Australian Politics Forum - More Public Money for Private Education

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: More Public Money for Private Education Reply #105 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:03am so to sum up your position... give everything to the poor regardless of merit hurt those on good incomes kill ALL billionaires vote [1] josef stalin have i missed anything?
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 58299
Here
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #106 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:04am

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:54am:

Actually, Longy, my complaint is that they haven't articulated the means-testing - rather they have sent a conveninently mixed message...

With their headline policy announcements, they have definitely implied that it will apply to all families of school students, with only a subtle mention of 'eligible families/parents' whilst carefully not spelling it out that means-testing will apply...

Well sort of got me too, As with the Laptop I will get no rebate.

(I do not really have the vested interest previously stated)

I have no problem with this as I do not believe that the government should be giving hand outs to people who have no need of the support.

.

Back to top

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #107 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:15am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:43am:

||Income test

For Family Tax Benefit Part A, if your family's actual annual family income[1] for this financial year is $45,114 or less, your payment will not be affected by the income test.

If your actual annual family income is more than $45,114 for this financial year, your payment will reduce by 20 cents for each dollar above $45,114 until your payment reaches the base rate of Family Tax Benefit Part A.

Your Family Tax Benefit Part A will stay at that rate until your actual annual family income reaches $94,316 a year (plus $3,796 for each Family Tax Benefit child after the first). Family Tax Benefit Part A will reduce by 30 cents for every dollar over that amount until your payment reaches nil.

If you get more than the base rate of Family Tax Benefit A, a maintenance income test[2] may also apply.

||

but feel free to assume it is a lie or not real or anything else to ensure that it fits in with your non-thinking dogma. in the meantime, the rest of us will use at least slightly open minds to assess the information given to us.

Longy, I suggest that you review the contents of that extract - and locate the original/official source - before you attempt to justify parrotting it out of context...

Hint: I think you will find that the quote you have used above was NOT plucked from from the blurb about the Education Tax Rebate and I note that it does not provide any link back to same.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:31am by Equitist »

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #108 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:21am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures.

There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned.
Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste.
I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income.
But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount.

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #109 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:23am

Dnarever wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:44am:

I would find it difficult to oppose this policy.

While I understand both sides of the argument I see no problem with giving the same set of rules to both private and public students in terms of tax benefit. (if it is affordable) I do think that Public schools should be looked after first in terms of direct public funding.

The government run the Public school system and should have a priority to funding their schools properly, anything they can give in support of private education after this is a good thing and well worth the expense.

My vested interest is that I have a daughter in private education and am also paying for music lessons on multiple instruments.

Note: I was happy to buy my daughter a Laptop while all Public students in NSW got one for free and do not mind paying the rather steep fees for her education.

.

Actually, DNA, I am sure I am not the only parent of a senior school student in a public school who needed to upgrade to a more up-to-date laptop for home student use anyway, since the Govt-supplied one is substantially locked out of the internet at home.

The security filter is such that: even using my TAFE account on my son's Govt Lenovo, I am prevented from accessing any email services and numerous sites are blocked.

That said, the Govt-supplied Lenovo is equipped with a fantastic suite of software that we would otherwise not have in our household. For that reason alone, it has been a huge educational bonus!

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #110 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:41am

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:03am:

so to sum up your position...

give everything to the poor regardless of merit
hurt those on good incomes
kill ALL billionaires
vote [1] josef stalin

have i missed anything?

FFS, Longy, will you kindly cease and desist, with your bizarre habit of singling me out to put false words into my mouth. I have more than enough of my own, thanks!

As you know full well, I am concerned about achieving policy changes which ensure that kids (and their carers) from low income and other vulnerable households do NOT face a lifetime compounding structural disadvantage and instead have access to equitable essential domestic accommodation, services and infrastructure and above-subsistence household incomes. Not only would such changes improve the life-chances of the individuals and families directly affected - but it also has far-reaching benefits for the broader community into the longer-term.

Meantime, I remain disgusted by misleading LibLab propaganda!

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Annie Anthrax

Gold Member

Offline

Take the plan, spin it
sideways

Posts: 7057
Gender: female

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #111 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:47am

Quote:

so to sum up your position...

give everything to the poor regardless of merit

Of course not. It's a much better idea to have a divisive class system where children of the wealthy receive every possible advantage. Children who choose to be born to poor parents should remain illiterate throughout their lives, and above all never get uppity and act on the belief that they have the potential to lead a life of productivity.

Back to top

I can't do this, but I'm doing it anyway.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #112 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:49pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures.

