new rumours about him anyway, which some here commented about later on) - it's just that he now faces new problems and new dangers which he didn't have before and which he has no previous experience to handle. His daughters might now suffer from issues that would otherwise have never crossed their mind to bother them.

<<Such comment reinforces the notion that the poor of society must be subservient and grateful to the rich>>

I see no connection whatsoever between my comment and your conclusion.

There is no need for the poor to be subservient and grateful to the rich. The poor who are content with what they have are happy and would never do so, it's only when their mind is filled with material desires that they are led by the noose to worship the rich.

My hero is Diogenes the Greek: he rejected the trap of wealth and was never subservient or grateful even to his king, Alexander the Great.

Here are some happy people: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-11/life-at-a-cambodian-rubbish-dump/3659920

We are not fortunate as they because having already experienced material wealth and comforts, we are spoiled and would find it so hard to lose them. Poor Duncan will find it so hard once his new-found wealth is used up.

Yuyutsu, I take on board your comments and totally agree. For the rich in society to carry on with a lifestyle of excess, it is socially acceptable, but for the poor disadvantaged to do the minimal of what could be seen as wasteful, like buying an ice cream for a kid, it is perceived as wrong.

I'll give you a scenario which maybe you could comment on; A vagrant alcoholic has $5, he could have earned it, found it, or been given it in some way by society. He has a choice, he can spend it on a nourishing meals, or a bottle of methylated spirits. He chooses the metho over the meal, has he done wrong or right and why? Is his choice dependent on the means that he obtained the money, or not?

Duncan Storrar, has been placed on suicide watch, following an avalanche of derogatory comment and innuendo by those of the rabid right, we have some of them on the forum. Duncan's only crime is he dared to ask a question of an exulted and privileged member of their governing body, the air head Kelly O’Dwyer, who gave a ditsy answer about a mysterious cafe owner, we'll call Mr Anonymous, who's goal in life is to own a $6,000 toaster! Its time for O'Dwyer to come clean on Mr Anonymous, and tell all. otherwise we can only speculate ( like the Murdoch press, and the rest of the rabid right) he is, if he is a he, a tax avoiding, cash only, small business coffee flogger, but no toast as yet, paying under award, under the counter, 10 bucks an hour, cash in hand on Sundays!

Shadow, you must remember coffee is also a drug! So Mr Anonymous is no clean skin in that department.

Good Morning,

Well I've showered and dressed and am ready to be driven in to
hospital shortly. I thought I'd check in with you guys one
more time before I leave.

Thanks to you all for your contributions to this discussion.
The case of Duncan Storrar would probably not have attracted
so much attention were it not for this being an election year.

I don't want to judge the man or try to decipher where the truth
lies. I don't think what he has done in his past is
relevant here. It does appear to be a curious mix of misguided
charity and conservative anger directed at him all because of a question
he posed to the panel on Q&A during this election year. He did not
ask for charity.

Anyway, we're all entitled to our opinions.

I shall be back shortly, and we can discuss this further.

Thank You Dear O Sung Wu - you always manage to put a smile on my
face.

Talk to you all soon.

Dear Paul,

<<I'll give you a scenario which maybe you could comment on; A vagrant alcoholic has $5, he could have earned it, found it, or been given it in some way by society. He has a choice, he can spend it on a nourishing meals, or a bottle of methylated spirits. He chooses the metho over the meal, has he done wrong or right and why? Is his choice dependent on the means that he obtained the money, or not?>>

This question is too easy. I immediately filter out irrelevant information such as that the man is vagrant, how much money he has and how he got that money. All that remains is that he is an alcoholic and that he chose the bottle over a nourishing meal, so I conclude that he is in the wrong.

I would only make very few and rare exceptions to my judgement, such as if the man was suffering from hypothermia at the time - otherwise he is doing wrong by his liver.

Lol!...who needs the Telegraph, etc...

All you have to do is drop by OLO and you find the best of the Murdoch gutter rags all nicely abridged in one thread.

Storrar asked a question which the puerile blabber-mouth, Kelly O'Toaster, couldn't answer.

Murdoch loosed his troopers onto the pleb to demonstrate that the lower orders shouldn't put neo-con pollies on the spot like that.

The End.

Paul 1405,

What a naive fool you are! Being poor isn't a crime, but being poor is no excuse for being a criminal. A 'poor' criminal is the same as a rich criminal. As for 'poverty', cut the crap. There are no really poor people in Australia, merely people who think they can have what others have without the intelligence, the work ethic, or the ability to manage and save money that other people have. Even people bludging on the dole are not poor in Australia; we now have generations of families living reasonably well without working. You are an out of date class warrior, and probably a malcontented bludger yourself, if your constantly whining posts represent your true thoughts. Get a backbone, man.

Someone (?anonymous) put this quote on Facebook. I thought it said it all :
"An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. (Cont'd)

.. and Degenerate Duncan is "on suicide watch" is he? Poor Duncy Wuncy's feelings are hurt, are they? Where do you get these ridiculous lies from? Is he in jail? Is he in hospital? Because they are they only places where suicide watches occur. Perhaps Tony Jones is keeping an eye in him for another of his nonsensical, sick programs?

"...You are an out of date class warrior, and probably a malcontented bludger yourself, if your constantly whining posts represent your true thoughts. Get a backbone, man."

This is the fella who's handle is ttbn (which apparently stands "try to be nice")

Lol!

Yes Paul, you seem obsessed with this ten buck per hour cash in hand crap that rarely happens now, as most wont work for that.

Even the dole bludgers ark up at the thought of having to work for their additional $100 per week, saying why should they work for five bucks an hour. What they fail to acknowledge is that they are already paid $250 per week for doing nothing.

As for the poor, I agree with ttbn when it comes to the so called poor.

As for the ice cream for the kid, where did the other hundreds go that left him unable to afford an ice cream.

We are all born with an opportunity to fail Paul, some of us chose not to, and that is the difference.

Being poor is quit often a choice.

(Cont'd)
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Foxy,

Your sanctimony is cloying, even for you.

Poirot,

I think you've run out of puff with your little sneer about my moniker; I like a joke, but you don't seem to have much in your locker. Yes, I did try to be nice, but forgot to reckon on nicampoops like you - childish, petulant individuals who don't like to be far from their mummies. And, I am not going to change the name just because you find it amusing, nor do I expect that you will ever grow up. A big LOL to you, little lad.

Dearest Foxy,

I wish you the best of luck, I'll be barracking for you :)

As for Storrar, I recall that Marx had nothing but contempt for the lumpenproletariat of his day (which was not a rosy time even for workers), for bludgers, low-lifes and dead-beats: he regarded them as totally unreliable allies for the genuine working class, liable to flip over to support the ruling class of Marx's day if the price was right.

But I'm a bit puzzled: how can someone get a tax cut if they aren't paying any taxes ?

It's not all bad news though: with his sucker-money, Storrar can now begin paying child support - at least, until it runs out.

Joe

.ttbn,

It's not necessary to alter your moniker - "try to be nasty" fits well enough...I only comment because you appear particularly prone to hurling insults.

Suse,

That story is actually fictitious BS. I'll post something on it from Snopes when I get back on the laptop (on iPad at the mo)?

When did you become a raging neo-lib?

ttbn, the day I start taking advice from you is the day I go out and neck myself.

Suse, the assumption that only through study does a student achieve. is not entirely true. There must have been some or all who didn't study but achieved an 'A', and then there were those that studied hard but only got an 'F'. So if the study types stopped then nothing will change the naturally smart will still get an 'A' without study and the others will still get an 'F' without study.

Poirot, one thing is for sure. Duncan is not wasting tax dollars from Rupert's 'News Corp'. They have been exposed as tax dodgers!

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/net-closing-on-corporate-tax-dodging-20160422-gocix6.html

Paul, Poirot, Foxy,

The problem is not the question, the problem is that the left whingers (and Duncan himself) tried to portray Duncan Storrar as a hard working bloke who can't afford to buy his kids ice cream because of the mean coalition. However, the reality is that this has far more to do with his life of crime and drugs than that those earning > $87k are going to score 86c/day.

