The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%

  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%

  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%

  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%

  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%

  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%
  • Total voters
    66
hifiandmtb

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
Haakon

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
Scotty T said:
Just read Peter Dutton wants to ban Getup. You won, you fuckwit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its only getting started. He got an increased margin, he will be seriously damaging to democracy and human rights this term. Its going to be fun... Wonder who will be attorney general.
 
Haakon

Haakon

has an accommodating arse
moorey said:
Terribly.
But I think I assumed it would have the high number as the actual highest income, Gina maybe, so I put myself at around 10%, thinking the range would be wider. I should buy myself a new bike after seeing that.

Also, I think it’s a bullshit gauge.
Click to expand...
I underestimated too, and I put in 75%... As you say, a shit tonne (ie most of it...) of the nation's wealth is in about a few dozen people.
 
rockmoose

rockmoose

his flabber is totally gastered
moorey said:
Terribly.
But I think I assumed it would have the high number as the actual highest income, Gina maybe, so I put myself at around 10%, thinking the range would be wider. I should buy myself a new bike after seeing that.

Also, I think it’s a bullshit gauge.
Click to expand...
So you think you're only 10% bullshit?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 
Scotty T

Scotty T

Walks the walk
moorey said:
Terribly.
But I think I assumed it would have the high number as the actual highest income, Gina maybe, so I put myself at around 10%, thinking the range would be wider. I should buy myself a new bike after seeing that.

Also, I think it’s a bullshit gauge.
Click to expand...
I put in 70%. Because we've all been told average people earn up to 200k. Turns out they don't. Half that is top 10%.
 
moorey

moorey

call me Mia
rockmoose said:
So you think you're only 10% bullshit?

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I thought if the super rich were 100 on the scale....let’s say $100m even...and the low income were 0 on say $20k (working FT), then my meagre wage would be a lot closer to the bottom.
I guess I misunderstood the scale, but don’t believe I should be as high as I was.
 
hifiandmtb

hifiandmtb

Sphincter beanie
Then ya don't understand statistics, @moorey. Which is perfectly & utterly fine!

You do more good shit for this world in your profession than I do in mine...
 
Scotty T

Scotty T

Walks the walk
moorey said:
I thought if the super rich were 100 on the scale....let’s say $100m even...and the low income were 0 on say $20k (working FT), then my meagre wage would be a lot closer to the bottom.
I guess I misunderstood the scale, but don’t believe I should be as high as I was.
Click to expand...
It's a numbers game. Nobody draws a $100m salary. Even if they get $100m. Gina probably pulls 40k so she can get those franking credits ;)
 
scblack

scblack

Leucocholic
Haakon said:
The 1% argument is unethical.

Ethics to me are pretty simple in regards to the issues that defined this election - look to a government that has the society in mind, has an understanding of the bigger picture and longer term. Doesn’t lie.

To vote for continued wealth transfer to the wealthy, and further embedding of short term self centred populist culture is to my mind unethical.

I can see the “conservative” side feeling ethical if so many of their data inputs for this one were based in fact... But too many didn’t bother to question things and went along with it and that’s also unethical - as a participant in a democracy you are obligated to make an informed decision. Being misinformed only lets you off so much...
Click to expand...
Haakon said:
Voting on local issues in a national election is also unethical.
Click to expand...
Clearly you are trying to portray the ideal that ethics mean something to you.

Lets examine your track record on ethical standards shall we?

A short time ago you were servicing your own vehicle. You realised that doing the work yourself may cause issues with warranty matters. Your response was to seek advice on this website, to find a mechanic who would stamp your service book for you, knowing they had not done the work. Lets clarify that:
  • You worked on the car
  • You expected a mechanic to certify, on the car record book, that THEY had done the work.
  • You expected the mechanic to relax his ethics, so that you could DEFRAUD the car company that the service record of the vehicle comply with their standards for the service record.
  • The issue is not that the work was done by you - but that you expected someone else to certify that they did it.
There are professions that stake their reputation and livelihood on ethical standards and take the issue extremely seriously, including myself as a qualified CPA Accountant. For many people even the hint of impropriety has ended their career altogether.

You may consider this response to be quite serious, but if you wish to seek ethical behaviour from others, you must have higher standards yourself. I suggest you take many steps back, to consider your words and actions more carefully. Your proposed actions above show that your personal ethical standards leave much to be desired.

Or, it could also be that you do not understand what ethics are at all and have used the term out of context completely. Which is it?
 
Scotty T

Scotty T

Walks the walk
scblack said:
Yes, they do. I have worked at certain companies where we processed personal tax returns for numbers of those magnitudes. And they paid tax in full on that basis.
Click to expand...
They are good people. I thank them. But is it the norm among people with that much coin?
 
Scotty T

Scotty T

Walks the walk
scblack said:
Or, it could also be that you do not understand what ethics are at all and have used the term out of context completely. Which is it?
Click to expand...
It's unetchical to not support action on climate change? It's unethical to get someone to fudge something for your vehicle? It's unethical to use your ability because you have money or knowledge to exploit the system? There are shades of ethical. Have you ever done anything slightly dodgy @scblack? I mean that shit about casting the first stone rings true for most people. Everybody has a problem with casting that stone. I can't cast it if I'm completely honest. People may believe indiscretion is OK based on their moral judgement. But if an indiscretion is not legal, then where do we stand? What if the law us inherently unfair?

You're an accountant, my accountant has given me max everything in the past on claims because they don't check. Is that ethical? It's kind of legal, but it's also not. This year I made a log book of actual business trips. It was less than the max. I could have just gone yeah max that shit because nobody's gonna check an average (top 10%) wage earner if they actually used thei car that much for work.

I guess be careful about that first stone. Are you 100% perfect, all your life? I mean well done for being a complete abtstainer from anything bad if that's the case, but I doubt you are, there are very few people who satisfy that criteria, me included.
 
johnny

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
I think scblack was accusing HAakon of casting the first stone, when was with sin himself, based on the case scblack cited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top