The mythical $80,000
By 2353NM
Some reading this would be able to remember the days when the urban dream was the quarter acre block in a ‘nice’ suburb, with a Holden, Falcon or, if you were a real radical, a Valiant parked in the driveway. If you’re younger, you’ve probably seen the concept on any one of a number of Australian history television shows over the years.
The reality is that for a lot of Australians, the dream was actuality. A lot of the now ‘middle ring’ suburbs around our larger cities were constructed during a post war housing boom and people didn’t have to be in receipt of a large income to support the lifestyle depicted in what are now grainy black and white images that pop up occasionally, sometimes accompanied by images of ‘that nice Mr Menzies’ giving a fatherly address to the nation from behind an imposing desk probably in Canberra.
In 2016, we substitute the government formed by Tony Abbott — until he was unceremoniously booted by his own colleagues — and Malcolm Turnbull for that of Bob Menzies and if either of them tried to do a fatherly address from behind a desk, the laughter and ridicule would be audible from the moon.
Turnbull really isn’t travelling that well. For a number of years, he has been seen as the moderate face of the Liberal Party in Canberra. In fact, Abbott originally became Opposition Leader after he rolled Turnbull, who was (amongst other things) going to allow Rudd to legislate a carbon pollution reduction strategy.
In September 2015, Turnbull returned the favour as Abbott was seen as being electoral poison. In the words of pollsters, ‘if an election was to be held’ towards the end of 2015 the ALP would have won convincingly. Turnbull became leader and the polls reverted to the Coalition government being streets ahead of the ALP. It didn’t last. At the time of writing, Roy Morgan has the ALP ahead at 51% to 49%.
Traditionally, if a political party isn’t travelling that well, it uses an element of surprise in calling an election and the timeframe for the election is the shortest period possible. The belief is that if the party machine is ready, it can be framing the election debate while the other side is still scrambling to nominate candidates, get the policies together and the advertising booked. Turnbull’s government (with the stratospheric popularity ratings in October last year) is falling to the ground fast. So Turnbull follows Gillard’s strategy of advising when the election is going to be months ahead of the actual timing and chooses to run a long campaign. Good luck with that — it’s worked well in the past!
Shorten and the ALP have also chosen an interesting strategy coming into this election by releasing policy for scrutiny and attempting to steer the political debate away from the 30 second sound bite. The polling numbers would suggest they have been reasonably successful and in a lot of cases the Coalition government has had to play catch up by either attempting to divert the discussion or releasing a ‘me too’ policy to counter the ALP’s demonstrated leadership in the particular area.
Turnbull’s centrepiece is the ‘jobs and growth’ budget. He is claiming that the 2016 budget frames what his government will do for the next 10 years. So let’s look at some of the initiatives included in the Turnbull/Morrison budget.
If we go back to February, Noel Whittaker (an author of personal finance publications) wrote an article for Fairfax discussing ‘Why bracket creep is no big deal’. Whittaker points out that ‘back in the day’, there was a serious issue with the income levels that triggered higher income tax payments; namely the levels were comparatively much lower and closer together and the tax rates were higher. Way back when (all of 15 years ago), the 43% tax rate cut in at $38,000 and the 47% rate cut in at $50,000. If you are fortunate enough in 2016 to earn $80,001 per annum, you have to get to $180,000 per annum to hit the top rate — and if you earn $180,001 or above you are paying the top rate — so how much extra you earn really doesn’t matter. So what would Whittaker know? His name is still used by a personal investment consultancy firm after selling his interest to Bankwest in 2007 and he has sold a considerable number of books on creating personal wealth.
Remember the Coalition discussions over the past few months putting various taxation options on the table and then withdrawing them soon after when some special interest group complained. At the end of the day, all Morrison really did was fiddle with the levels where income tax rate changes applied. The way the income tax system is structured taxpayers only pay a higher rate of tax on the value over the threshold rather than the perceived higher amount on all their income. For example, if you earn $84,000, you are paying the higher (37%) rate of tax on $4000, not the whole lot.
The real issue here is that Turnbull and Morrison are claiming that changing the effective taxation rates of those that earn over $80,000 affects those on average incomes. Well they are wrong. Peter Martin, writing for Fairfax, claims:
The average wage is $60,000. Most Australians don’t get close to $80,000 and only around one quarter of them earn more than it. Put another way, the overwhelming majority of Australians, including those on average wages, won’t be getting his reported tax cuts.
