As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
@monman12 wrote:
But no
?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
No political comment on our (current) Govt? Just kudo fixation again? Would you like a special thread started about Kudo giving?
On any political thread on CS, the fixation on the Opposition, kudo's on posts, what ever, is just a sure sign the current Govt is a dud.
If it wasn't a dud, Abbott supporters would have lots to post about the Govt in a positive way.
ah yes, here they go..
Greens leader Christine Milne’s bizarre attack on The Australian
Greens leader Christine Milne hijacked a Senate Inquiry into corporate tax avoidance to launch a bizarre attack on The Australian by accusing News Corp of generating a tax benefit from the newspaper.
Milne, who initiated the inquiry into the tax affairs of overseas tech giants like Google, Apple and Microsoft, made The Australian the focus of her opening questions to News Corp Australia chief executive Julian Clarke.
so she hijacked the inquiry though she initiated the inquiry... OK, lol
An inquiry about tax avoidance - isn't purely running a company at a loss so you can use that loss to offset profits elsewhere tax avoidance = tax benefit?
why am I reminded of kindergarten and those kind of kids who always thought other kids had more lollies and had tantrums about it
Run out of useful, on topic [our (current) govt] comments in the adult world, so move onto nitpicking. Bit like how others go for personal attacks when they have no sensible input to add to a discussion/conversation.
" so she hijacked the inquiry though she initiated the inquiry... OK, lol"
"lol" indeed , the inquiry was into corporate tax avoidance which is somewhat different from her attempts to equate it with a non profitable venture and its corresponding tax loss that can be written of against a profitable source of income.
.
I wonder if Milne will ever initiate an inquiry into negative gearing and the many billions of dollars claimed for non profitable ventures? lol
I noticed Milne was unable to provide any circulation figures when they were requested by Clark, (no research?), and there is a distinct lack of the real world figure for her "misunderstood" tax loss benefit, because for 12-13 After depreciation, the Australian's operating loss fell to $30 million.
I am sure (?) perhaps someone here would appreciate what that $30 million actually means for the News Corp operations in Australia, which are profitable: recorded a total profit before interest or tax of $367 million 12-13, or even the global perspective, News Corporation is valued at $11 billion.
Perhaps "we" should, or A3, send Milne a note to stick to the topic, lol.
"An inquiry about tax avoidance - isn't purely running a company at a loss so you can use that loss to offset profits elsewhere tax avoidance = tax benefit?"
Eureka, almost correct, because the term is tax minimisation. Now ponder NEGATIVE GEARING.
