Why do we have a fat cigar smoking ignorant and arrogant pig as our treasurer?

This fat pig, I wouldn't disgrace the word 'man' using it on him, he is an idiot so out of touch with reality it is dangerous.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld/a/24709024/hockey-stands-by-fuel-comments/

So if you are driving your car a lot you are rich.. WOW I wish someone would tell my bank to find my money.

 

What's wrong with enjoying a fine cigar from time to time?

That said, you're spot on about the fuel excise. Quite a lot of that 150 cents/litre price is taxation or the result of our government rampaging around the Middle East. Makes it that much more difficult for me to work and study.

 

Definitely time for the ALP & Greens to seriously consider blocking supply, and to chuck this mod out.

Gee, I wish someone would have told me that by paying $58.00 per week in gas means a family is wealthy and rich.

Where the hell did this clown Hockey get this information from - a spastic attack sitting on the loo?

 

$58 hmm I'm richer than you, I spend $90 pw

 

Fine days I ride by motorbike which costs about $12 per fortnight to run. They don't get much out of me, I must be really poor... but Hockey is probably right, people on higher incomes would on average use more fuel than those on low incomes.

 

I would say he is right, actually low income earners average $43 per week, while middle and high average $71. That's 40% more. Now I am sure most also pay more for their cars, homes, clothes, holidays and wine. Some even have to fork out big money for caviar, truffles, yachts and private jets. Then their is the overseas holidays, seats at the opera (in Venice), the Saturdays in the members enclosure at Royal Randwick, private schools for their rug rats, maybe university in the USA or Europe. Wow I have never considered how expensive it is to be wealthy, no wonder they look down on the poor with envy ... that is envy isn't it, envy and disdain look so similar ... not Poor buggers they may have to dish out $10 more, that's a whole glass of (cheap) wine... that's only a days food for a low income earner.

 

Let's look at it a different way. For every $100 a low income earner earns he pays $5.40 for fuel. A middle income earner pays $4.20 and a high income earner pays a whopping $1.80. Somehow to my way of thinking the reverse would seem a lot fairer, after all the high income earners make a lot more $100's and the low income earners usually earn their handful of 100s making the wealthy's 100s and 1000s for them.

 

It will certainly decrease the possibility of low income earners to be able to drive more. The increase is but a drop in the ocean for the wealthy. $5 bucks for many of us is of little worth but for a low income earner it is the difference between having a loaf of bread and milk for the week.....yes, bread that might be a little less desirable to the palette after a couple of days. It is beyond ignorant, it is plain outright disgraceful!

 

Care to tell us how you worked those figures out? You just finished admitting high income earners spend more on fuel....

 

As per usual, Hockey is out-of-touch with reality - unless he's sitting on the loo picking his nose thinking of spastic ideas. The majority of wealthy, high income earners drive company vehicle supplied by the company, along with petrol cards. Therefore, these wealthy, high income earners NEVER have to pay a dime out of their own pockets for petrol - the companies pay for it, and then the company gets tax concessions back for the petrol they use. So tell me again Joey, how the wealthy and high income earners pay more for petrol than low income earners, when the majority of managers and CEO's drive company vehicles supplied with gas-cards...



Is Hockey a ffuucckkeenn clown, or what?

 

on a global scale, if you make more than $30k a year, you're in the top 1%. most of the world lives on less than $1200 a year.

 

I am not from y'all s neck of the woods but look at it this way. one percent of a dollar is a penny, one percent of a hundred dollars is a dollar, one percent of a thousand dollars is ten dollars. So...the rich...even if they buy more gas... the percentage of their income taken is much less than the poor.

They have been using this con on Americans for years.

 

Well once and a while you seem to get things right, All the ersatz indignation of the comments is sickening. Fact is the comment was correct, the poor do not have cars or do not drive as much as the rich. The problem is that while this is caused by the cost of fuel and so on it is no justification for raising taxes that affect the poor far greater. This tax only widens the gap between the poor and reduces opportunity for the poor.

But obviously the opposition is at a loss at how to deal with this, clearly demonstrating they still have far to go before being decent alternative. Attempting to suggest that the comment was not true and in itself an insult shows clear lack of understanding of just how out of touch all these clowns are. I find it difficult to believe you did not tow your party line here...

 

On a global scale most countries the people don't pay rent of $400 pw plus either so what's your point?

 

That depends on your cost of living. With 30k you are a poor man in Australia, imho.
And our standard of living is certainly on the dive....
Regards

 

The Liberals never meant to be the people's party.
Abbott (as demonstrated by his daughters standards), Bishop and Hockey plusPyne are all very much above the 95% of the people of Australia, completely out of touch.
Regards.

 

Could someone else possibly Answer this? It is rather obvious.

 

Joe's "sorry" for his comments. Yep I bet he is. Candor has no place in politics, especially if you're a plutocrat. Abbott and his mates will be furious with Joe for letting that damn cat escape.

 

And we shouldn't entertain regressive perspectives that potentially lowers our expectations to match standards elsewhere. The only ones to benefit from us lowering our expectations is the super wealthy.

 

Apparently, facts taken from the ABS have proven Joe is taking out his arse as per usual.

- - - Updated - - -

I think Joey got a surprise that so many "mushrooms" didn't let this one fly over their heads.

 

Higher income earners probably spent more on fuel. Whether or not it is a larger or smaller amount compared to their income is irrelevent to that statement.

 

Joe's big problem is that he showed the true face of the Libs in Australia. They won't forgive him for it. He pulled back the curtain and it was an ugly look.

Poor people are not relevant, That was Joe's message, straight from the heart, unrehearsed, the unvarnished truth according to the Libs.

Forget the dissembling. No need to point out that lower income people spend more of their income on everyday things like fuel, whereas wealthy people simply don't. Joe understands that now, the nation has told him. He can apologise all he likes but he revealed the true thinking of the Libs. Leaners, lifters and all the rest of it, Joe has been revealing his contempt and that of his party, for the not-wealthy. His own party are furious with him for telling the truth about their thinking. His career in politics just came to a dead stop.

 

The bumbling buffoon is an embarrassing nincompoop. You can be disheartened and angry at politicians but this guy makes you scratch your head at his stupidity, pretension and incompetence. This is the big noter who bad mouthed Swan relentlessly. Surely the libs have better personnel on offer than this bemusing fool!

 

Amazing media beat up, and moron's who propagate it. Good to see how stupid the media has become. He said the 'poorest' people dont have or use cars much, and its true, the 'poorest' people are homeless and if they even own a car, they do not drive it around much. I think this was a deliberate media distraction from the news about that ALP politician being a KGB spy between 1960 and 1980.... how sad the stupidity and unprofessionalism of the Australian media is starting to resemble a conspiracy, fed by a socialist media culture and fueled by popularity ecomonics of ratings for sensationalism. When 'smart' is regurgitating propaganda in new ways you know its going to be a rough couple of decades as the imbeciles learn hard realities of real life.

 

What about the Rudd's? I think your point is it suits your agenda to hold a delusion such a distinction exists at the political level, perhaps to feel a sense of empowerment when you caste that vote LOL. Fight the good fight, but ignore its false and therefore counterproductive to anything beyond your own experience of delusion. I'll tell you what your doing so your delusion has some basis, your reinforcing your political belief with a purely fictional cultural divide in society based on some fictional assessment of wealth.