There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned.
Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste.
I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income.
But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount.

Im not opposed to means-testing pre se. I am opposed to the idea that every govt benefit should necesarily be means tested as some sort of ideology. means-testing should be used because in the absence of the ability for govt to equally distribute largesse to all it should therefore be given to those most in need first. but to say that a segment of the community is intrinsiclally unworthy of govt benefit is wrong. it is once again the ideological approach that would say that some groups should NEVER have govt benefit and others should ALWAYS have benefit is wrong and counter-productive. as a liberal i am all for self-sufficiency and making your own way. but the govt does provide benefits and there is no justification - besides financial ability - to deny ANYONE in the community a benefit that is available to some. The pension SHOULD be for all retired australians - and used to be. The undeniable fact tho is that we cant afford to do that so we means test to ensure than at least the needy get it. but at no time should we say that self-funded retirees are undeserving of it. it is that attitude that rankles; that by working hard, saving hard, studying hard and taking risks that advantage not only you but also your community, you reach the level where you must be punished not only by higher taxation and the absence of any govt help, but you must be abused for it as well.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #113 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:51pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:03am:

so to sum up your position...

give everything to the poor regardless of merit
hurt those on good incomes
kill ALL billionaires
vote [1] josef stalin

have i missed anything?

FFS, Longy, will you kindly cease and desist, with your bizarre habit of singling me out to put false words into my mouth. I have more than enough of my own, thanks!

As you know full well, I am concerned about achieving policy changes which ensure that kids (and their carers) from low income and other vulnerable households do NOT face a lifetime compounding structural disadvantage and instead have access to equitable essential domestic accommodation, services and infrastructure and above-subsistence household incomes. Not only would such changes improve the life-chances of the individuals and families directly affected - but it also has far-reaching benefits for the broader community into the longer-term.

Meantime, I remain disgusted by misleading LibLab propaganda!

you are ON RECORD as saying that ALL (literally) billionaires acheived their wealth by evil means. you are all on record as saying that there shoudl be PUNITIVE levels of taxation for high income earners. so where is my error since many of the policies you espouse are essentially stalinist in nature. Apart from the gulags (I hope) you and stalin appear to have alot of social and economic common ground.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #114 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:54pm

Annie Anthrax wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:47am:

Quote:

so to sum up your position...

give everything to the poor regardless of merit

Of course not. It's a much better idea to have a divisive class system where children of the wealthy receive every possible advantage. Children who choose to be born to poor parents should remain illiterate throughout their lives, and above all never get uppity and act on the belief that they have the potential to lead a life of productivity.

you live in probably the most egalitarian and class-les society on the planet. everyone gets a shot. the govt supports the poor and low income earners at an unprecedented level. exactly what is your problem other than that there are people with more money an opportunities than others? do you think that is new, unusual or even wrong? life aint fair nor is it equal. the winners in our society are generally those who work hard - not just go to private school or inherit wealth.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #115 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:57pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:49pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures.

There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned.
Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste.
I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income.
But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount.

Im not opposed to means-testing pre se. I am opposed to the idea that every govt benefit should necesarily be means tested as some sort of ideology. means-testing should be used because in the absence of the ability for govt to equally distribute largesse to all it should therefore be given to those most in need first. but to say that a segment of the community is intrinsiclally unworthy of govt benefit is wrong. it is once again the ideological approach that would say that some groups should NEVER have govt benefit and others should ALWAYS have benefit is wrong and counter-productive. as a liberal i am all for self-sufficiency and making your own way. but the govt does provide benefits and there is no justification - besides financial ability - to deny ANYONE in the community a benefit that is available to some. The pension SHOULD be for all retired australians - and used to be. The undeniable fact tho is that we cant afford to do that so we means test to ensure than at least the needy get it. but at no time should we say that self-funded retirees are undeserving of it. it is that attitude that rankles; that by working hard, saving hard, studying hard and taking risks that advantage not only you but also your community, you reach the level where you must be punished not only by higher taxation and the absence of any govt help, but you must be abused for it as well.

So, Longy, I take it that you really agree with me, when I say that the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR Superannuation Tax Concessions are both grossly unfair and fiscally irresponsible - yeah right!?

As for your comments re the population 'flocking' to private schools, the reverse-means-tested mid-high-end tax cuts of the past decade would more than pay for a privileged private school education, without the need for any other tokenistic rebate...

Back to top

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #116 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 1:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:51pm:

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:03am:

so to sum up your position...

give everything to the poor regardless of merit
hurt those on good incomes
kill ALL billionaires
vote [1] josef stalin

have i missed anything?