There’s a logic to cutting tax for the highest-earning 25 per cent of Australians and not for the other 75 per cent. It’s that $80,000 is where the second highest tax rate comes in.
When The Political Sword discussed negative gearing a month or so ago, the number of $80,000 as the claimed average income popped up again. Mathematically, an average is the ‘central’ value for a set of numbers. Martin points out that only a quarter of wage/salary earners receive over $80,000 per annum so if the full time employee average wage is $80,000 as Morrison suggests, there are some people earning considerably in excess of the chosen value — simply because three quarters of the population live on an income below the average.
Despite the framing, those who earn enough to be taxed at the highest and second highest tax rates are not ‘average’: they earn considerably more than the rest of us. The change to the tax thresholds is purely cosmetic as it really only affects the tax rates on a few thousand dollars around the new threshold points.
The Coalition has also taken the opportunity in the 2016 budget to restore some funding to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) that was ripped from it in the Coalition’s ‘famed’ 2014 budget. In 2014, $120 million was to be cut from the funding over the next five years under the justification of ‘repairing the budget’. Questioners at the time were advised that the government was of the impression that the banks could ‘self-regulate’. Either the restoration of funding demonstrates the government no longer believes the finance industry can regulate itself, or it is window dressing.
While the ALP is promising a Royal Commission into the banking and finance industry if it gains power, the government claims that ASIC already has the powers to investigate and prosecute to a greater level than any royal commission. While this is probably correct, the ability of ASIC to investigate and prosecute is largely determined by funding. As the Coalition government has made perfectly clear up until now, they are of the opinion that the banks can self-regulate and ASIC can exist on a significant funding reduction.
Turnbull was recently interviewed by the ABC’s Jon Faine on Melbourne Local Radio. Faine was attempting to discuss the real issue of young people trying to get sufficient funds to pay rent while saving for a deposit to enter the housing market — the point being the housing market is distorted by the number of investors taking advantage of the current negative gearing/capital gains taxation rules. Faine was using his own kids as an example.
“Well, are your kids locked out of the housing market, Jon?” the Prime Minister responded.
“Yes,” Mr Faine said.
“Well, you should shell out for them. You should support them, a wealthy man like you,” Mr Turnbull said.
While it was initially seen as a joke, the ALP argued that Turnbull was out of touch and the Coalition accused the ALP of a lack of aspiration for ‘hardworking Australians’, the reality is that Turnbull’s comment seems to suggest that he sees nothing wrong with people whose parents can afford to ‘contribute’ to a house for their kids doing so. It begs the question of how those kids whose parents can’t contribute achieve the same aim in what is supposed to be an egalitarian society. Disregarding the worth of the parents and the talk of aspiration, this is creating a class system within our society.
So we start the election campaign with the Turnbull/Morrison ‘jobs and growth’ budget which; in their words; promises to power Australia out of the mining economy into one that produces services the world wants. In reality, it helps those who could probably afford to give a bit to make our society as equitable as it seemed to be in the 1950’s, while those that have no chance of earning the average wage (regardless of the value being $60,000 or $80,000) get diddly squat. Greg Jericho, writing for The Guardian” discusses the issues around ‘average’ here using a wonderful interactive map that shows the percentage of people in each federal electorate that actually earn in excess of Morrison’s mythical $80,000 average. Probably not surprisingly, the value is almost always below 50%.
Helping the better off, reducing regulation in the finance industry and a host of other measures we don’t have room to go into here, such as changing the definition of a small business for taxation purposes, reducing funding to education, and freezing the rebate for a doctor’s visit, certainly isn’t helping our society become equal, let alone one where equality is the overarching principal. In fact, it all has a familiar ring to it. Some would call it the rich looking after themselves, others call it Reaganomics and some would suggest that in reality, it is the discredited ‘trickle-down effect’ writ large.
The Saturday Paper on 7 May 2016 reported a sponsored visit to Australia during 2015 by Arthur Laffer, the ‘genius’ who gave the world Reaganomics (the deregulation of large financial institutions under the Reagan Administration almost single-handedly caused the Global Financial Crisis of 2007). While in Australia, Laffer addressed the Australian Chamber of Commerce, IPA and Sydney Institute as well as ‘doing the rounds of government’. A cynic could suggest there is a connection.
What do you think?
Why the government’s obsession with the number 80,000?
How out of touch IS Malcolm Turnbull?
Also by the 2353NM:
This article was originally published on The Political Sword
For Facebook users, The Political Sword has a Facebook page:
Putting politicians and commentators to the verbal sword
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
27 comments
Login here Register here-
Keith -
Jack Russell -
flohri1754 -
silkworm -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
@RosemaryJ36 -
Max Gross -
totaram -
Bacchus -
@RodemaryJ36 -
2353NM -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
2353NM -
keerti -
Anomander -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
tator68 -
tator68 -
jimhaz -
Jennifer Meyer-Smith -
Domenic fammartino -
silkworm -
dom fammartino -
Matters Not -
Domenic fammartino
Return to home pageVoters have heard the jobs and growth routine too many times … people are usually disappointed. Jobs and growth might be a plausible push if there is a convincing detailed plan to produce an outcome. We have not seen such a plan put out by the LNP. If you believe in the trickle down theory of economics go and have a conversation with the fairies in your garden. Wages have not been increasing; and yet, it has not produced an avalanche of new jobs. Less jobs have been created by the LNP than population growth. A further number of positions are to be lost through the demise of the automobile industry.
The COALition don’ t have a policy on climate change; they push direct action and have squandered millions of dollars as a result; in the meantime emissions are going up.
I think they needed help after all their farting around trying to find a way to slide their economic crap into the buget, under the radar, before the “leaners” go to the polls.
Therefore, an invitation to the master of funneling off of public wealth into private pockets was required, and who better than Laffer himself, to deliver a round of tutorials on economic double-speak designed to not startle the sheep?
Spot on …. very well put. The Turnbull/Morrison budget of 2016 should go down as the “JAGged” budget ……
Yes, Abbott was rolled, because he was electoral poison, but he hasn’t gone away. Who’s to say that the Abbottites aren’t hoping for a Turnbull victory so that Abbott can roll Turnbull after the election, and Abbott become the new unelected PM, just as Rudd did with Gillard?
The Liberal National Parties’ definitions of jobs and growth would come nowhere near to what I define as sound definitions for either. Malcolm Muck and Snotty probably count nannies for rich women out enjoying a sauna while the plebs work, as suitable jobs for women even if they have university degrees.
Or, if they are mature age women, but too young to receive the better paid age pension, the LNP probably count those jobs as cleaning the toilets of rich and well resourced people, as suitable despite the credentials of the candidates.
Other jobs they love to bang on about are usually suited to fit, young men with trade certificates that are in line with the building industry or heavy earth works aligned to more filthy road building. No thanks, I don’t want the losers in the LNP to define what should be jobs and growth.
I see acceptable jobs and growth to be based on expanding upon people’s diverse credentials, skills, qualifications and experience. That way all people have equitable access to suitable employment which will arise out of renewable energy technologies, CSIRO, paid employment in various levels of service industries such as mentoring, care, welfare, painting park benches, revegetating public spaces, fund-raising, rejuvenating public spaces and support services that are often shifted to the voluntary box, and although worthwhile and much needed, are wrongly seen as not being deserving of remuneration.
Giving every societal task a monetary value and enabling the performers the right to equitable remuneration for those roles is the way forward for a robust employment system that can employ every ready, willing and able person who wants to participate. Suddenly, we’d have 100% employment and a healthy socio-economic system built on true innovation and preparation for battling all challenges.
An otherwise excellent article demonstrates a common misunderstanding of statistics.
There are THREE measures of central tendency examined in statistics.
When data is collected and displayed in a graph it often, but not always, illustrates a Normal Distribution which looks like the outline of a bell (hence a bell curve) which has certain defined characteristics.
In analysing data there are two significant measures – central tendency and dispersion. In other words – are data grouped closely round the ‘centre’ and what defines that centre.
The mean, median and mode each illustrates a different facet of the ‘centre’ of the distribution and with a true normal distribution they all coincide.
We know the mean as the average and it is the value that each item would have if they were all the same. In other words, in the case of income, if we all received the same. Dream on!