Compare that to the tax bracket moves by Juliar in 2012 which effectively handed those earning 20kp.a. about $1800p.a. with an additional huge welfare increase for bludgers like Duncan.

For the example that Paul gave, if the alcoholic spends $5 on wine rather than buying his kids ice cream, it is his choice, but then he can't complain that his kids don't get ice cream because he doesn't get more from the government.

I wonder if the leech industry of lawyers are now circling this whole abc wreckage.

Paul 1405,

Where did you get idea the that I was giving you "advice". I don't give advice and, even if I did, I wouldn't try it with you. You are incapable of thinking, let alone taking advice. I just comment on the blatherings of misguided fools who think that their word is law. You are just one such misguided fool who is probably beyond help. You are entitled to express your neanderthal views, but you surely don't hope to get away with such nonsense all the time.

Poirot,

You have clearly never been insulted. Get mummy to make you a sling for that lower lip.

Joe,

Good to see my favourite lefty up and about. Pity there aren't more like you.

Suseonline,

You seem to be overlooking a few points:

1. The story is not credible. For a start, Obama is not a socialist!

2. Socialists don't want to completely destroy individual reward. Some communists do, but even communists have learned from early Soviet mistakes.

3. Those who are working and those who are receiving are often the same people at different times in their lives.

4. The value of wealth is non linear. What would make no (or at most, negligible) difference to the living standards of the rich would make a huge difference to the living standards of the poor. So the axiom "You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it" depends on how wealth is measured.

5. The rewards of work are usually much better than being taken care of.

6. It's technically false that "the government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else", as it is possible to give first and take later. It may sound like splitting hairs, but that's the way most governments end up doing it.

7. Lack of opportunity holds people back far more than insufficient reward.

ttbn,

It would take a lot more than a rancorous fellow like you insult me..you're reasonably entertaining though : )

Here we go on Suse's facebook myth thingy...

"Origins: In March 2009, one of the e-mail forwards of the moment was the piece quoted above. It appeared variously titled "Excellent Lesson In Economics," "Great Experiment," "Experiment in Socialism," "Texas Professor," "A Simple Analogy," "A Great Lesson on Socialism," "Economics 101," "Something for Nothing?," "A Perfect Analogy," "Simple Economics" and "Capitalism vs Socialism."

There is indeed a real school named Texas Tech in Lubbock, Texas, but that school is merely one of many settings used for this fictional illustrative tale meant to explain the teller's belief that socialism does not work. (Another example of an illustrative tale used to explain what might otherwise be a difficult concept to grasp is the "How Taxes Work" item that was widely circulated in 2002.)"

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

Paul, Yes....fancy Duncan trying to do a Rupie and pay no taxes - I mean who does he think he is - a right-wing corporate leech?

.....

Hiya, Foxy...good luck with your test : )

Hi ttbn,

You do me proud :) I'm still a lefty ? I'm tickled pink.

Hi Suse,

Your example of the failure of socialism - to someone who was one for sixty or more years - rings so true. Knocking around some Aboriginal 'communities', this was exactly the problem. Ask yourself why, if out of five thousand 'communities', do you know of any that has a vegetable garden or orchard, or chook yard, or even a few milk cows (as they used to have back in the missionary days), even though they almost all have running water, land, able-bodied labour, etc ?

I tried that for a few years, in the vain hope that people might have a skerrick of a sense of reciprocity, but zilch. I had a patch of sweet corn and one bloke asked if he could take some, and he took the lot. From memory, I think that was the year I stopped.

I think they call it something like 'the failure of the commons.'

I was born a communist. My mum sold Tribs around the Chullora railway workshops, a true believer. Dorothy Hewitt was a regular. But with hundreds of combined years of bitter experience, we now know that loafers and skivers, and their intelligentsia minders, quickly get up into the power positions in supposedly socialist organisations, and that's the end of it. How many 'workers' are up in the top echelons of the Chinese Communist Party ? Have there EVER been workers up in the top echelons of the Chinese Communist Party ? No, I don't think so. In Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge ? No. In Lenin's inner circle ? No. Marx would be disgusted, and dismiss the lot as nothing but frauds. And he would be right.

If this is supposed to be a neo-liberal interpretation, then I think even Marx would today be a neo-liberal. Down with bludgers: up against the wall, you blow-flies !

Joe

The ABC makes the news.

I wonder how the Michelle Guthrie, the ABC's first female Managing Director feels about the directors of Q&A crapping in the ABC's nest again and bringing its credibility and independence into disrepute? Particularly given this fellow's rap sheet.

What an inglorious start for Ms Guthrie, a major public embarrassment affecting the standing of the ABC nationally and internationally. So much for 'that' review by Ray Martin.

What can Ms Guthrie as the newly responsible senior executive do to rectify things? To hose this down would be to continue the policy of the previous executive that excused and inevitably resulted in this further act of crassness and arrogance by the show's directors and Jones, the compere.

If nothing else, it proves to any incoming senior executive just how lazy, complacent and predictable the ABC's overpaid and overstaying 'personalities' are that they make shows that are so prior scripted and manipulated and are aimed at embarrassing and humiliating selected invited guests to raise ratings with its dumbed-down audience.

Yes Foxy, I hope all went well today at the hospital.
I am thinking of you....good luck.

Poirot "When did you become a raging neo-lib?"
I decided that the National Party was my party of choice about the same time as you became a whinging leftie who follows a man with the personality of a scrotal hair ....who wants to run the country like a bully boy Union man.

Loudmouth, maybe like you, I have spent too much time with people who just don't want to help themselves, and look to any government at all who will pay them money for nothing.

I agree with modest taxation increases for middle income earners, as opposed to pouring more money into the bottomless welfare pit. At least this money may be more likely to be put towards more jobs for people by middle-income earners with small businesses, as opposed to going to blokes like this Storrar individual where it wouldn't help the economy at all.

More likely it would go towards more smokes, booze and gambling rather than to any of their poor kids. I have seen it happen many times....

Suse,

"I decided that the National Party was my party of choice about the same time as you became a whinging leftie who follows a man with the personality of a scrotal hair ....who wants to run the country like a bully boy Union man."

Wow!.... "personality of a scrotal hair"

Classy, Suse!

(or is that what passes for wit down National's way?)

Did you catch Bill Shorten giving Magnificent Mal a lesson in engaging with the public last week?

Here's Lib fan,Tom Switzer, on it:

"...The Labor leader gave Turnbull such a good thumping in their first TV debate on Friday night, you almost expected the moderator David Speers from Sky News to step in to end the bout on grounds of compassion..."

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/malcolm-turnbull-will-lose-if-he-doesnt-win-back-the-liberal-base-20160515-govfzj.html#ixzz48odG4SRC

Yup...yer all slogan, Suse...a la "bully boy Union Man". If you keep trying you attain the heights of the usual suspects around here.

Let's face it, mentioning "scrotal hair" gives you lots of bonus points to begin with!

Morgan poll out today...ALP 52.5 - LNP 47.5 ...two party-preferred.

Great start to the campaign, what say you?

Butch, your right some wont work for 10 bucks an hour, down at the 7-Eleven it 8 bucks an hour take it or leave it. I think the grubs owe workers around $100 million dollars in underpayments.

ttbn, you tried to give me advice "Get a backbone, man." you said Tell me jellyfish where did you get your backbone from.

Paul,

Next thing you'll be asking me to find you a brain.

Poirot, I just couldn't think up a better description of ol' Bill than scrotal hair.....obviously it hit a nerve with you....what with mentioning it twice in your post.
Granted, he is possibly one hair better than Abbott, but a hair no less :)

We will just have to wait and see which party and/or PM the Australian public dislike the least won't we?

ttbn, if you find one keep it for yourself, you never know you may one day find a use for it (as a door stopper or something), can't imagine you would be doing much else with it.

