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.