FFS, Longy, will you kindly cease and desist, with your bizarre habit of singling me out to put false words into my mouth. I have more than enough of my own, thanks!

As you know full well, I am concerned about achieving policy changes which ensure that kids (and their carers) from low income and other vulnerable households do NOT face a lifetime compounding structural disadvantage and instead have access to equitable essential domestic accommodation, services and infrastructure and above-subsistence household incomes. Not only would such changes improve the life-chances of the individuals and families directly affected - but it also has far-reaching benefits for the broader community into the longer-term.

Meantime, I remain disgusted by misleading LibLab propaganda!

you are ON RECORD as saying that ALL (literally) billionaires acheived their wealth by evil means. you are all on record as saying that there shoudl be PUNITIVE levels of taxation for high income earners. so where is my error since many of the policies you espouse are essentially stalinist in nature. Apart from the gulags (I hope) you and stalin appear to have alot of social and economic common ground.

No, I am NOT 'ON RECORD' for saying anything of the sort.

Rather, I have pointed out the undeniable FACT that NO billionaire can accumulate so much wealth, without feeding-off the efforts and/or resources of a great many others - citizens, employees, customers, communities, relatives, etc. On that basis, I have contended that it is both unfair and unconscionable, for any single human being to feel entitled to hold onto such disproportionate wealth, rather than redistribute it for the benefit of others.

As for taxation, when I commenced work in the mid-80s the top marginal rate was 60% - and there is no valid socio-economic reason why the individual tax rates of the 80s should not have remained.

Rather than reducing rates (especially on high income levels), the various income thresholds should have been lifted (and/or indexed, perhaps with others inserted in between)...

Since the 80s, and since 2000 in particular, increasingly-regressive taxation has been a major (and unconscionable) driver of the exponential polarisation of household disposable income, wealth, opportunity and power in Australia - FACT!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 24^th, 2010 at 1:37pm by Equitist »

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

Equitist

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9632
NSW

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #117 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 1:34pm

Yo Longy et al

As a matter of interest, I suggest that people utilise the following tables to calculate the comparative WEATH-fare BENEFITS to middle-high income Aussies over the past decade (and quarter century)...

I suggest that people calculate figures on, say:

* Diferent $25K increments up to $150K, then jump by $50K to $250K, then calculate $500K and $1M

* Or use the latest FY10 or FY11 thresholds for a more direct comparison

IM(not-so)HO, the results will surprise most and alarm some - not least because the Libs are carrying on so much about Federal debt and deficit, despite being the proud architects of the biggest budget black holes in Australian history...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but: compared to 2000 any person earning over about $125,000 is now benefitting from ANNUAL CASH TAX CUTS that exceed the ANNUAL SINGLE AGED PENSION - on top of having the means of utilising an effective-marginal tax rate of 15% due to the SUPERANNUATION TAX CONCESSIONS RORT!

The past decade has been really good for some, eh!?

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/

Quote:

Residents

1985–86

Taxable income/Tax on this income

$0–$4,594 = Nil

$4,595–$12,499 = 25 cents for each $1 over $4,595

$12,500–$19,499 = $1,976.26 + 30 cents for each $1 over $12,500

$19,500–$27,999 = $4,076.25 + 46 cents for each $1 over $19,500

$28,000–$34,999 = $7,986.25 + 48 cents for each $1 over $28,000

$35,000 and over = $11,346.25 + 60 cents for each $1 over $35,000

2000-01

Taxable income /Tax on this income

$1 - $6,000 = Nil

$6,001 - $20,000 = 17 cents for each $1 over $6,000

$20,001 - $50,000 = $2,380 + 30 cents for each $1 over $20,000

$50,001 - $60,000 = $11,380 + 42 cents for each $1 over $50,000

$60,001 and over = $15,580 + 47 cents for each $1 over $60,000

2009–10

Taxable income/Tax on this income

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$6,001 – $35,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000

$35,001 – $80,000 = $4,350 plus 30c for each $1 over $35,000

$80,001 – $180,000 = $17,850 plus 38c for each $1 over $80,000

$180,001 and over = $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

The following rates for 2010–11 apply from 1 July 2010.

2010–11

Taxable income/Tax on this income

0 – $6,000 = Nil

$6,001 – $37,000 = 15c for each $1 over $6,000

$37,001 – $80,000 = $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000

$80,001 – $180,000 = $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000

$180,001 and over = $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

The above rates do not include the Medicare levy...(read Medicare levy reduction or exemption for more information).

