by Gozu » Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:44 am
by mick » Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:31 am
by wycbloods » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:40 am
mick wrote:Interesting figures, I personally think bona fide political parties should be funded to a fixed amount by the tax payer. I find it offensive and un-democratic that if I belong to a union (I do APESMA) or use a private service part of my payment goes to a political party. It would also stop people and organisations expecting favours for donations.
by Booney » Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:45 pm
by wycbloods » Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:30 pm
Booney wrote:Un-democratic would be used as the average Union member would not be aware of this practice.
by Psyber » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:04 pm
by wycbloods » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:24 pm
Psyber wrote:My "Union" is democratic.
I'm free to join or not join without any repercussions or overt criticism - so I join.
Oh, and they don't make donations to any political party.
by redden whites » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:19 pm
Booney wrote:Un-democratic would be used as the average Union member would not be aware of this practice.
by dedja » Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:57 am
mick wrote:Interesting figures, I personally think bona fide political parties should be funded to a fixed amount by the tax payer. I find it offensive and un-democratic that if I belong to a union (I do APESMA) or use a private service part of my payment goes to a political party. It would also stop people and organisations expecting favours for donations.
by wycbloods » Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:49 pm
dedja wrote:mick wrote:Interesting figures, I personally think bona fide political parties should be funded to a fixed amount by the tax payer. I find it offensive and un-democratic that if I belong to a union (I do APESMA) or use a private service part of my payment goes to a political party. It would also stop people and organisations expecting favours for donations.
Political parties do very well out of the taxpayer already thank you very much. Postage and electoral allowances which mysteriously find their way into funding election material instead of serving the electorate. Then there's the electoral funding per vote received by the parties. Nope, they don't need any more from us.
I agree with your union comments though. What does an employee do if they wish to join a union but do not want an affiliation with or their fees going to the Labor party (if that particular union does that)?
By the way, APESMA are one of the better unions going around.
by RustyCage » Sat Sep 05, 2009 11:52 am
by GWW » Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:23 pm
pafc1870 wrote:On a similar topic, if the state Libs win the next election and ban the events where business pay big money to sit at a table with a politician and talk to them for the night, where is the shortfall in their revenue going to come from? Only way I can see is either more brown paper bags slipped under tables, or some taxes will be raised.
by mick » Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:12 am
by Gozu » Sun Sep 06, 2009 1:33 am
GWW wrote:But doesn't the money from these events go to the political party's coffers? Taxes go to the govt.
by Psyber » Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:11 am
Sydney Morning Herald journalist Vanda Carson said he was also involved in providing prostitutes to high-profile people.
"We understand he had a sports marketing business and he used that as a front to arrange prostitutes for high-profile men including sports players," she told the Nine Network.
Carson said a tape recording believed to contain a conversation capable of bringing down the NSW government had been handed to police.
"Mr McGurk told us about a tape that sounded absolutely sensational that had mentioned corruption at the highest levels of the NSW government," she said.
"We understand the tape was given to the police last night."
by Squawk » Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:31 pm
by GWW » Sun Sep 06, 2009 11:36 pm
by Gozu » Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:43 am
by Squawk » Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:43 am
by Gozu » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:19 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |