Newman taxes poor twice and parties on the proceeds.

Mr Newman has announced his intention not to exempt the carbon tax payments from public housing clients income. Coming on top of the reintroduction of income linked rents and a recent rent rise of around $25 a week average already delivered to the same low income group only weeks ago Mr Newman demonstrates beautifully the liberal policy of taking from the poor to give to the rich as he spends up big on his brand new premiers offices.

While we are on the subject of self serving scum, he also announced his intention today to use taxpayer funds (of our poor cash strapped state) to weigh in on the mining industries high court challenge to the MRRT on the side of course of the miners?

I noticed that the media and the liberals have coined a new term. "Resource Rich Mining Industry".

Subtle isn't it?

It seems the libs have forgotten who owns those resources?
Or PERHAPS they just think we have?

 

I have no drama with the Resources rent tax.....its not a renewable resource, and we don't get two shots at making money out of it.

I don't think anyone, regardless of income, should be exempt from the carbon tax. You can't have the good without the bad. Apparently we all are responsible for it, so we should all have to pay it.

Now I see the government are already trying to change parts of it.

Gobsmacked it hasn't taken long for all to realise you are a Liberal hating Labor loving member of the forum, but you have to be fair. This is your tax, you need to wear it.......all of it.

 

Your Goddess, the troll queen didn’t say anyone was exempt from this carbon tax.

She chucked $250 to pensioners and vulnerable members of the community per year to subsidise them for the increase from the carbon tax, but she also generously gave herself and her scumbag mates a $5000 pay increase per year.

Please write to your Goddess, and ask her why she gave pensioners a paltry $250, but gave herself $5000 just before the carbon tax came into effect.

The troll queen knows that the roll-on effects of this carbon tax is going to be more like $5000 than $250.

Subtle isn’t it.

 

Oh culldav we have come to expect this from you. Your normal three pronged approach.
1: Use childish school boy insults.
2: Completely change the subject.
3: Pull numbers out of your r's

 

If you cannot deal with facts, that’s your problem.

1) Gillard did not say anyone was exempt from the carbon tax
2) Gillard gave pensioners $250 to subsidise them for the increase in the CT
3) Gillard gave herself and her buddies a $5000 pay increase before the CT started.

For someone who claims they were in a senior position, you can really act dumb and foolish sometimes. Don’t you think its time you started to come to the conversation with your intelligence cap on?

Every time there is a Federal pension increase, every State increase their Housing payments within weeks of the pensions going up. Why attack Newman for what others have been doing for decades?

 

This thread is about Newman, you have the same rave no matter what the topic, you're starting to sound a little like a broken record, or a child's toy that only has a few phrases recorded.

 

Every time there is a Federal pension increase, every State increase their Housing payments within weeks of the pensions going up. Why attack Newman for what others have been doing for decades?

Its not me who chucks his teddy bear in the corner out of spite, and hit’s the sook button when he doesn’t like what he reads - remind you of anyone?

 

There are people out there that will blame the CTS if their chooks don't lay, whats your point?

 

Are you honestly saying it is OK for Newman to rip of the elderly, because others have?

 

So now, Newman is ripping the elderly off, because they intend to make them Pay the carbon tax Gillard impossed? Where does it end? I beleive that many here, have claimed that they will be compensated enough to cover such costs.

Seems pretty stupid to complain, when your tax is impossed on people, because you thought it would not impact them.

 

Right, now explain how that renting public housing is producing 1 ton of carbon per week per household. Just renting, not eating, cooking, living, just renting, already built buildings, many of them storing carbon in their timber frames.

 

Maybe the cost of junket will go up for the pollies and bureaucrats in the public housing sector will go up due to the carbon tax on jet fuel etc, and of course they would have to pass the tax on.

 

How much maintenance does go into these houses? Who runs the offices that monitor this activity? Tell me how much carbon credits are the people going to get from all that stored carbon in a timber house? LOL.. that is a good one. So, it is your consideration, there is no resources going to these PUBLIC FUNDED HOUSING?

No, your just upset that the state government is going to make those people pay for their carbon foot print, because you thought they would get a free pass. Do you people finally see that the compensation will not cover what you thought it would cover? Otherwise this is not an issue.

 

You guessed it. Bureaucrats run the office. Same people Labor used. Do you think the program runs itself?