I fully understand why you come onto the forum with your bombastic belligerence towards some, including me. You suffer from 'small mans syndrome', having failed to gain any personal recognition from others in your daily life. At the age of 47 being physically only 3'6" tall, and at the same time an intellectual dwarf, it is reasonable you should act this way and have nothing to be ashamed of. I am sure that at the same time you gain both inspiration and solace from the company of your blind three legged cat Tiddles, and your now deceased budgie Chirpy, you two true and only friends in life. May good luck be with you always.

Suse,

Yeah...I s'pose we're getting a bit intense - and you know that occasionally I like to get my teeth into a good political debate.

But really, the reason I'm fired up is because I'm genuinely concerned with this right-wing regime. Who would have thought we'd see a govt blatantly attacking and underfunding education and hospitals...who are denuding the CSIRO, while looking after the fat cats. Who have been woeful fiscal managers - have cut hundreds and hundreds of programs - and still managed to bump up debt by $160 billion.

"Granted, he is possibly one hair better than Abbott, but a hair no less :)"

The thing I fail to grasp is why you are now yodelling your support for a regime that is, for all intents an purposes, no different than the one under the dreaded "Abbott" - precisely the same policy direction.

So was Abbott was the only thing you disapproved of....you agreed with the rest of the shambles?

Hi Poirot,

I see a large poster around the inner city of Sydney with a very 1984 type caricature of Turnbull, has just the one word on it 'FIZZER' blazoned across the top in large bold letters. It certainly sums up Turnbull and his government thus far!

Paul,

You don't even have an imagination. I am not a dwarf. I am more than a generation older than your punt, and I don't have a cat. I don't address most posters the way I do you, because most of them are not loudmouth windbags like you, including those with whom I disagree. Most of them don't discriminate against disabled cats, either. Shame on you! You are a standout case, with your ignorant rants. You are a waste of time and space. Good bye.

Hi Poirot, of course I dislike the far-right nutters as much as any intelligent Australian does....especially the religious nutters.
However, I have no choice but to choose the Coalition by proxy when I vote, given I like to choose the National Party representative. I realise they aren't the same nationally as federally, but I haven't always voted for them federally.

It does depend on the policies every election, and I have to say that the coalition policies, this election, are more suited to my current situation than Labor's are. We are a middle income working couple living in the country who have a negatively geared unit we rent out and another mortgage. It is obvious who we should vote for.

As a nurse, of course I am concerned with the state of the current health system, but I am not convinced it would be any different under labor. I also can't imagine how changing everything over by changing government after only one term will improve matters at all.

Yes I admit I do look at PM personalities and ideologies, especially after enduring the worst PM ever in Abbott! I never once voted for Abbott...despite any policies he may have had. I was just too horrified by the supreme madness of the man......

Suse,

"....We are a middle income working couple living in the country who have a negatively geared unit we rent out and another mortgage. It is obvious who we should vote for."

And you can still negatively gear that property under Labor's proposal...it's grandfathered. And if you wish to take on the neagative gearing option in the future under Labor's proposal, you can do it on a new build.

"...I also can't imagine how changing everything over by changing government after only one term will improve matters at all"

One term...and they've done nothing constructive. They cut to the bone and done nothing for the economy except increase the debt. Turnbull keeps touting policy - and tosses his ideas aside like used crisp packets.

He's turfed the backpacker tax today...recently he deferred the pathology hanky-panky (until after the election)....he's fairly hopeless when all is said and done.

Hi Poirot,

You may wish to get your teeth into scrotal hair, but the topic of this thread concerns Duncan Storrar, the worker's hero, not that " .... Who would have thought we'd see a govt blatantly attacking and underfunding education and hospitals...who are denuding the CSIRO, while looking after the fat cats..... "

Duncan has rarely worked actually, so perhaps not so much your 'hero', nor has he paid any tax recently, so one dilemma is how to give him a tax cut on top of his no-tax. Now, there's something to get your teeth into.

In the meantime, I think I'll start a Twit account
#@IlldrivewithyoutothepubDuncan@yourshout!#@#@

In the early days here in SA, the Protector of Aborigines gave out rations to all Aboriginal people who came into the ration depot. Even then, Aboriginal people had the right to hunt, fish and gather food, camp, etc. on government land and leases (as they still have), but able-bodied people preferred to stay near the ration depot. Governor Grey scrapped the issuing of rations to both Black and white able-bodied people and told them to get out and either work or hunt and gather.

Over time, as the policy developed, the Protector provided able-bodied Aboriginal people with fishing gear, guns and boats to enable them to hunt, fish and gather food. Orders for netting twine worked out at about a tonne each year. Boats and guns were repaired for half-cost for able-bodied people, and at no cost to older Aboriginal people beyond working age. It was always legal for Aboriginal people to have guns in SA.

Oh, but Duncan has what ? 'Depression' ? Gosh, wow, so unique. Come off it - he's a bludger and (to the dismay of so many wonderfully intelligent and compassionate people on the pseudo-Left) a con-artist. If he could be persuaded to work every day like other people, it might be therapeutic in overcoming his 'depression'.

Mind you, sixty thousand could buy him some pretty good TAFE or even university courses.

Nah - it's down to the TAB with $ 60,000. Suckers !

Cheers,

Joe

I agree Loudmouth.
I just read an ABC news story on Storrer and he apparently stated he would spend the $60,000 on education for his daughters, and for 'charities'.
Yeah right....I would like to hear from those charities re when and if that happens.

I just can't believe the idiots that contribute to these 'crowd-funding' sites when there are many reports on how so many of the so-called poor subjects have just lied about their true circumstances.

Hi Suse,

"I just can't believe the idiots that contribute to these 'crowd-funding' sites when there are many reports on how so many of the so-called poor subjects have just lied about their true circumstances."

Yeah, that's puzzled me for a long time, and maybe one reason is that, compared to, say the 1960s, the intelligentsia has lost touch with actual people in hard circumstances, both with those who struggle and grab any work then can, in order to get a house deposit and some comforts - i.e. the contemptible 'bogans', in their eyes - and the lifelong unemployed, the poverty-stricken underclass over which decent people shed copious, helpless tears.

It's a bit like the relation between the compassionistas and Aboriginal people - back in the sixties and seventies, people knocked around with each other a lot more, but now our intelligentsial betters have move ever further away, to the point where some who presume to be committed to, say, a Treaty, now don't actually know any Aboriginal people, or just one or two, people in their same superior class.

So they reach over the contemptible working bogans in order to help up the most down-trodden victims of the vile capitalist system - and believe every yarn they spin to explain why and how they can never get out of their victimhood. What, never ? No, never. Well, hardly ever.

Fruit-picking ? If backpackers can easily find work, why not our very own lifelong bludgers ? Duncan, I'd like to see that :)

Cheers,

Joe

Suse,

"I agree Loudmouth.
I just read an ABC news story on Storrer and he apparently stated he would spend the $60,000 on education for his daughters, and for 'charities'.
Yeah right....I would like to hear from those charities re when and if that happens."

As I mentioned earlier - you're all class...(not)

You're fitting in beautifully here these days representing the loathsome under-belly of neo-lib commentary.

The guy asked a question.

Murdoch was inflamed because air-headed O'Dwyer made a fool of herself trying to answer it.

So he flayed Storrar alive.

Nice to see you approve.....Suseonline.

Loudmouth,

I should reply to you, but I can rarely be bothered reading your stuff these days...not really on purpose, it's just that I slide right over your first few lines which are usually stoked to the brim with any and every snide remark you can muster...so before I know it I'm onto the next post and your stuff...well....

Thanks Poirot, I'll take that as a comment. And something of a compliment.

The question remains: if one is not paying any tax, how does one gain a tax cut ?

Of course, another question is: if someone is able-bodied, why aren't they looking for work, and taking it where they find it ?

Gosh, so 1950s.

Joe

probably the only one came out of this stunt worse than the abc hero makers was Kelly O'Dwyer who seemed incapable of calling out the leftist hero. How different was Ayaan Hirsi Ali last night who was able to expose how cowardly the left are when it comes to Islam. Despite the deniers trying to demonise her she exposed their cowardly fraudulent ideologies very succintly. Even Jones had to backtrack on his usual arrogrance and narratives.

