Men in Blue ties.

[jethro_woolfe]

The new Cabinet certainly vindicates former PM Gillards statements regarding "Men in Blue Ties''

one female minister. ms bishop.. the rest are men in blue ties.. dear me, more than half of the population represented by 1 person.. Ms Bishop.. misogyny ++++

[poddster]

martinus, there are imbecilic morons in all walks of life. that person no doubt has a problem in relating to females and i would guess also to to any one.

How did you handle that outburst? that would have been a good opportunity to show how you can handle yourself in those circumstances to others who were present. I hope you didn't let the opportunity slip by 🙂

[master*and*commander]

---

@jethro_woolfe wrote:

---

@master*and*commander wrote:

---

@jethro_woolfe wrote:

If wages are frozen, the CPI still rises which amounts to a wage cut  effectively.

---

true, but there may be reductions in other areas to offset this. We do not know this yet.

I think it also important to take into account that being low income earners, they are likely receiving some form of means tested government assistance. How many people would be affected adversely in this way if their wages were to increase?

As I said, it is easy to give money on one hand only to take it back by some other method.

The Education Bonus springs to mind here.

It was a wonerful thing, wasn't it? Yet the reality is that it actually raised the taxable income of people when it was no longer a tax reduction. So somone who may have previously been receiving benefits based on an income of $44,000, was now pushed into the next threshhold of minimal benefits (if any) as the removal of a tax reduction increased their reportable income.

In theory everyone still got the bonus, but how many people have now lost other benefits that they were entitled to when school expenses were a claimable tax reduction? That's effectively an additional $1,500 per child now added to the taxable income. 3 kids - on paper, that family's income just went up $4,500 per year, but do they really have any extra money in their pockets? Do they really have any more disposabble income?

---

You fail to recognise the true significance of the bonus. i have had some discussions with teachers on the topic already. do you know what they are saying ? students from disadvantaged backgrounds, many who have thrived under the first real school improvements since ww2 are the ones missing out. teachers fear they will come without textbooks in larger numbers because of this cut, and then of course there is all of that unpaid additional  work for the teachers . running lamington drives and other fundraisers to eke some more out of the better heeled parents. its a lose lose.

---

You have just lost me.

It was a one off bonus. But it wasn't really a bonus for all people, was it?

Now so many more people have increased burden on their family income, firstly because it has been removed as a tax deduction and now finally because nobody will receive it. Increased income and less tax deductions means less money in the pocket in this case.

I am talking about the $600 or whatever it is/was for each high school child. In the past when it was a tax deduction, people could claim up to $1200 of education related expenses and receive half back as a refund.

Now they get NOTHING. (please note figures are probably not accurate)

If the people of whom you are speaking were not buying books before or claiming them as a tax reduction, how are they worse off?

It was a one off "bonus", not one of perpetuality.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@poddster wrote:

Martinus, change you tactics. I have known many many women who have risen to the top, earned respect in their chosen profession, and were recognised for their ability. None of those women demanded that they be treated in any special way they just did it.

That takes a special skill which some don't have 😉

---

I'm wondering if you know many men who no matter what their position were intelligent,mature and accountable enough to understand that their  gender didn't give them a right to abuse others and/or naturally assume that it gives them superiority ?

---

The problem iza is that too many people seem to think that sexism is some imagined slight that occurs to left winged women and that these women should 'get over it' cause they are grown up so should be able to handle a 'little ribbing'.

The latter, BTW, is what the (male) Director suggested his employers comment really was when I complained.

[poddster]

no i do not know any men like that Iza, that is not the circle of people I associate with 🙂

[izabsmiling]

---

@master*and*commander wrote:

---

@jethro_woolfe wrote:

---

@master*and*commander wrote:

---

@jethro_woolfe wrote:

If wages are frozen, the CPI still rises which amounts to a wage cut  effectively.

---

true, but there may be reductions in other areas to offset this. We do not know this yet.

I think it also important to take into account that being low income earners, they are likely receiving some form of means tested government assistance. How many people would be affected adversely in this way if their wages were to increase?

As I said, it is easy to give money on one hand only to take it back by some other method.

The Education Bonus springs to mind here.

It was a wonerful thing, wasn't it? Yet the reality is that it actually raised the taxable income of people when it was no longer a tax reduction. So somone who may have previously been receiving benefits based on an income of $44,000, was now pushed into the next threshhold of minimal benefits (if any) as the removal of a tax reduction increased their reportable income.

