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.