Loudmouth,

Okay I read this one.

"The question remains: if one is not paying any tax, how does one gain a tax cut ?"

Um....let's see - as an example the govt has just given out corporate tax cuts.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-06/turnbulls-corporate-tax-cuts-under-scrutiny-by-treasury/7389426

But then:...the guy whose media stable crucified Storrar?

"Eight of the 10 media companies that paid no income tax in Australia in 2014 are linked to the Murdoch family, Australian Taxation Office data reveals.

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax/media-companies-linked-to-the-murdochs-pay-the-least-tax-20151223-gluc5v#ixzz48tZeCZEB

"ATO report shows nearly 600 big companies paid no tax in 2013-14"

"More than one-third of the largest public companies and multinational entities paid no tax in Australia in the most recent financial year on record, according to the first transparency report published by the Australian Taxation Office."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/17/ato-report-shows-nearly-600-big-companies-paid-no-tax-in-2013-14

Storrar's question is still relevant - why if the govt thinks it can afford tax cuts - do they limit them to the top echelon - especially those who already wangle their way out of paying tax?

Yep, this whole Duncan saga has been one big nation-wide example of why the ad hominem is fallacious.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

As Poirot points out, Storrar’s question is still relevant.

I do hope that those who apparently deny the existence of genuine disadvantage are having fun attacking the less fortunate, though. Even if one of them really does only have himself to blame.

Poirot,

One relevant question is why a tax bracket adjustment that gives top earners an extra 85 cents per day is news. Another relevant question is why a crackhead living on welfare should care?

actually the real question that Storrar raises is whether someone who has used drugs and sucked on welfare should be eligible to vote let alone be allowed to waste tax payer money on the ABC in order for them to make a hero out of. Something that would never enter the mind of the victim industry and dumbed down getup crowd.

You've just gotta love this place for demonstrating middle-class viciousness - kicking the plebs is almost a sport around here..

There's runner sprinkling his errant brand of Christian goodness - his church paying all that tax (Lol! - not really) so they can produce belligerent little gentlemen like him....it's a credit I tells ya!

It is quite stunning having so much material in the one venue. This thread is a testament to middle-class meanness - of self-absorbed median psyches who are living lives of quiet desperation, so fearful that someone is going to expose them for the servile, timid, selfish, mean spirited souls they are.

But never fear folks...there's always someone lower down the rung you can kick in the guts to relieve your own anxieties.

History rolls along, but some things never change...

Poirot "Storrar's question is still relevant - why if the govt thinks it can afford tax cuts - do they limit them to the top echelon - especially those who already wangle their way out of paying tax?"

Middle income earners are hardly 'top echelon" are they?
Hasn't the Government already suggested that giving tax cuts to middle income earners may well lead to people with small businesses employing more of those unemployed and welfare dependent people that you say you feel so much for?

Tax cuts and handouts are given to low income earners in almost every election, and top-income earners don't really need the help, but what about the middle income earners...especially those who just miss out on the lower tax brackets? They never get any help at all. Some of these people have been doing it tough too, without the help of rent assistance, healthcare cards, low-interest loans etc that low income earners and welfare recipients can access.

Poirot, you can readily pick out those posters here who have a go at others....because you yourself are an expert in that field. People in glass houses....

The way Poirot spits out her venom probably indicates she on the public purse. Obviously never stops to thinks where money comes from.

runner, "How different was Ayaan Hirsi Ali last night who was able to expose how cowardly the left are when it comes to Islam. Despite the deniers trying to demonise her she exposed their cowardly fraudulent ideologies very succinctly. Even Jones had to backtrack on his usual arrogance and narratives"

Well said and that bears repeating. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the sort of woman that feminists should be applauding and using as a model for youth. But no, of course! LOL

Jones' own prejudice as a smug leftist 'Progressive' and the slant he wanted (with the usual leading barbed snipes directed at the Western democracies) were on display. Jaw-dropping hypocrisy considering his own wealthy lifestyle. He is yet another 'Moral BS Artist'. There are so many of those gutless wonders in Politically Correct Oz.

Got to laugh at the predictable leftist hacks and the attention-seeking 'Twits of the Twitterati' who immediately put in huge efforts to buff up the whining, incoherent and intellectually and emotionally immature Kate Tempest as their hero.

What a spoilt and trite girl she is and what about she try out her opinions busking in an Arab country, where women are routinely abused and worse for being out alone, let alone opening their mouth.

The only thing that Duncan did was ask one question (that was probably fed to him) that came directly off Electricity Bill's sheet of slogans, and the left whingers latched onto him to represent everything they stand for, granted him saint status and threw money at him. Unfortunately, they didn't do their homework and soon found that their new working class hero was a louse with no redeeming features.

Suddenly the left whingers find themselves trying to defend their symbol, and finding that all the vituperative bile that they have directed at Liberals is now directed at them, and it is sticking fast.

So Poirot, Duncan Storrar is the symbol you chose and we are using him to beat the crap out of your hypocrisy.

Hi Poirot,

Please forgive runner 'he know not what he say'. Besides he is only putting into practice what his good book tell him. Don't you remember the Good Samaritan, I'll refresh for you.

"The Good Samaritan was on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he came across a man, whom he attacked and robbed. Then stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead."

Actually the Good Samaritan had a busy afternoon that day, after he got stuck into the bloke on the road, he came across a dole-bludger, a druggie, an Aboriginal, a leftie, a un-married mother, a feminists, a gay or two, a Labor voter, a Green, an environmentalists etc etc. He was so bushed he had to book into the local inn for the night.

runner is just putting into practice his "Christian" beliefs.

Shadow, could it also be hypocrisy to quote sanctimonious clap trap from a tax dodging News Corp, as you so often do.

yep Paul, the Greens are the masters of twisting morality, biblical truth and sexuality. You never fail to disappoint. We saw how much weeping the Greens did when they were responsibnle for 1200 plus drownings. LOve to take the high ground by twisting the truth. Oh thats right you don't believe in absolutes so you make up your own version and then twist the Scripture you don't believe in to order to appease yourselves.

Just noted comments on how the creep will spend the money. Amazing. Is he going to actually be given the money? Have the people who stupidily passed the hat around become even more stupid, and intend to give the grub what they have collected? If they have any sense and decency, there are many worthy causes they could pass it on to.

Hi Poirot,

My mum used to give me Milk of Magnesia for that.

You have a problem to answer, even just to yourself, if you were honest enough: if your mate Duncan doesn't pay any tax, then, in your opinion, how much of a tax cut do you think he should get ?

Be generous now: that he should get a 5 % rebate on his non-tax ? 10 % ?

Of course, another question is: should he pay tax on his $ 60,000 gained in one week (thanks, dumb-arses!) and at what rate ? Shouldn't sixty thou a week be taxed at the highest rate possible ? After all, it puts him up there with the fat-cats and silvertails.

Like Tony Jones, for example. No, that's cruel: Tony would earn only around six thousand a weak, not sixty, like Duncan.

Meanwhile, as a friend pointed out, the 77-year-old Italian cleaning lady who is working away when he gets to work, and is still working away when he leaves, is probably on a lot less than sixty thousand for the year. People like her are the heroes. Get your priorities right, Poirot: support the genuine working class, not the lumpens. If you can tell the difference.

Cheers,

Joe

Duncan's grievous crime was he asked a question. Obviously a serious offence in these enlightened days of free speech. The rabid right must bemoan the fact the good old days are no longer with us. A time when the authorities could have simply dragged old Duncan down to the town square and placed him in the public stocks, where the good citizenry of the rabid right could have pelted Duncan with rotten fruit. But things have changed, and now they have to come onto an internet forum and metaphorically give Duncan a public humiliation.

Good Morning,

I'm now back home. The procedure appears to have gone
well and I'll be told the results at my
specialist appointment tomorrow afternoon. I'm assuming
that if there were serious problems they would not have
allowed me to go home from the hospital. It's good to be
home once again. Thank You for your well wishes.