In theory everyone still got the bonus, but how many people have now lost other benefits that they were entitled to when school expenses were a claimable tax reduction? That's effectively an additional $1,500 per child now added to the taxable income. 3 kids - on paper, that family's income just went up $4,500 per year, but do they really have any extra money in their pockets? Do they really have any more disposabble income?

---

You fail to recognise the true significance of the bonus. i have had some discussions with teachers on the topic already. do you know what they are saying ? students from disadvantaged backgrounds, many who have thrived under the first real school improvements since ww2 are the ones missing out. teachers fear they will come without textbooks in larger numbers because of this cut, and then of course there is all of that unpaid additional  work for the teachers . running lamington drives and other fundraisers to eke some more out of the better heeled parents. its a lose lose.

---

You have just lost me.

It was a one off bonus. But it wasn't really a bonus for all people, was it?

Now so many more people have increased burden on their family income, firstly because it has been removed as a tax deduction and now finally because nobody will receive it. Increased income and less tax deductions means less money in the pocket in this case.

I am talking about the $600 or whatever it is/was for each high school child. In the past when it was a tax deduction, people could claim up to $1200 of education related expenses and receive half back as a refund.

Now they get NOTHING. (please note figures are probably not accurate)

If the people of whom you are speaking were not buying books before or claiming them as a tax reduction, how are they worse off?

It was a one off "bonus", not one of perpetuality.

---

who do you think has been paying for the school children's school fees,uniforms,internet usage,pc's ,books ,camps ...often far in excess of the school kids bonus ? and how are those who pay for that not worse off  (and our Countries children worse off) without it ?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@poddster wrote:

martinus, there are imbecilic morons in all walks of life. that person no doubt has a problem in relating to females and i would guess also to to any one.

How did you handle that outburst? that would have been a good opportunity to show how you can handle yourself in those circumstances to others who were present. I hope you didn't let the opportunity slip by 🙂

---

You obviously haven't heard me talk about my work before. I'm no wallflower and I can handle myself but only by giving back what I receive. It's a case of who can swear the loudest when it comes to the design and construct industry and trust me, I am the loudest. But only because I have to be and because if I don't, I can't get my job done.

This isn't a one off. This happens every day in my line of work. Is it unique to my industry? No - it happens to most women the higher they (attempt to) climb up the ladder and men are left behind. It may not be as blatant as the abuse I cop but if you recall the sneers, muttering, sniggers and eyerolling Gillard got everyday in Parliament simply for starting to speak, you may be coming close to understanding the level of sexism working women have to face today.

[jethro_woolfe]

no, you are incorrect (on many things but i haven't sufficient interest to be writing replies) the bonus was set to continue. with improvements elsewhere it would be feasible to remove it in future (it was initiated by educators despite rubbish written to the contrary)

now its back to the bad old days for public school teachers . not to mention the students.

[izabsmiling]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@izabsmiling wrote:

---

@poddster wrote:

Martinus, change you tactics. I have known many many women who have risen to the top, earned respect in their chosen profession, and were recognised for their ability. None of those women demanded that they be treated in any special way they just did it.

That takes a special skill which some don't have 😉

---

I'm wondering if you know many men who no matter what their position were intelligent,mature and accountable enough to understand that their  gender didn't give them a right to abuse others and/or naturally assume that it gives them superiority ?

---

The problem iza is that too many people seem to think that sexism is some imagined slight that occurs to left winged women and that these women should 'get over it' cause they are grown up so should be able to handle a 'little ribbing'.

The latter, BTW, is what the (male) Director suggested his employers comment really was when I complained.

---

yes Martini , it is often seen as just something a women should put up with...they get ridiculed if they are strong enough to stand up against the dinosaurs ...as it shows them (the dinosaurs) for what they are ...leaves them angry,ego crushed  and red faced ..can't have that .

[izabsmiling]

---

@poddster wrote:

no i do not know any men like that Iza, that is not the circle of people I associate with 🙂

---

Mr No Remorse for his owm words and actions Abbott is like that 

[master*and*commander]

You seem to be confusing me with someone who supports the removal of the tax deduction. I'm not.

The "bonus" was simply a shifty way to convince people that they were getting some benefit when the reality was that they are now worse off.

The tax deduction was perpetual, available to anyone to claim on their taxable income. The "bonus" which replaced the deduction was a one off payment to hoodwink the public into believing that something nice was happening, when in reality, it was money in one posket and even more out of the other.

The removal of the deduction has made a lot of peoplke significantly worse off than they were before, of that there is no doubt. Now who was it that "sold" the one off "bonus" that replaced the perpetual tax deduction?