What is far more important in the case of income is the median or middle value. In other words, the income of the individual where half the population earned more and the other half earned less. This is appreciably lower than the average because of the small number of extremely wealthy people whose incomes ‘skew’ the distribution. This is far more important than the mean but for various reasons is not used often enough!
The mode is the most common value and is more significant in commercial contexts. After all a shoe shop would go out of business if it stocked equal numbers of every adult size of shoes! In the case of income it would be the amount received by the greatest number of people.
At present there are various figures being bandied about as the current average income. Some are for tax paying households, so ignoring those whose income is too low to be taxed, some refer to gross income and some to taxable income (which is lower because of claimable deductions, including this for negative gearing!).
Generally these are around $70,000 to $80,000 but the median or middle income is less than $50,000 – meaning that HALF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN AUSTRALIA HAVE AN INCOME OF LESS THAN $50,000.
Does that change the picture painted by government???
Stop with the weasel words! Morrison LIED! End of story
Please read the post by Rosemaryj36. I know it may sound a bit dense and difficult, but there is much wisdom in it, so everyone may learn something about Statistics (the better to avoid being lied to). The final two sentences may even motivate some people to go back and read all that is explained. Wouldn’t that be wonderful!
You are, of course, correct with your statistical definitions @RosemaryJ36 – I’m pretty sure 2353NM is also well aware of these definitions, but in the interest of brevity, was trying to avoid getting into that level of detail for the purpose of his article.
That you have done so is a wonderful addition to readers’ understanding of the article – thank you! 🙂
Thank you totaram. I used to teach maths and statistics and am sad that so many people do not appreciate the truth of lies, damned lies and statistics – because without understanding what the analytic processes involve people are so often misled. Please google normal distribution and skewed distribution and get the graphs which clarify some of the denseness of my post!!
@RosemaryJ36 – thanks for the comments and you are correct, there are three measures and your point is well made. Unfortunately the length of the article would have been too long for publication if a detailed description of Morrison’s incorrect assertion was given while making the rest of the points covered (without most readers eyes glazing over). For the record I have done some tertiary level statistics and know where you are coming from.
@Jennifer Meyer-Smith – the logical flaw in your argument is that to encourage a system where people are encouraged to expand their horizons usually do so through education. If people are educated they understand (amongst other things) statistics. Which means that statements like Turnbull and Morrison’s assertions on the average wage being around $80,000 would be called out for the complete crap that they are. No, it’s really not a flaw at all – but the conservatives would have to actually put a rational and logical position to a case – rather than come up with a cute soundbite.
Thanks RosemaryJ36,
I read your well explained detail of mean, medium and mode more closely and it was helpful in explaining how Snotty has hoodwinked the general community to think that half of us earn a meagre $50,000 when the reality, we earn less.
Trickle Down Economics must be turned upside down so neoliberals don’t keep exploiting us with inequitable economics.
The reality is Labor needs the Greens and the Greens need Labor so what better way to get the fun going than to invite Aussies to welcome the idea of a cleansed economic system where the 99% get a fair go?
2353MN,
I bow to your greater wisdom on statistics but the gist of my argument is perceptions of what type of jobs the LNP Degenerates are promoting. They usually aren’t jobs that match a vast majority of the population’s diverse paid and unpaid skills.
I want the definition of remunerable employment to be equitably expanded to encompass diverse branches of employment suitable for diverse demographics.
Many current jobs thrown into the ubiquitous ‘voluntary jobs’ basket are perfectly suited to reasonable remuneration, but a sequence of neoliberal LNP and Labor Governments have allowed that situation to continue and multiply as conveniently unpaid.
Often it is women, mature age people, disabled people, unemployed people, under-employed people and people in correctional programs who do those jobs that the neolibs must find demeaning or inferior and not worthy of pay when the reality is those very jobs are often the most important of all.
Think about drop-in centres that provide hot meals for the homeless as a prime example of the valuable work that the participants do. Often those participants are suffering economic disadvantage themselves and need the opportunity of reasonable paid employment.
@8.03am my comment was unintentionally muddled. I was attempting to agree with Rosemary’s revelation of Snotty’s cynical manipulation of the stats. The average income is NOT $80,000. The reality for half the population is $50,00 (or far less if you’re stuck in impoverishment on Newstart).
