The long, soul-destroying national debate has begun. Should the Commonwealth find yet another way of pick-pocketing the citizenry by taxing sugar?
Predictably the Greens are behind the push, having gone to the last election with a sugar tax as part of their grab bag of feel good policies. The Greens have said they will introduce a “sugar-sweetened beverages tax” as a private members’ bill in the ongoing freak show that is the Australian Senate at some time over the next 12 months.
Barnaby Joyce was incandescent – well, more incandescent with rage at the proposal.
“People are sitting on their backsides too much, and eating too much food and not just soft drinks, eating too many chips and other food,” Barnaby said.
Perhaps inadvertently, the Deputy Prime Minister had outed himself as a hand wringer for the public good of a different kind. He’s pro-sugar but anti-fat.
Full column here.
It’s easy to understand the left/labor types affinity with Castro as they both love to encourage families to risk their lives at sea. And credit where it is due they have had considerable success with it.
Now there’s a surprise to those of us in higher ed. Australian sudent performance in math and science in a 20-year decline: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/australian-students-slipping-in-maths-and-science-studies/news-story/aad0b7797efc4be0f30217f0d500502f
Been here 20 years and watched it in real time.
Any comment on the reasons Dwight.
One of them has to be poor pay for teachers that has resulted in very few people with good academic results going into teaching. If you are an also ran academically, you will accept also ran results.
Another would be the teachers union that is more intent on social engineering than teaching the basics.
Another could be lack of exams.
Another could be teaching methodologies.
Parenting?
One only has to get involved in conversations with kids educated in Europe and here to see the difference.
A besser block with misanthropic symptoms, …….. hmmmm?
Show me a One Nation supporter and I will show you a total fool.
The NXT party just committed political suicide in SA.
I actually thought Nick X was the real deal & would fight for his state first & foremost, but it seems once a Liberal always a Liberal. The backlash will be lasting.
“darren says:
November 29, 2016 at 1:37 pm
Nah, Milton. It boils down to the same thing – being defamed basically means youve been offended about what someone said to you. Its a distinction without a difference…”.
I’m inclined to think that offense , or to be offended, is a personal matter. Some comment, or whatever, that affects the self, me. Whereas if I was defamed it would involve other people being led, or misled, to believe I am this or that, which I am not, and such an action would likely effect how others perceive me with the likelihood of me finding it hard to get a job, cultivate new friendships or come to a house that doesn’t have shit on the door handle and graffiti all over the walls.
I’m not sure how the law interprets it but i have heard tell that the law is an ass (and other variations on this theme, which I won’t mention)!
Well, credit where credit is due. The registered organizations bill and now the ABCC. Well done.
The data shows Negative gearing does NOT increase dwelling supply. Labors policy would increase supply, would increase competition and Save the budget at least $32 billion over the decade.
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/03/easter-special-report-the-negative-gearing-bible/
Dismayed wrong on all counts again. Labor’s policy to only allow negative gearing on newly constructed homes will not negate the impact of removing negative gearing. The primary return from residential investment is by capital gain because in Australia it is a low yield investment and negative gearing allows a slightly better net yield (these days often used as the means of getting on the housing ladder). Labor’s assumption is that because they retain negative gearing new homes will be relatively more valuable and so supply will increase as demand shifts from existing stock to newly constructed homes. It doesn’t allow for the fact all of the finance and the sale price is determined by what the property will NEXT sell for ie when it no longer new and no longer has negative gearing. The effect will be simply to reduce gearing (because of the lower post acquisition market value on an as is basis) and require higher yields to make investment in residential property worthwhile. Hello rent increases and bigger deposit requirements – won’t that help the battlers! It is all the usual stupidity from those that take their advice from people whose expertise is in the arts not economics and finance.
If there is any good to come out of the 18c/QUT/Butler/Thwaites fiasco it is that the young Thwaites will get a solid, practical experience in the law to go along with his studies. An added bonus is the whole experience has opened his eyes to the self-serving hypocrisy that is part of the dna of the left/labor types. Many a student has to wait until real life experience and maturity set them on the right path of conservatism and liberalism.
Dismayed – Just happened to come across your convoluted, ‘get-out-from-under’ note at 9.38pm 28/11. Appears you’re now taking your lines from a senior cabinet member of the Liberal Party mate. And not for the first time either. I think its quite cute.
You’ve taken a shine to Pyne eh?
I got a chuckle out of that too
Don’t defame me Carl. How is it possible for you to be so wrong so often. It has to be a deliberately dishonest attempt to change the nature of information presented.