[youtube]aq_7lNALyGw[/youtube]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

-PB

Those who can pay can also accept that one time they might not be able to pay, and hope that the favor is returned upon them instead of being selfish flogs like ricecrackers is.

So basically you're going to attack users for their occupation but when the spotlight is turned on you, you can't front up and put your money where your mouth is. You're willing to attack anyone and everyone but can't put yourself in a position where you may be susceptible to potential ridicule because of what a loathsome fucking maggot you are. You and your attitude represent everything that is wrong with this country. You make me physically ill.

you told me it was
you told me to google it and it was the only one in australia

again, what relevance does it have to anything?

hypothetically i might be an expert in crochet. (i'm not)
but because i want to win at internet i'll tell someone they're stupid because they're not an expert on it.... regardless of it having no relevance to the thread or discussion

do you see your problem here?

ricecrackers, you're not an expert on anything.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
[youtube]wETpW43WYjo[/youtube]

Those who can pay can also accept that one time they might not be able to pay, and hope that the favor is returned upon them instead of being selfish flogs like ricecrackers is.
[/quote]

:lol: i know but I must say it's f*cking hilarious how much hate rich people are getting over this budget.

I've seen so much of "you rich people horde your money" or "you're all greedy" and this comes from people who cannot connect the fact that the rich people they're slagging off already pay to keep their detractors alive :lol:

Following the budget i'm somewhat disillusioned about all this. On one hand Hockey says we need to pay for our own shit if we can, that's cool I agree. On the other the needy seem to be ready to riot because their handouts are threatened. I haven't read into it too much however.

I'm amused by the fact that those with the biggest and loudest opinions on the budget actually pay no net tax :lol:

I didn't say it's the first thing on Google . You assumed it was .And it is the only one in australia . And no a school isn't what I'm talking about . Also the idiots who you call stupid do know what they talking about . It's you who for some reason think you know more than then about something you know . Should I ask a trained doctor about vaccines or an idiot who has a chip on his shoulder (you) .again what's your thoughts on the n.c.c .

I still dont know what you're talking about and what relevance it has to the discussion about whether the taxpayer should fund $50 bn of fiber down every street

I can only assume that you want to steer the discussion toward a topic you know about so you can win at internet

pathetic

Also I know about the nbn . I know our network is shockingly third world . I also was a qualified it tech but you know you know more than me

congratulations, i'm really proud of you
now tell me why the taxpayer should fund faster internet?

I agree. It's rubbish.

We should let private enterprise pay for it like they did for dams, roads and bridges and......oh wait......

I'm not going to post any arguments with you as you always say shit your wrong . Why does the Philippines have better Internet than a first world country like ours. I would like to know why you are so against progress . Why should the tax payer pay for outdated technology that the government want ? Technology isn't the enemy you mong .

and mobile phone networks?
and television?
and radio?

Italy average 9.1 Mbps
Australia average 14.9 Mbps
Japan average 24.9 Mbps

"shockingly third world" lol

difference between Australia and Japan is minuscule and will not make or break the economy

as every new subdivision is built Australia's will steadily rise and will be funded by Telstra as should ongoing maintenance

Australia went from 28.8 kbps to double figures in Mbps without the NBN and without taxpayer assistance

Philappines 3.4 Mbps factually incorrect

http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/

see you dont know everything
and thanks for the abuse, i'll store that in the memory bank =d>

Which of the measures in the budget fit that ideal? Can only really think of the $7 co-payment and maybe the uni fees. The rest are either new/increased taxes (which I support) or hitting people that can least afford it (e.g. no newstart under 30 for months).
The needy may be ready to run riot because they feel they're already doing it tough.

The silly thing about this no net tax business is that it only talks about income tax. The people that receive enough family tax benefit and child care rebates to get back as much as they pay in income tax are not on huge salaries and they don't have the ability to save much. If they aren't saving, that means they're spending. If only that spending could be taxed in some way... Spending money is good for business and might increase their profits, if only we could tax their profits...

Well the 'rich' now pay for their own medical and educational needs.

I think it's a reasonable idea but paying more tax on top of that for earning too much is another kick in the teeth. I pay 3x more in tax a week than I used to earn at subway :lol:



Correct. Where do we hit balance in society though?I'm all for helping out but a lot of people seem to have inflated expectations when it comes to government assistance.



Correct they pay G.S.T. But they always need more help.

Here's the thing though, right...these people who are losing large amounts of what very little they receive to survive off (look, it adds up when you've got tens of thousands of people surviving off it, but in reality it's not much to live off for the individual) have to turn to other sources of income. These are people who survive in low economic areas, where most politicians have never actually SEEN these people, let alone had a protracted interaction with them. They're far less likely to get a job when they simply aren't trained or the jobs aren't available, and far more likely to turn to crime as a method of making ends meet.

So when the crime rate goes up, and even more people can no longer afford to continue to replace their stolen belongings etc. and turn to crime themselves to survive and a snowball effect is born, is this government going to accept responsibility for that?

This is, in essence, what happened in Baltimore, Philadelphia and DC areas in the late 60's and early 70's.

You worked at Subway too? That's awesome!

I worked at the Hornsby store about 10 years ago. Internet high-five.

So what? If you earn 300,000 and the government takes 100,000, big deal, you're not starving. But if you earn 30,000 and the government takes 10,000 you're in a bit of a shit position.

I believe having a healthy society and a highly educated and skilled workforce is very beneficial to the economy but I can accept your idealogical view point on this.

Re: paying more tax the more you earn. Pretty much every country in the world's income tax system is like this, there must be a pretty good reason to set it up this way.

Of course we have to hit a balance but I don't think welfare has been the main cause of the revenue problem in government. It's been the constant tax cuts that started in the Howard era and continued on in the early Rudd days.

Has there been any significant changes to welfare in recent years? Haven't seen many announcements on that, amounts seem to just creep up in line with CPI.

I agree. My colleagues and I spoke about the uni fees issue the other day and although for prospective students it sucks, I guess it will help balance out the supply and demand a bit.

Instead of people going to uni for the lifestyle and having hundreds of equally qualified people going for a small amount of jobs, you have a smaller amount of driven people going for the same amount thus job prospects are actually better. Silly reasoning I know, but food for thought :lol:



Because the cost of living remains the same. When you need more money you take it from those who have more because you can't take it from those too close to the cost of living. It makes sense but it sucks to get raped by the tax man every fortnight :lol:



I don't think so and maybe that's why it seems as though more people are annoyed with it. At the end of the day welfare is a survival tool and isn't built for comfort. In saying that, people on child benefits should be banned from having more children!!!

:lol: factually Incorrect my bro in law is a it manager at IBM over there . That speed is wrong :lol: but who am I go argue . You're the Phillipines Internet specialist :lol:

sure mate
whatever you say

Go ahead ask Robin bernados on Facebook . He's my bro in law go on ask away smart guy .

you do realise that the link i provided calculates average speeds based on publicly submitted tests
its the best measure available

there might be better speeds in downtown Manila, but then there'll be better than average speeds in downtown Melbourne and Sydney too

:lol: back track . Those speeds are old . Moron I speak to my bro in law every day about IT stuff . So go on . Every time people provide evidence you ridicule them . Now I'm ridiculing you because you're an idiot :lol:

Down town manilla :lol: No such thing . That's markati to you idiot :lol:

those speeds are updated dynamically
ookla is the world standard for internet broadband speeds

you're giving me anecdotal opinion, not evidence. and now you're giving me insults

are you a troll? because you've got nothing, but "my bro in law" blah blah blah
it means nothing

you cant even spell Manila
i couldnt give a damn what the CBD is called. its a generic term and again you miss the point

to be honest you sound a bit simple to me and you're quite desperate to smokescreen now for any sort of E-win