 

So the cost of maintaining each dwelling, and the management of it is going to produce on tonne of carbon @ $25 per week, per person? Really. Figures please.

 

The house would definitely store enough carbon to offset that used by maintenance, from the department of housing in particular. Of course there is the management, then again, what do they do, see my comment on junkets maybe.

 

Well I don't know, I never assumed such. However, since discussing building matters with a construction engineer, and realised that 40% of the costs of building a house is incurred before the land is even cleared, tends to make me believe, YES IMO.

However, to see the result of the way some people treat these houses costs can be great. Considering, that this is a Labor program (I know, and I do agree a good one) the problem is that costs are spread across the entire public housing sector, to insure cheaper housing for all in the program. meaning that some will pay far greater than others.

BUT, you claimed they where ripping the elderly off, not me. perhaps you could use the KGB tactics of the Gillard government and have them charged with RIPPING the people of due to claims in rises from carbon tax.

So, you do agree that the compensation is not enough? or are you going to keep ignoring over the question?

 

I feel the evidence is there to see. We are only less than two weeks in and the government are looking to change aspects of their tax, due to oversights. This Labor government will be remembered for oversights and poor implementation. Some of their policy has been good ( at least they have had policy ), but so badly implemented due to oversights. It is like kids building a cubby out the back, all is great in the mind but in real life it doesn't seem to take the shape it should of, so they just keep patching up with band aids and in the end the whole thing becomes a disaster.

Perhaps all the back room back stabbing has taken focus away from policy implementation, I don't know. Maybe if there were less games being played behind the scene, the policies would of been given more attention and these oversights may not of been missed.

Just a thought.

 

Some of you people would have to be the most stupidest people I have ever came across.

Regardless of which political party is in federal power; EVERY TIME they increase the pension, the States increase the rental costs of the public housing to claw back nearly all of the Federal pension increase that was originally given. This is a game these parasite politicians have been playing with each other against the public for decades.

Unless there is a specific hidden agenda; why attack Newman for doing something that other ALP and Liberal Premiers have been doing to Housing Department recipients for God knows how long?

No, I don’t think what Newman is doing is morally correct, but we have to be logical here and remember that politicians will always give with one hand, and take with the other.

 

I would be very interested in what changes are made.
But as this is only two weeks in, and there is obviously more to go wrong. The question now remains, Should they wait to see the damage (I don't think they can)? OR should they continue to make policy on the run? If they continue to make changes simply in an attempt to fix the problem, they could make it much worse, before they actually know what the full impact is.

According to all around, there has been plenty of thought go into this. All the government advisers would have thought about the issue and done their maths. As this would appear to be another government blunder ( the size of the GST blunder) that old word Oversight seems to rear it's ugly head. However, if they had actually listened to public concerns, rather than proclaim they had the answers, they could have nipped this all in the butt.

But we need to remember, this is a Green policy, so all that ruckus from the greens last week about not having any morals, would appear to show that they are victims of their own hypocrisy.

 

This is what happens when you hire a hairdresser to be your companies accountant - disaster awaits your business. Lets hope the people wake-up and realise they are hiring unqualified people to run their country.

 

But CD we couldn't afford qualified people. A CEO of a trillion dollar company wouldn't be on $ 500,000 a year would they ?

 

That is exactly why a politician should be altruistic and not for the money.

 

Yeah right, the country is full of people like that...

 

Will they get their carbon credits? I don't think so. I gather you assume that the carbon sequestered, is enough to cover the maintenance costs but I would like to see the figures on your assumption. GOT ANY?

Making that plank of 4x2 which most houses are built from would use more carbon emissions than that piece of wood could ever sequester, IMO

What do they do? manage the housing estates. They insure that the correct people are housed and not just people ripping the benefits schemes. organise maintenance and basically try and make it, so these houses do not draw on the public purse, which NONE of them seem to be able to do.

Oh yes, and go on government funded junkets. Does not differ from any other government department or politician.

No, your just upset that you can now see what everybody has been saying. You are now trying to debate exact numbers and figures in an attempt to justify your understanding that this is how it should be. I have always stated that the people who could least afford this would be the most impacted. What is it that was said? oh that is right, the government has compensated for all this. So it will be good.