@Jennifer Meyer-Smith – re your comment at @ 8.14am. I agree, a lot of the ‘love’ jobs should be compensated with something apart from the ‘love’ that people get from doing it.
Also interesting to note this morning that ABC also has an article on Laffer -> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-16/verrender-cutting-taxes-to-balance-the-budget/7416608
Average when it is applied to demographics is a lazy misuse of mathematics and gives nothing really meaningful.. If we take three people on incomes of $100,000, $50,000 and $45,000 we get an average of $59,000. Calculating a median income from three figures would be statistically difficult, but it is intuitive that in this example that most people are near the median wage of about $50,000.
The incomes assessment used by the morons have the same problem. They’d put the average income at $80,000 (depends on whether we include those on benefits or not, plus a few more inputs).Making policy as if most people in our sample make $80,000 would be ridiculous. As above a very small addition of a large income scews the figures, as would assuming that it is possible that the two people on lower incomes can somehow magically earn more or that if they don’t that they are lazy. These are the lazy, self serving bullshits the present scum are using tho’ and that in itself should bar them from participating in government let alone being considred informed enough to vote.
I’m aways amused by people who lament the fact their kids could never afford to buy a house in Sydney, but take great delight in the fact the value of their own house keep growing year upon year.
It is almost as though they believe everyone else’s house values should decline, to accommodate their kids, but the moment you propose their house should be similarly affected, they get quite shirty.
These are the same people who rail against the fact Australia no longer has a manufacturing industry because of our supposed “high costs” or “the greedy unionised workforce”, but when it comes time for them to purchase anything, they always seek-out the cheapest imports possible.
Very true Anomander. The hypocrisy is deafening. It’s time they have their bums bitten.
Having studied the actual statistics involved and what is used to calculate them, I will try to give a slightly different perspective.
The ABS statistics for income have various areas. From Full time ordinary earnings by gender, full time total earnings by gender, both categories for combined genders, and part time earnings for the same categories. There is another set of the same categories for all earnings which is a combination of both.
With regard to what is actually measured. The income measured is only wages and salaries for employees. What this does is eliminate the majority of very high income earners because the vast majority of their income is not earned via salaries but via other income streams like business or investments (info from ATO statistics).
In addition, the figures are adult averages, so all apprentices and people under 21 incomes are not included.
Breaking the figures down even further, income is very much age dependant with both average and median incomes rising for every bracket of 5 years from 24 onwards to a peak between 40 and 55 years.
Plus the percentage of people earning less than the minimum wage decreases as the age cohorts increase – from 32% of those between 18 and 24 – possibly explained by the number of university students working part time. Dropping to 13% for those between 25 and 29 and decreasing steadily to a minimum of 5% for the 40 to 44 cohort. It rises to around 9% for the next 3 cohorts and finishes up on 11% for those aged 60 to 64. There are statistics for those older than 65 who earn salaries, but most of these people have other income streams which is indicated by the average salaries being a lot lower than their taxable income brackets.
Further analysis of the age brackets and income brackets show that as you progress through the age cohorts, the income brackets with the most people in them move until the 35 to 39 age bracket where the two most populated income brackets stabilise until you reach the 65 plus age groups.
These income brackets are firstly between $70k and $80k and the second between $100k and $150k. It appears these two brackets are the most populated for the following reason. The $70 to $80k bracket is the mode bracket for females for those cohorts and the $100k to $150k is the mode bracket for males. In addition, the income bracket is much larger than those for lower incomes which are at irregular intervals for example, the first income bracket is less than $6k, the next is 6 to 10, the next is to 18200, then 18200 to 25k, then 25 to 30, the following bracket is 30 to 37k, then it goes in 5k intervals until 60k, then 10k intervals to 100, then 150, to 180, 180 to 250k, 500k and over 1 million.
Even after taking that into account, there are more people in the cohorts between 30 and 65 earning between $100k and $150k than there are earning less than $30k
One more thing, the difference in average wages between those who are under 30 and those who are over 45 is over $30000. Under 24’s full time salary average is around $46k whilst the average wage is only $39k, Compared to someone in the 40-45 age group where the average full time wage is $80117 and the average wage is $76869, so the stage in life also determines income levels.
Probably one of the biggest reasons such a large discrepancy is that Under 24’s are starting out in their careers, have 70% of the cohort earning less than $40k and 4% earning over $80k.
In the 40-45 age group, 21% earn less than $40k but 35% earn more than $80k and that ratio stays the same through to over 60.
The ATO also had data on Wealthy Australians, there are 132591 Australians that control net wealth of $5 million or more. Out of that number, over 78% are over 50 years old, only 5% are under 40 years old. As for taxation, they contributed approximated $42 billion in income and corporate tax in 2013/14 between them or around 11.67% of total government revenue for that year. Not bad for 1% of tax payers. or 0.5% of the population
So we should be even more worried about the voting power of an aging population.
tator68,
I bow to your greater wisdom on statistics. Statistics are a useful tool to demonstrate levels of wage capacity and earnings. Your analysis should be the basis of targeted wage incentives designed for specific groups, who don’t reach the average in each category.
This information would also be useful for deciding equitable and accessible Micro Finance funding for micro businesses, as a means to combat the growing unemployment reality.
The Homosexual lobby is using fraudulent language and emotional blackmail to try and force homosexual marriage onto an unwitting and, I would argue unwilling, society. Such a radical change to our society should never occur on such a serious issue that effects so many in different ways including culture religion etc; and to think its only 1.6 percent of the community who are gay so why such the fuss ill tell you why because there pre planned agendas. The homosexual lobby dont like plebicites or referendoms they want to desperately avoid at all costs as it would show up the claim of public support for the lie that it is. The safe schools disaster which is beyond criminal and totally disgusting and has 90% of parents in total bewilderment is an example of the lefts no idea judgement on most matters. It had parents taking there kids out of school and angry beyond meaning. Aussie ‘safe schools’program leader the pathetic brainless roz ward who is a risk to the society with her stupidity and bias intentions admits the program was about gay activism, she is a complete disgrace even saying the australian flag was racist what an example this idiot is for our country and children. Well roz we all knew that from the start that it was a marxists homosexual agenda. But you want to shove it down the publics throat and not hear there voices from the start. I cant believe this moron still has a job she should be behind bars imagine if it was someone from the catholic church that was exposed for this, you would not hear the end of it they would be put through the ringer…To them its all about pre planned corrupt agendas using lawless courts and the most stupid laws like 18c so you cant speak out and they can use it as a weapon against you having no regard for innocent law abiding people children or families or peoples human rights.. These intolerant elitists never see and respect others who might have an opinion different from theres? Its a great tactic to win a debate – belittle your opponent – but, don’t rebut the argument with sound logic or facts – just the same old “ignorance, blind, belligerent intolerance” and constant lies. Thats what politics has become and the world is sick of these politically correct pathetic tyrannts. Thats why we have seen the rise of PAULINE HANSON AND DONALD TRUMP. There not about agendas they are there to govern the people and give everyone a voice.They are not a traditional politition, there a real person not afraid to say what they feel. Thats why they are so popular because there real.They say whats on there mind and are not politically correct and the people love them for it and connect to them. Donald deserves great credit and courage he has set every record possible this year for votes attendances, and this is with a media thats bias corrupt and 95% against him they have been ruthless to a level we have never seen before, he was not given a chance a complete underdog who has proven that you dont have to be a follower and a stereo type politiion to be a winner. Under all donalds bluster is a man with a huge heart who loves his family and nation and is only doing this because he can see how bad the corruption is and the trouble his country is in. He is an ultra smart business man and master tactition who you know just does not like failure he is a winner. Its all about the team he has around him like ben carson, ted gowdy, mike pence, just to name a few, there all people you can trust and there honest and commited to save there country it shows there all on the same page and on a mission.With trump you know if he puts his mind to something he will give it his all and unlike clinton, obama and co would never do anything to put his nation at risk. There the most important traits you need. All the lies in the media and fabrications about trump is obvious to all and the peoples hearts have connected with trump and his team. MAY GOD JUST GET HIM OVER THE LINE BECAUSE I PROMISE I KNOW HE WILL BE THE GREATEST PRESIDENT IF ALL TIME BECAUSE ANYONE WHO SAYS TRUMP CANT DO SOMETHING JUST MAKES HIM PROVE THEM WRONG AND MORE DETERMINE, LIKE HE HAS DONE FROM THE START AGAINST ALL ODDS. HE IS A CHAMPION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THERE VOICE AGAINST THE GLOBALISTS ELITES AND CORRUPT ESTABLISHMENT THAT WANT TO CONTROL AND MANIPULATE. WEATHER YOUR WITH HIM OR AGAINST HIM YOU HAVE TO ADMIRE AND RESPECT WHAT HE AND HIS TEAM AND THE LOYAL FOLLOWERS HAVE DONE. I LOVE THE MAN AND WILL BE PRAYING THAT HE GETS OVER THE LINE ITS THAT IMPORTANT TO THE WORLD.
The repercussions of the complete and total destruction of all marriage, which will be the inevitable result of equating homosexuality with marriage, will devestate our society. The very idea that children are to be denied their natural heritage of mothers and fathers is repugnant in the extreme.
“They seem to have no understanding that marriage is an ancient and universal institution that exists primarily for the procreation and welfare of children, ” [quote”)”A gay man is as free as a straight man to marry a woman.
A lesbian is as free as any other woman to marry a man.
That’s equality.”[/quote”)
. Why do many homosexuals feel compelled to ram their demands down our throats, but have no tolerance for that which heterosexual people want upheld? Its blatant hypocracy which is how the left wing marxist politics go about things. The safe schools was an obvious entree before the SSM and look what a disaster and fraud that turned out and was proven to be a complete hoax brainless roz admitted it, just like the SSM is folks. A pre planned hoax that has blown up in their faces and like the safe schools proved to be a total typical left lie pre planned agenda.
AND 18C IS THERE MAJOR WEAPON A LAW INVENTED TO MAKE TRUTH NOT BE ABLE TO RISE SO THESE TYRANNTS CAN CONTROL THE MASSES AND SILENCE THEM AND THERE FREE SPEECH AND USE IT AS INTIMIDATION.
Sorry about defeating your heterosecksual plebiscite, fartino lol. We win! long live cultural marxism! Bring back the slippery slope to our children’s playgrounds. Cats and dogs are free to get it on under our marxist banner. What happened to our paragraphs? Must be too much catholic schooling.
Section 18C is the problem it makes it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person because of their “race, colour or national or ethnic origin”.political activists and their lawyers have come to realise that section 18C can be used to aggressively pursue political goals.Too often the law is being used opportunistically. Section 18C is being used not as a shield but as a weapon. In silencing, or threatening to silence, opponents in a debate using legal means, complainants remove the possibility of debate. It’s unhealthy and it’s undemocratic. it prevents discussion of many issues and that should be of concern to all Australians. So ridiculous is the application of Australian racial vilification laws that they can now be used to punish anti-racist sentiment. We are all diminished when anyone’s freedom of speech is taken away. Even if the law never prevents us from saying things we might want to say, today it certainly prevents us from hearing things which we might want or need to hear. It prevents us from knowing what our fellow citizens believe. It denies us the opportunity to refine our thinking and develop our own ideas. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are inseparable. For as long as I am in this place, I will stand up for free speech.
dom fammartino, yes you (may) have read 18c and given a meaning to same, but you make no mention of 18d. Why? Is your quest to ‘understand’ only limited to the talking points of the ‘other’? But before I go to 18d, let’s explore some of your other ‘problems’
Yes those ‘legal means’ are apparently a big hurdle for some. Have you ever heard of ‘defamation laws’? Aren’t they examples of using ‘legal means’ to ‘silence’? Are you protesting against those? If not, then why not? Or is it the case, that for most in society, the defamation laws are neither here nor there; because defamation laws are all about (in the main) the rich and powerful keeping ‘critics’ silent? Is it the case you don’t like ‘legal means’ in general? Or are you being selective re the application of ‘legal means’?
But you do go on:
Which ones would they be dom? A list or an essay would be appreciated? Who is it you want to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate? Or is it the case that you are concerned about the ‘possibility’?
But to 18d which states:
Lots of exemptions! Now can you please explain how your ‘free speech’ is being limited?
Over to you. Fire away. Be free! Act in good faith. Say what you want in the public interest.
ANDREW THE INVISIBLE UNCONTACTABLE MAN BOLT FOR PRIME MINISTER