As for Duncan Storrar?
I find all of your comments interesting. And I'm glad that
I started this discussion. That's one of the many things
that I love about OLO - the wide variety of views.

The only thing that I find disturbing is when people get
nasty. That should not happen. It is worthwhile
to make a note and re-think things from another's perspective.
Except, I guess unless we consider those opinions not worthy
of consideration, then it would be best if we
simply moved on. Labelling people is not a worthwhile way to discuss
things. It does not produce anything productive.

However Thanks for all of your contributions.
There's much food for thought.

Dear ttbn - So you think I sound "sanctimonious?"
You are entitled to you opinion. Although, you
must realise that you aren't obligated to read my posts.

Have a nice day everyone.
All the best.

Hi Paul,

You're right: Duncan asked a question. And, rephrased, that was: if I don't pay any tax, why don't I get a tax cut ? I would have thought that the answer was pretty straightforward: how much tax cut would you like on nothing paid ?

What do you reckon, Paul ? Personally, I think he is entitled to at least 47 % off what he paid. Would you be more generous ?

So how much tax should he pay - and how much of a tax cut should he get - on $ 60,000 ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi there FOXY...

I'm so pleased to hear your procedure went well, and they permitted you to return home. And as you say if they found anything that raised any great concern they would have admitted you as an inpatient and kept you there. While it will be necessary to see your specialist again soon, it doesn't mean he'll greet you with advice, that'll be full of doom and gloom.

See FOXY I told you all will be well! You can always trust an ol' copper with sage advice - perhaps not quite 'sage' advice, more like 'seat of your pants' type advice! Seriously I'm absolutely delighted to hear you're OK, notwithstanding the quality of my advice?

Dear O Sung Wu,

Bless your heart!

I am also so relieved that things went well.

Anyway, I'll be seeing my surgeon tomorrow
afternoon and hopefully the end result will
be taken care of, with medication. I'm hoping
I won't need a by-pass. Then, on the 3rd June
I'll be seeing my Orthopaedic Surgeon (re-my
right leg and left shoulder) and hopefully
things are progressing well in that department
as well. I feel like I've been through the wars
at times.

But heck, there was a 90-ish old lady in the bed
next to mine in hospital on Monday, she was being
operated on Tuesday, and she was
amazing and inspired me greatly.

Again - Thanks for all your support and cheering
me up. May all the good-will that you show to
others come back to you many times over.

Take care.

Here's an interesting article that I've come across
on the web written by John Birmingham, May 17th 2016
in the "Brisbane Times". It's worth a read:

" Duncan Storrar's 'critics' did not refute his main point
that a rise in the tax-free threshold can change the daily
life of a poor person. Probably because it's irrefutable.
Nor did they take up O'Dwyer's bungled defence of a tax cut
for the rich over the poor ..."

Birmingham states that:

"Nope. They just pulled on the jackboots and kicked 47 flavours
of shyte out of an impoverished, uneducated man who'd done
nothing more than ask a simple, surprisingly difficult question.
The savagery of the media assault on Duncan Storrar, almost
entirely the work of the Murdoch press, was sickening to behold.
It was, to quote from Jennifer Wilson, a "depraved abuse of power."

Birmingham tells us that "They turned his family against him. They
blew up his criminal record. They called him a thug. An egregious
hypocrisy coming from these people. Interestingly however, as
terrible as it must have been for anyone in that family, the
destruction of Duncan Storrar did not go exactly to plan."

"Even as Storrar was defamed, normal people, which is to say not
billionaire media barons or lickspittles in the employ of billionaire
media barons, continued to offer support and donate to the "Go Fund Me"
campaign on his behalf."

It does bear repeating that Storrar never once asked for the money
or the attention. People just started throwing tens of thousands
of dollars at him via the internet because they were either sympathetic
or outraged or both.

Birmingham writes "Storrar had dared to speak a simple truth - not
even a particularly radical one. A couple of bucks means a helluva
lot more to somebody without a buck to their name. For this he had to
be destroyed and not simply refuted."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

"It shows that if you bring up an argument that threatens
privilege and power you face the prospect of the argument
being refined to come back to vex you. But if you
destroy who's foolish enough to open his mouth in the first
place you reduce the chances of it happening again."

Dearest Foxy,

Welcome back - I hope everything goes well.

Of course, Duncan made the understandable error of confusing a tax cut with another welfare benefit - that, if other people got tax cuts, why shouldn't he get some sort of extra benefit on top of all the bits and pieces that he now gets.

So the question remains, dear Foxy: how much of a tax cut do you think he should be getting ? 10% ? 47% ? Personally, in his current circumstances, I think he should be reimbursed for all the tax he is paying, but that's just me, I'm such a generous bloke. Then, at least, he could start to pay for some of his children's support. Actually sixty thousand might go some way to do that.

A year or two of fruit-picking would do something similar. There's a lot of it in Victoria.

Love always,

Joe

Foxy

The Brisbane times is a paper started by Labor and run by Fairfax, the lickspittle company to Labor and the unions, who started this debacle in the first place.

Fairfax and the ABC took Duncan Storrar and made him a working class hero, after the truth came out, they all got egg on their faces and have been trying to rescue their PR disaster by portraying him as a victim.

Duncan Storrar is nearly impossible to defame with a continuous history as a drug addict, thief and otherwise violent criminal and ex jail bird, with an extensive rap sheet, who abandoned his wife to raise their son while she was dying of cancer, and who has spent his life bludging off those people that pay 75% of Australia's tax and begrudges them a tax break of 85c per day.

Foxy,

With hindsight I have to admit that I shouldn't have accused you of being sanctimonious when you might well have a strong belief that it is wrong to judge other people; many people do, and it is a Christian belief adhered to by some. I, however, believe that making judgements is necessary and normal for all of us, and so do many other people. In the case of Storrar, legal judgement has been made, and he has convictions. He is also a liar and a bludger, and that is clearly the judgement of much of the laity. And they are not necessarily "conservatives", as you suggested in one of your earlier posts in this stream.

I will continue to read your posts and to comment if I am interested in the topic, but I undertake to be more understanding and respectful to you.

Fox,

Did you leave out the link to that slanted article so that no-one could see the replies?

Here are a couple,

<[GatsbyMay 17 2016]

Disgraceful distortion of what happened last week.

Everybody agrees Duncan can ask whatever (self serving) questions he likes. But then the Left lionised the guy. It was the Leftists who painted him as a downtrodden working class "hero" (in the words of Q&A producer Amanda Collinge, who should resign). That made it entirely legitimate to put out relevant facts about the man: his criminal convictions, his non-payment of child support, his drug use etc.

The Left then became embarrassed that they'd championed someone like him and the best form of defence became attack: as usual they sledge the Murdoch press for having the temerity to inform readers about this new "national hero". We're all tired of childless sliming of Murdoch papers.

Like most Australians I agreed with the answers given by O'Dwyer and Willox. Notice that no-one refutes the points they made, rather again they just sledge.>

continued,

and,

<[LogicMay 17 2016]

Mr Storrar’s first world problems do seem insurmountable.

His taxpayer funded home, children, food and health expenses which put him above the living standard of 90% of the people of this planet are definitely not good enough and require rebellion to get more handouts.

Storm the Bastille!>

Dear Joe (Loudmouth), and Shadow Minister,

I'm not an economic expert. I quote from articles
that make sense to me.

Jenny Noyes -
has pointed out in her
article, on the web, May 11, 2016:

"How much of a 'tax-cut' a low paid worker like Duncan
Storrar could receive is an irrelevant question."

She tells us: - "Below a certain income threshold, one stops
being a taxpayer and starts being a recipient (except for GST,
where the less money you earn the more tax you pay proportionately)."

"The re-distribution of wealth via income tax is the backbone of
an egalitarian society. When the poor are ignored in the budget
whether its by maintaining rather than raising the tax-free
threshold, doing the same with welfare payments and pensions,
or by failing to properly fund the essential public services
that the poor rely on most, they and all who believe in a fairer
society have a right to complain."

