|
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
are you sure about this? i was under the impression the money came from tax collected in the last financial year, which is why only tax payers are receiving it. are you against returning taxes to those it came from?? |
Yes.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
says who? i was in need and it helped me greatly  |
You're hardly "in need", dickhead. As I recall you were in the process of buying a second property. When the shit really hits the fan, that's when people will actually need the money. To buy food and clothing, not new computers, GPS units and slabs of beer. The worst is yet to come I think.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
so what? who are you to decide what people spend their own money on? im sure the alcohol industry is doing well then, which kind've counters your argument about it not helping stimulate the economy. |
Who I am to tell people what they should spend their money on? I'm a sensible person who will be able to own a house by the time they're forty because they have saved hard, worked hard and spent wisely. People are fucking idiots and shouldn't be handed cash in lump sums because they will never use it wisely. Why do you think superannuation payouts are about to be regulated so that the payee can only withdraw a monthly stipend? It's because morons go and buy holiday houses or boats, forgetting that they have to support themselves for another fifty years. You can never trust money in the hands of the general population, even their own. I'm sick of paying the price for other people's mistakes. I'm all for supporting those in need, but when they're "in need" because they racked up a credit card bill buying a plasma television and designer sunglasses they couldn't afford, then they can fuck right off.
Back to your original point: I'm sure the alcohol industry is doing fine, but again it's not a "proper" way to stimulate the economy. I'm aware of the funding that's gone to schools and other places, but that doesn't in any way negate the fact that a shit-load of money has been wasted on these $900 pay outs. Money that could have been used constructively.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
work choices was a disgrace and deserved to be changed. im unfamiliar with all the changes made however, and of course not everyone will benefit. that's politics for you. and this idea that employers live to employ is what made me call you a conservative earlier. seriously, i wish i had some of what you're smoking. |
You don't know fuck all about work choices. Work choices was as beneficial to workers as it was to employees. Under that scheme, my parents were forced to raise wages at three of their businesses, totalling 100+ employees who got a rise.
As for my idea that "employers live to employ", I'm under no illusion that all employers are nice people out to help others. Many are complete cunts, and yes, workers need to be protected from people like that. However, the fact of the matter is, companies want and need workers to function. Above all, they want good workers. Bullshit legislation, over-regulation and red-tape force up the costs of employing people, cutting jobs, and often give employees an opportunity to be lazy, deceitful or otherwise take advantage of the employer where they would otherwise not. Again, this is a two way street and it's very hard to strike the correct balance between rights of employer vs employee, but work choice was one of the best pieces of legislation ever in this respect. I think you should read Ayn Rand's masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged in order to understand why unions and overly controlling governments would ruin the world if not kept in check.
Irrespective of all this, we can always agree on one thing: Sushipunk is a cock badger.
|
