The only people not-complaining are those naive to the penny pinching ways of a Labor government.

Those who stand to give more than they are likely to receive in return for this imposed charity tax.

If our government wont even disclose ALL of what has been donated to date, then how is it we can be sure, this tax is even necessary, much less justified?

For someone who earns  $100k, it's $1000 they could have spent on their kids come Xmas time, and or getting them back off to school for the new year.

You mean to tell me, that someone on an average (household) income / wage during these harsh times would have gladly donated $1000/ to a squandering Bligh government?

The answer to this question is no, they wouldn't have which is why Gillard imposed the tax in the first place, however small it seems.

The point is, it wasn't necessary, the levy could have been tapped from a hollow-log elsewhere, there was simply no need for Gillard to penny pinch this and expect victims of disaster to fund their own charity.


Also....the math isn't adding up...

$100,000 p/a times 1% tax = $1,000....yes?

There are 52 weeks in the year , so $1,000 divided by 52 = $20 per week, not the $5 p/w Gillard is telling us it will be.

__________________

Some of you may think $100k is allot, and so shouldn't begrudge paying $1000...  though what if only one parent is working, and you have 4 kids?

This and you are trying to pay a mortgage, run a couple of cars, pay private health and school...rady ra ra

What a crock of sh*t

For those interested in calculating their levy....

http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?NavId=002&ContentID=1949

But I'd run in past your accountant to be sure... 

I know what the official table spells-out, but myself and a few others seem to think the numbers aren't quite adding up...

I am not an accountant, so will await educated feedback, but really, unless you are one yourself, this and are certain the table is correct,  then it might be best to wait and see.

Crikey, no wonder that Howard and Costello left the country with such a huge structural deficit - cos right whingers can't comprehend basic maths and tax structures...

I reckon that my 12 (nearly 13) year old son could read the wording above the table and readily work out how much someone on $100K would have to pay!

Come to think of it, the maths is so basic that he could have done it in primary school - so it would seem that many right whinging voters don't comprehend anything that stretches beyond the Year 6 maths curriculum...

Little wonder that they are so readily sucked-in by the voodoo economics propaganda of the Libs - they can't think for themselves...

Seriously, how do some of these people check their own payslips - how would they know if they were being ripped off by their employers!?

How do they even number their HoR preferences from 1 to 7 (or whatever) on their ballot papers come election time!?



PS Apparently, they're not real good at working out what ordinary households earn either - even though there's ABS data out there.  I suppose that reading simple tables is beyond most of them too!?

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 13^th, 2011 at 10:56pm:


Either way, it's the principle of the thing, and I don't think Australians should be taxed thrice, (donation, tax, food prices) particularly those who may have already donated to the flood relief fund of their own free will.

She's double dipping, and I don't think it's fair when we could have found the levy elsewhere, ie, cutting back on her governments own spending.

Because had they not squandered it to begin with, then we wouldn't be needing to tax anyone.