Noyes states: - " Duncan may pay some tax or none
but either way, the government is offering him and others in a
similar position zero relief in this budget, while people
earning more than $80,000 get to take home extra pocket money."

She then goes on to say: - "A tax break for the rich is a
cost to the budget bottom line. An increase to welfare payments
or raising the tax-free threshold is the same thing. The
government could have chosen to leave the threshold of the
second highest tax bracket where it was and spent a bit on
making life less of a struggle for those on low incomes.
Instead it made its choice to spend that money enabling people
earning $80,000 to take home extra cash, while those with less get
nothing and are expected to beg for drips."

"Yet, the cost of living continues to rise, and with it the tax
on goods and services that hits the poor harder."

Dear ttbn,

I appreciate your last comments.

I always read your posts and think it's very fair of you
to understand where I am coming from.

Thank You.

Fox,

Your 'authority', the lightweight Jenny Noyes,

"Jenny writes from Sydney's inner-east, sipping a flat white in between swearing about politics, feminism, pop culture and other stuff"

Another post in reply to that bumpf you posted,

<The complete rewrite of the history of this event is in itself a wonder to behold.

Certain media outlets used emotive arguments to potray Mr Storrar as a national "hero". They made it about him personally and his character as a working "battler". It was nothing to do with the substance of his question which can be easily answered by the fact that Mr Storrar doesn't in fact pay any net tax and receives thousands of dollars in net benefits provided by those actual net taxpayers that he was complaining about.

Other media outlets then actually researched the personal attributes of the man being championed and found that reality didn't match the spin.

The first media outlets then claim that it's unfair to focus on his personal attributes because the "message" is all that matters. Apparently you can only use a person as a figurehead for your ideology if you're making him seem much more decent and pure than reality to support your emotive arguments.

The stench of hypocrisy abounds.>

otb,

I did not leave out the link to John Birmingham's
article in the Brisbane Times, May 17th 2016 so
that no one could see the replies.
I felt that anyone who knows how to Google would
be able to find it. However you left out all the
replies written by people who supported Duncan
Storrar. There were quite a few.

I fully agree "the stench of hypocrisy does abound."

Here is another article that is worth reading.
It gives a different slant to Duncan Storrar:
It's written by Jenny Noyes,May 17, 2016.
"Duncan Storrar breaks his silence after being
targeted by media outlets in the wake of Q&A,"
Google it.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/by/jenny-noyes

Fox, "..Duncan targetted.."

What absolute rubbish. Already answered, see here,

"<The complete rewrite of the history of this event is in itself a wonder to behold.

Certain media outlets used emotive arguments to potray Mr Storrar as a national "hero". They made it about him personally and his character as a working "battler". It was nothing to do with the substance of his question which can be easily answered by the fact that Mr Storrar doesn't in fact pay any net tax and receives thousands of dollars in net benefits provided by those actual net taxpayers that he was complaining about.

Other media outlets then actually researched the personal attributes of the man being championed and found that reality didn't match the spin.

The first media outlets then claim that it's unfair to focus on his personal attributes because the "message" is all that matters. Apparently you can only use a person as a figurehead for your ideology if you're making him seem much more decent and pure than reality to support your emotive arguments.

The stench of hypocrisy abounds>

Suseonline,

No, middle class workers are not top echelon - and nor are they getting Morrison's tax cuts. The average wage is around $60,000 - and tax cuts kick in at $80,000. So the top earners are getting the help in this budget at the expense of the other brackets. What do you reckon about that?

And no the govt hasn't suggested that giving middle-class earners a tax cut will encourage small business to employ more plebs....which is why they're not giving middle income earners a tax cut.

The govt, however, did suggest that (its other tax cut) a company tax cut, would have that effect - except that's been rejected too as there is no substantial evidence that it would create jobs or that GDP growth is enhanced In lower company taxed jurisdictions - any more than higher taxed ones. The projection was for a 0.6 percent enhancement for Australia - over a twenty year period.

Some facts to bring to the discussion, if it helps:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2015-16/content/overview/html/overview-30.htm

Given their reaction to white Anglo Duncan Storrar, imagine the rabid rights hysteria if Duncan had actually been the Arab, Hous Bin Pharteen, and had finished his question with "Praise be to ALLAH!" Forget the tar and feathering, it would be straight to the gallows! Do not pass go, do not collect a tax cut!

Duncan Storrar is representative of the new left. He is crooked, violent, Lazy, and prefers to live of the earnings of others.

Poirot,

Middle class does not mean median wages. Middle class generally refers to professionals such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, business owners, etc.

These are the class of people that get almost nothing from the government and pay most of the countries tax. And in the last 8 years have had no tax relief, increased taxes on health and super, and now having got $300 p.a. back (less than CPI) are met with a bunch of greedy whingers who have had massive tax relief and welfare increases complaining.

No, only the little people pay tax. In the most recent documents released by the Australian Tax Office, there were 55 people who had a reportable annual income of more than $1 million, but who managed to reduce their taxable income to zero.

In total the untaxed 55 had incomes totalling more than $129 million, at an average of $2.35 million. But that was before they – or, more correctly, their tax planners – went to work on reducing their liabilities. After various deductions, they reported a combined loss of $12.866 million. There is a multitude of dubious deductions given to the rich which allows them to reduce their tax liability to zero. Maybe Duncan is one of them.

This is hardly surprising considering Australia has always had governments of the wealthy elite; or governments that have favored the wealthy elite to a large extent. Taxation simply reflects that fact.

SM,

"Middle class does not mean median wages. Middle class generally refers to professionals such as lawyers, doctors, engineers, accountants, business owners, etc."

We know there's different stratas to "middle-class" - there always has been. If we're going to split hairs, then doctors, lawyers engineers and (some) accountants and (some) business owners would be classified as "upper" middle-class.

"The average wage is $60,000. Most Australians don't get close to $80,000 and only around one quarter of them earn more than it. Put another way, the overwhelming majority of Australians, including those on average wages, won't be getting his reported tax cuts.

There's a logic to cutting tax for the highest-earning 25 per cent of Australians and not for the other 75 per cent. It's that $80,000 is where the second highest tax rate comes in. Morrison says over the next two years 300,000 Australians are going to move from just below $80,000 to just above it. While it won't make much difference to their total tax bill, because it will more highly tax only the few dollars they earn over $80,000, it will make them feel as if they are more highly taxed. And $80,000 is roughly the average wage for someone working full-time.

By misrepresenting a full-time figure as an average figure he spawned a myth: "that next year the average wage earner will be taxed up to 37 cents in the dollar on what they earn"."

"The upside, for him, is that the problem doesn't cost that much to fix; because it's nothing like the problem suggested. Relatively few people are at risk of earning more than $80,000 and relatively little of their income is above $80,000."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/federal-budget-2016-tax-cuts-80000-is-anything-but-average-20160501-goj9w7.html#ixzz49362LFy

Dearest Foxy,

I fully agree with you that Duncan should get the same sort of tax cut - call it x % - on his income as anybody else. Since he has paid no tax, then I'm sure you would agree that he is fully entitled to x % of $ 0.

Hi Paul,

You suggest that " .... No, only the little people pay tax." So .... Duncan is not in the category of 'little people' ? I suppose sixty grand in one week would put him up there with the 'big' people, but I think that's a bit unfair, if you spread that sixty grand over a financial year. I wonder how much tax Duncan will actually have to pay now on his full annual income. Not to worry, it won't be quite so much now that he can apply for a tax cut.

Cheers,

Joe

P.S. Thanks Duncan, for the gift that keeps on giving :)

Loudmouth,

"P.S. Thanks Duncan, for the gift that keeps on giving :)"

Well it would if you had anything new to say...your stuff is repetitive and boring.

I know you sit there thinking to yourself how you can dazzle us with your ultra sharp wit and super sarcasm...but it all adds up to merely more self-congratulatory blather.

We can almost hear you slapping yourself on the back after each post - another Loudy zinger ricochets at Mach speed across the universe - Lol!

Hi Poirot,

You point out that I " .... sit there thinking to yourself how you can dazzle us with your ultra sharp wit and super sarcasm ... "

I don't think I do too bad, actually :) Of course, it's not that hard with topics like these.

So do you think that poor Duncan should get more of a tax cut than other people ? No, just the same as anyone else ? i.e. x % of his taxable income ? i.e. x of $ 0 ?

Do you think that, with his new-found income of sixty thousand, he should get that x % tax-cut ? I think so, after he has actually paid some tax on it.

I agree with you that even drop-kicks have rights like other people. It's just that they also have responsibilities like other people. I earnestly hope that Duncan can now afford, not just to buy his kids ice creams, but make some small contribution towards the maintenance of his family. Don't you agree ?

Thanks again, Duncan :)

Good Morning Folks,

I have nothing more to add on this subject.
I Thank You all for your contributions and I look forward
to our next discussion.

Have a nice day.

Loudmouth,

Carry on - I'm sure there's an angle your advanced snark hasn't covered yet.

Of course, some of us saw the actual point of Storrar's question - which was why are the top 25% getting a tax cut at the expense of the lower 75%?

Why does this govt seek to give largesse to high income earners - and not to middle or low income earners.

In its foolishness, it suggests that its high income and company tax cuts will "trickle down" - (agreed no economist ever:)

So you entertain yourself fulsomely along with your matey's here throwing eggs at Storrar...because that's as far as you mentality allows you to roam.

When the crux of Storrar's question remains entirely relevant - even more so, after Kelly O'Dwyer screwed up the response on the night.

This is the way politics is conducted. The question regarding tax breaks for the poor is relevant and important whether the person asking it is a millionaire, or a poor person, a thug and a thief or a wonderful upright person.
This episode tells us much about the media and indeed some of our fellow citizens. If someone tells us that the emperor has no clothes then rather checking if that is indeed true we prefer to great lengths to prove that the assertion is made by someone who is a flawed human being.
Irrespective of what sort of person Storrar is his question remains legitimate - a tax cut for low income earners will do more to inprove their quality of life than a tax cut for the wealthy.

Baygon,

I agree that Turnbull has made a very bad mistake, for which he will undoubtable pay, on the tax issue; but, the topic was about Duncan Storrar who, in a smaller way, is just as much a selfish rogue as Turnbull is.

Hi Poirot,

I take some pride in what you call my "advanced snarks". If I could return the compliment, you don't do so bad yourself. As you would be aware, snarking requires cultivation and forethought to be effective, otherwise it is just whingeing. You've got far beyond that as a qualified snarker: take that as praise from one to another.

So Duncan was selflessly putting himself out there on behalf of all who pay tax and get few benefits ? I don't think so: I think he was simply demanding that what he saw as a benefit accruing to someone else should come to him too, in spades if possible. Long-term welfare bludgers are not renowned for their altruism, Poirot.

I think the Opportunist Left backed the wrong horse on this one. Perhaps they should do their own Fact Check before they look for another stick to shove up Turnbull, instead of assuming that any stick will do. Envy politics has its limits :)

Cheers,

Joe

"So Duncan was right? Australian National University study confirms 2016-17 budget will hit low-income families hardest.

Low-income families with children will be hit harder than other families by measures in the 2016-17 budget, according to a new report from the Australian National University in Canberra.

The report found the bottom 20 per cent of couples with children will be worse off by $1209 in 2018-19 due to the main "hip-pocket" measures in the budget, handed down by Treasurer Scott Morrison on May 3. That represented a reduction of about 2.8 per cent in the disposable income of low-income families.

By contrast, the top 20 per cent of families will be ahead financially by about $211 a year, not accounting for changes to superannuation, largely as a result of cuts to personal income tax."

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/so-duncan-was-right-australian-national-university-study-confirms-201617-budget-will-hit-lowincome-families-hardest-20160512-gotbsz.html

"I think the Opportunist Left backed the wrong horse on this one. Perhaps they should do their own Fact Check before they look for another stick to shove up Turnbull, instead of assuming that any stick will do..."

How is the above post for a "Fact Check"?

I hadn't noticed your last reply.

Btw, I think Marvellous Mal is doing a great job shoving sticks up his own chances this election...no-one else needs to bother : )

Poirot,

Once again the ABC, Fairfax and all left whingers have leapt onto this "Report from the ANU" which is not actually representative of the ANU, but just a report from one man working at the ANU who could actually just be a cleaner. It is an associate professor (lecturer) who has a simple degree in economics and avowedly left leanings who once again has done back of the cigarette box calculations. This dufus include cigarette tax in the assault on the poor, but excludes the super changes on the wealthy. What a crock of crap.

Once again Duncan is shown as a family man not the violent ex con that he is. But of course the ABC and Fairfax can rely on the uncritical eye of the left whingers such as Poirot.

SM,

"... but just a report from one man working at the ANU who could actually just be a cleaner...."

What a silly place this is at times...and your comments (considering you're one of the more eloquent around here) are usually among some of the silliest.

I do, however, derive some entertainment from watching your gymnastics as you seek desperately to turn the LNP's sow's ear of a govt into a silk purse.

I mean - could they have messed it up any more fulsomely?

Poirot,

This coming from someone who spent years trying to defend Juliar's rolling train wreck of a government that managed to cock it up far more fulsomely than any liberal government.

Lol!...SM...

Even you, the great apologist for anything right-wing, can't deny that you'd have to be disappointed with the rolling debacle that's been an LNP govt since 2014.

Debt way up, spending up, wages growth down, unemployment up...the same dysfunctional leadership rubbish as occurred under Rudd/Gillard - and even the great saviour, Mal the Magnificent, hasn't managed to live up to his reputation.

One disaster after another - and it continues.

Hi Poirot,

Sorry, I don't understand:

"How is the above post for a "Fact Check"?"

Do you mean that it would have been impossible to check out Duncan's sad story of oppression and unfairness ? Well, someone seems to have done that pretty quickly. Those accursed News Limited journalists !

Yes, I agree with you that we are witnessing something like " .... the same dysfunctional leadership rubbish as occurred under Rudd/Gillard.... " I hope it will be a long, long time before we have to put up with that again. Fat chance.

Back to Duncan: Is it possible to fact-check what happened to Duncan's sixty grand ? Will it be treated by the ATO as something like a X-Lotto win, i.e. no tax ? In which case, poor Duncan wouldn't get a tax cut, not even on sixty grand. Poor oppressed Duncan, staunch friend of the Opportunist Left !

Or will poor Duncan have to actually pay tax ? If so, let's look on the bright side, that now he might get a tax cut AND start paying family maintenance. There might even be a bit left over from his visits to the TAB to buy the kids an ice-cream - no need for extravagance, just the one between them all - win-win !

I'm sure that you would agree. Lucky I'm not at Murdoch Uni, otherwise I might get fined $ 50 for mild sarcasm.

Snark-snark :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

Lol!...you do appear to have quite a fixation on Duncan.

Hope you get over it soon, mate!

Hi Poirot,

A fixation ? Yes, it's a bit like having doggy-poo on your shoe, embedded in the ridges and grooves, something you don't want to be treading anywhere. You're 'fixated' on how the hell to get rid of it.

Plus, as someone who did it fairly tough as a kid, like you, but who like you, always made an effort to rise above it (mainly out of the sheer terror of maybe not ever being able to), I don't have anything much but contempt for someone who hasn't tried, but has thrown himself endlessly on the good mercies of the world to get by with as little effort as possible. And, it seems, on the good mercies of the Opportunist Left, as long as they have a use for him.

Christ, Poirot, I'm not a gambling man but at least I know you don't pick losers like this one.

Why does the OppLeft do that ? Perhaps because very few of them are, or have ever been, working class, but are, and ever will be, fairly comfortable middle-class, well-educated, professionals, Gramscians, who know that their rightful place in the world, as pure-of-heart and extremely well-educated people, professionals, the most advanced intelligentsia known to mankind, is to rule it. And to smash down whatever gets in the way, and from the inside if necessary.

So the OppLeft get conned again and again, confusing lumpen for genuine workers, dip-sticks like Duncan for real battlers. Come to think of it, that's how it's usually been on the OppLeft, they've always been soft touches for a good sob-story.

Cheers,

Joe

Or perhaps "obsession" would be a better word...

Or in your case, dearie, 'ad hominem'.

Cop it sweet, Poirot. Your lot blew this one. Move on. There'll be better times.

Joe

Lol!....

I've never understood those abbreviations - do you mean 'lots of love' ? Fair enough. Loltyt.

What has happened is the middle class have had the first tax bracket adjustment since 2008 of about 0.3% that does not even cover inflation while having their taxes increased by $1000s on health care rebates etc. Meanwhile those on less than $80 000 have had tax cuts of > $1000 p.a. and increased benefits, yet scream blue murder.

It is the plain old jealously popping up.

That Duncan Storrar is a total scumbag is the icing on the cake.

I love it when 75 percent of wage earners (those earning the median wage of around $60,000) don't receive a tax cut....SM refers to the "middle-class" - those on $80,000 or more - as if he's really referring to the "middle".

Hi Poirot,

[We're both running out posts for the day :) ]

Are you serious: " .... I love it when 75 percent of wage earners (those earning the median wage of around $60,000) don't receive a tax cut .... "

Yet you passionately claim that Duncan, Champion of the People, should get one even if he doesn't actually pay any tax ? My poor understanding is that a tax cut of 5 %, or 20 %, or 80 %, on a taxable income of $ 0 would work out to roughly, about, give or take, $ 0.

So, if people work and pay $15,000 or so in annual tax, they should get $ 0 tax cut, but a Champion of the People who doesn't lift a finger all year, skips out on paying maintenance, tries to get his son on dope, somehow is entitled to some sort of rebate on tax that he hasn't even paid ?

If you are suggesting something different, but in a very clumsy way, ...... nope, I still can't see it.

Sixty thousand these days, so it seems, is nothing amazing, lower than the median annual wage. Perhaps you could rephrase your assertion ?

Joe

Ho hum...Loudmouth,

Link to the post where I "passionately" argue that Duncan should get a tax cut?

I've said repeatedly that his question was relevant - in that why do tax cuts go to the big end of town ($50 billion to corps and the highest earners - if you don't mind).

Debt and deficit crisis nowhere to be seen - despite this govt bumping gross debt up by $160 billion dollars in under three years...

You do know that you get eight posts per day per topic in the general section....20 posts all up in the general section per day?

Oh, I don't think that was Duncan's question, Poirot - more like "If anybody else gets something, why not me ?! Poor bugger me ?!"

One day, the OppLeft will realise that (no, what am I saying ?) dead-beats and ex-crims are not the salt of the Earth, Stakhanovites yearning to serve the people, but totally unreliable as pawns. They may know how to pitch a good yarn but all-up, they think of only themselves and absolutely nobody else. And they can see a sucker coming, especially those who think they are so far above the hoi-polloi like the OppLeft. Did you know that Duncan owns the West Gate Bridge and would be happy to sell it on to you, cheap ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

Anything to say about the 579 mega-corps who paid no tax last financial year?

Like Rupie Murdoch, for instance...don't hear you railing about that.

But you seem the kinda guy who gets his jollies putting the boot into someone down at heel coz the rest of the rabble are doing the same.

Have fun!

Poirot,

My god, you regurgitate the left whinge propaganda without even thinking. There aren't even 600 mega corporations in Australia.

The Large businesses in Australia (>200 employees) number about 2500, of which about 580 paid no tax. Which even for the simplest economist has a valid reason. - These 25% of large companies in these times made little or no profit.

For the ignorant, Tax is paid on profit not turnover.

LOL Shadow "These 25% of large companies in these times made little or no profit." Nah, all the profits were made by head office situated in the Caymen Islands, was Malcolm on the board? Maybe the unsuccessful 'Shadow Minister Ice Cream Stand' with one employee (Shadow), would view his competitor the very successful 'Paulie Ice Cream Stand' with two employees (Paul's got his Misses on the job) as a Mega Company. What do you think?

What constitutes a mega company anyway, just as you claimed Mount Gambiar was a "city", what constitutes a city.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-17/almost-600-companies-did-not-pay-tax-in-2013-14/7036324

SM,

"My god, you regurgitate the right whinge propaganda without even thinking...."

"Australian boardrooms are braced for the release of tax data on Thursday morning that will name 579 of the country's largest corporations that paid no tax in 2014.

The Tax Transparency report to be released by the Tax Office shows that 38 per cent of the 1539 large public and foreign companies operating in Australia paid no tax last year, second commissioner Jeremy Hirschhorn told The Australian Financial Review."

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax-office-to-name-579-companies-that-paid-no-tax-20151216-glp3vc#ixzz49W96jFIF

So let me amend that to 579 of Australia's largest corporations paid no tax.

"Of the 579 companies that paid no tax in the transparency report, 8 per cent used prior-year losses and 7 per cent used franking credits, R&D and other offsets to wipe out their tax bill.

Foreign-owned companies were more likely not to have paid tax if they worked in banking and finance, where 45 per cent of foreign companies paid no tax, compared with 19 per cent of Australian public companies.

In insurance and superannuation the no-tax figures were 39 per cent for foreign companies, against 18 per cent for Australian corporates.

In contrast 52 per cent of Australian manufacturing companies paid no tax, against 32 per cent of foreign owned companies.

Companies may struggle to explain how the ATO numbers differ from their own reported tax payments, and the quite different measures of accounting profit and taxable income."

Paul,

If you kept quiet, I might suspect that you are ignorant but when you post I know it.

From your link:

"The ATO said no tax paid did not necessarily mean companies had been engaged in tax avoidance. Some of those companies incurred tax losses, while others used prior financial year losses or offsets to minimise their tax payment."

Which essentially means that they have done nothing wrong or even unethical and that the whole topic is a baseless beat up.

As for the definition mega, perhaps you should ask your mate Poirot as she redefined the large companies as Mega companies which I disagreed with. As for Mt Gambier (unlike you I can spell), I referred to it as city, because it refer to itself as a city, and if you have better definition perhaps you should take it up with them and try not to be a douche bag on the thread.

And Parrot,

Nothing you have linked to has indicated that any of these companies have done anything illegal or even unethical. Even the Labor mouthpiece the ABC has said so, with the only person acting unethically is David Feeney.

SM,

579 of Australia's "largest" corporations - and you're getting all pedantic over how "large" they are.

All righty then.

Of course, one wouldn't expect a right-winger like you to consider any of that "unethical" - why it's more something to wear as a badge of honour, I should imagine.

And "Parrot"...goodness me, you'll have to stop being so witty - we're all delirious with admiration at that one!

Poirot,

As the authority on business ethics perhaps you can justify why it is unethical for a company that is making a loss to pay no company tax? Remembering of course that these companies are still paying a wage tax, GST, paye, and plethora of other state taxes.

I wouldn't dream of it, SM...

579 of our "largest" corporations in business and making a loss seems perfectly legit.

"Accounting firms have been urging corporate clients to be proactive in explaining their tax position. Preparations include seminars, one-on-one coaching and suggested question-and-answer briefings for senior executives to handle media inquiries.

Of the 579 companies that paid no tax in the transparency report, 8 per cent used prior-year losses and 7 per cent used franking credits, R&D and other offsets to wipe out their tax bill."

Companies may struggle to explain how the ATO numbers differ from their own reported tax payments, and the quite different measures of accounting profit and taxable income."

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax-office-to-name-579-companies-that-paid-no-tax-20151216-glp3vc#ixzz49cCOw1zg

Poirot,

"Companies may struggle to explain how the ATO numbers differ from their own reported tax payments, and the quite different measures of accounting profit and taxable income."

Once again all you have is vague innuendo.

All incorporated companies are required to submit their tax returns with an audit report from an independent auditing firm who goes through their books with a fine tooth comb and sign off that the tax return complies with all the tax laws. These firms stake their reputation on these reports and face huge fines or suspension if the ATO finds any non compliance.

So the innuendo that there is widespread crookery is purest fantasy.