Newman taxes poor twice and parties on the proceeds.

Knock yourself out: http://www.gstdistributionreview.gov.au/content/submissions/issues_paper/vic_gov.pdf

If you'd spent 2 minutes googling you could have found hundreds of articles.

 

How can there be evidence for such an amazing distortin?

 

And in your great haste to support your claim, you did not read any of them including the link you posted. In your great haste you assumed that it would support your claim, which it actually does not.

From your article

And who are these donor states

http://www.gstdistributionreview.gov.au/content/submissions/issues_paper/vic_gov.pdf

So apparently, Queensland and Western Australia along with New South Wales and Victoria are subsidising rest of the country.

So you assuming, 'Vic and NSW has been subsidising WA and Queensland for decades' is actually far from the truth.

I did knock myself out, and found, that your are being untruthful.

 

He has assumed that due to the extraordinary measures of flood tax, that mismanagement of state funds has bolstered the rest of Australia supporting Queensland.

The fact is, mismanagement, has procured a Flood levee, but Most of the Queensland revenue had been going into the federal government's pool to fund the states and has been distributed by them, to the states.

 

I never said that WA and Qld were not subsidizing the poorer states now that commodity prices are high and they're in a mining boom. Just that it's too late for them to complain when they've been subsidized for decades, every time commodities crash. Vic and NSW have subsidised WA and Qld since federation, it's stated right there in the review:

You obviously didn't read the bloody thing, I don't know why I even bother linking them.

 

I love that, Your quote, states that Victoria has paid $238 PER CAPITA a year, in contrast to WA and QUEENSLANDS $106 and $112 PER CAPITA as being evidence that Victoria has been subsidising them?

So because they have contributed LESS per capita, they have been subsidised?

I don't know why you bother either, as stated, you obviously can not support your claim. You will need to find figures, showing the fact that these states got more bang for their buck. As the HFE does not just hand equal amounts of money to the states as you would suggest.

No, you failed again.

 

Read it again:

Apparently your reading comprehension fails, not that it's really an excuse as there were several pretty graphs as well.

 

read it, still nothing that supports your claim, HOW MUCH DID VICTORIA GET?

 

Since federation Victoria has paid a net of $66b to other states, NSW has paid $75b. Qld has recieved a net of $11b, WA a net of $36b.

Very simple, Qld and WA have taken out more than they put in. Vic and NSW put it in more than they get back.

In the last 30 years, Victoria has paid on average a net of $238 per capita per year, to other states. NSW has paid on average a net of $221 per capita per year to other states.

WA has recieved a net average of $106 per capita per year, Qld has recieved a net average of $112 per capita per year.

Any way you slice it, Vic and NSW have been subsiding Qld and WA for decades.

The whole dam report supports my "claim", that "Vic and NSW have been subsidising Qld and WA for decades".

 

Magoo you owe me .....

 

Magoo you owe me .....

 

OK....I'll give you Anna Bligh............

 

Thanks ................lol

 

I see, I must apologise, I did not take that into account. Score a point. LOL

However, by the figures you assume, is interesting. But fair enough. take a bow.