Tax offsets reduce the tax payable. Tax offsets based on taxable income levels apply to a range of circumstances. For more information read About tax offsets.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 24^th, 2010 at 1:43pm by Equitist »

Lamenting the shift in the Australian psyche, away from the egalitarian ideal of the fair-go - and the rise of short-sighted pollies, who worship the 'Growth Fairy' and seek to divide and conquer!

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #118 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:05pm

Equitist wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:49pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 11:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 10:23am:

and thus enters yet another nemesis issue - meanstesting. because govt is about hurting high earners and cushioning low earners from the results of their failures.

There is nothing wrong with means testing Longy, it's essential to stop the waste of taxpayers money. You continuely bang on about this as far as BER etc is concerned.
Non means testing is exactly the same sort of waste.
I have paid private school fees now for 8 years and I don't need another pseudo tax cut & neither does anyone else on my sort of income.
But as you say some parents go without/work 2-3 jobs to send their kids to private schools, I'm quite happy for their hard work and sacrifice be eased just that small amount.

Im not opposed to means-testing pre se. I am opposed to the idea that every govt benefit should necesarily be means tested as some sort of ideology. means-testing should be used because in the absence of the ability for govt to equally distribute largesse to all it should therefore be given to those most in need first. but to say that a segment of the community is intrinsiclally unworthy of govt benefit is wrong. it is once again the ideological approach that would say that some groups should NEVER have govt benefit and others should ALWAYS have benefit is wrong and counter-productive. as a liberal i am all for self-sufficiency and making your own way. but the govt does provide benefits and there is no justification - besides financial ability - to deny ANYONE in the community a benefit that is available to some. The pension SHOULD be for all retired australians - and used to be. The undeniable fact tho is that we cant afford to do that so we means test to ensure than at least the needy get it. but at no time should we say that self-funded retirees are undeserving of it. it is that attitude that rankles; that by working hard, saving hard, studying hard and taking risks that advantage not only you but also your community, you reach the level where you must be punished not only by higher taxation and the absence of any govt help, but you must be abused for it as well.

So, Longy, I take it that you really agree with me, when I say that the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR Superannuation Tax Concessions are both grossly unfair and fiscally irresponsible - yeah right!?

As for your comments re the population 'flocking' to private schools, the reverse-means-tested mid-high-end tax cuts of the past decade would more than pay for a privileged private school education, without the need for any other tokenistic rebate...

you seem to lack the ability to interpret anyone else's post thru anything but your own deeply discoloured glasses. ANYTHING that gives an advantage to anyone but the poor immediately earns your wrath. all this does is make your opinion totally worthless. there is no debate, no discussion, no compromise. you are just the Greens - and just as irrelevant. none of their policy posturing will ever see the light of day for exactly the same reason. your attitudes, rather than being the altruistic ones that you think they are, are actually nothing more than self-serving antiquated social opinions more at home in 1917 russia than 2010 australia.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: More Public Money for Private Education
Reply #119 - Jul 24^th, 2010 at 2:22pm

||As for taxation, when I commenced work in the mid-80s the top marginal rate was 60% - and there is no valid socio-economic reason why the individual tax rates of the 80s should not have remained.

Rather than reducing rates (especially on high income levels), the various income thresholds should have been lifted (and/or indexed, perhaps with others inserted in between)...

Since the 80s, and since 2000 in particular, increasingly-regressive taxation has been a major (and unconscionable) driver of the exponential polarisation of household disposable income, wealth, opportunity and power in Australia - FACT!
||

it is also a fact that in those days you long after with very high taxation, australia had a very poorly performing and inefficient economy. of the reforms that lead to australia becoming the economic miracle that it is today not the least of them was tax reform. this saw levels of taxation whose sole purpose for being was to punish taxpayers being replaced with scales that not only encouraged high acheivment but also reduced wage demands which would haeve killed many businesses. I am constantly amazed at how you look longingly and witha tear in your eye for the opportunity for SOMEONE ELSE to pay 60% taxation or more. given that this country managed to generate a surplus and zero debt would indicate that this strategy was right. it would also indicate that the NEED for such high levels of income tax do not exist and probably never did. it is worth noting that with the exception of the scandinavian cradle-to-grave welfare states, excessively high rates of taxation are now soley the province of third world cesspools with crap economies and massive corruption. somtimes you just have to look at the result (best economy in the world) and at least question what we did right. and when we are still the secondmost desirable place to live on earth you know that it si more than the economy that we got right.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged