Category: “politics of envy”

Cutting Deals with Big Tech Won’t Save Journalism | The Smirking Chimp

It’s increasingly clear that market-based solutions for news production aren’t helping foster a more equitable and inclusive democracy. In the United States, commercial media share a sizable portion of the blame for the rise of Donald Trump—and, with him, Trump-style white nationalism. What happened in the 20th century, when local print, radio and TV outlets were the best way for advertisers to target local audiences, was a historical fluke. Attempts to rebuild or insulate that old-media model in the 21st century are a fool’s errand. Future solutions must involve new hybrid private- and public-sector models, or direct public funding for journalism, so long as it includes guardrails to protect the editorial independence of news organizations on the receiving end.

Cutting Deals with Big Tech Won’t Save Journalism | The Smirking Chimp

Free speech for the Public Service? Friends only, foes face prosecution – Michael West

High Court of Australia

Last year public servant Josh Krook wrote a blog post in which he argued that Covid-19 benefitted big tech because forced social isolation would drive people to online platforms. He worked for the Commonwealth Industry Department that deals extensively with tech companies; he was fired because he refused to delete the post. This follows the firing of Immigration Department employee Michaela Banerji, who was dismissed over a series of Tweets, among other things, that were critical of Australia’s treatment of refugees. Banerji made 9,000 posts, mostly sent from her personal device outside of work hours. The High Court ruled Banerji’s dismissal was warranted because she had breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct which stipulates that public servants must act impartially and are prohibited from engaging in any forms of “harassment”. The 2019 High Court ruling (Comcare v Banerji) effectively said public servants could be sacked for comments they make on social media. And then we come to Geoff Philip Wade, a public servant employed by the Department of Parliamentary Services. Wade, who works as a researcher in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library, is one of Australia’s most prolific anti-China Twitter users. Wade has made 42,000 posts, nearly five times that of Banerji, a great number of which appear to have been sent from inside Parliament House. Often during his “working day” he will send out Tweets every five or 10 minutes. He has published photos, phone numbers and personal email addresses of people whose only crime is being Chinese or advancing views contrary to his own. The Department of Parliamentary Services refused to answer questions about Wade’s use of social media during taxpayer-funded work hours. A spokesperson cited “privacy considerations”.

Free speech for the Public Service? Friends only, foes face prosecution – Michael West

New Zealanders arrive in Adelaide despite South Australia not being in coronavirus bubble – ABC News

A Qantas aeroplane takes off in the air
Morrison’s determined cock up
Image may contain: 1 person, text that says 'Why didn't Border Force share Ruby Princess passenger information to airline operators fearful of covid19 infection spread? DUNNO! I'M NOT A BOAT CAPTAIN Why can't Border Force provide details of the New Zealand travellers who illegally entered Victoria? DUNNO! I'M NOT A PASSPORT INSPECTOR! Jich'

Five travellers from New Zealand have been forced into hotel quarantine in Adelaide after arriving unexpectedly on a flight from Sydney.

New Zealanders arrive in Adelaide despite South Australia not being in coronavirus bubble – ABC News

Politics of envy: Feeding the rich in an entitled society

Australia has become a country that takes from the poor to give to the rich.

This morning, the Financial Review had a piece titled ‘Tax cuts are no handout to the rich’. Well, of course, they would say that, as their whole purpose as a media publication is to write pieces that are of interest to those with money or interested in money.

What really grated, though, was this tweet which the Liberals also flogged:

Unless the full tax cut package is passed, high income earners risk losing out to the “silent thief” of tax bracket creep, according to new analysis.

We are constantly told we need a surplus and we can’t afford to “waste” money. The Government has no money to help the homeless, raise Newstart, raise the pension or support community legal services — in fact, they are always looking for “savings” in these areas. Savings being the euphemism for cuts.

But the Government does have money to spend on tax cuts for those on high wages and big business.

Now, if everyone in Australia is supposedly equal, how can a Government justify giving wealthier people more money when we have people who are homeless, starving and living in abject poverty?

Worse. When this issue is raised, it is called “politics of envy”.

via Politics of envy: Feeding the rich in an entitled society

How some of the wealthiest Australians pay ‘negative’ tax

The tax treatment of earnings generated from owning shares is complicated. Because it is complicated most people think it is boring. Because it’s boring we don’t discuss it much. However Australia’s dividend imputation system is important, unique to the world and comes with approximately a $30 billion dollar a year price tag. So whatever you think about Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen’s announcement it is a good thing they have got us talking about one of the least understood aspects of tax policy in Australia.

The complexity of the Australian tax system hides many sins, one of the most inequitable of which is the fact that some of Australia’s wealthiest citizens pay negative tax. The ATO actually hands other people’s money to some of the wealthiest people in the country. Indeed, while Centrelink chases some of our poorest citizens for seven-year-old debt, one lucky non-taxpayer actually received $2.5 million in “tax credits” in a single year.

via How some of the wealthiest Australians pay ‘negative’ tax

Wanting A Fair Society Has Nothing To Do With ‘Envy’ – New Matilda

OPINION: Envy is a deadly sin, but wanting your children to have a good education is nothing to be ashamed of. The politics of envy should not be confused with the politics of the fair go, writes Ian McAuley. Labor’s mildly redistributive proposals on superannuation, capital gains tax and negative gearing are already attracting theMore

Source: Wanting A Fair Society Has Nothing To Do With ‘Envy’ – New Matilda

Vote One: The Politics of Envy – » The Australian Independent Media Network

By Richard O’Brien “The politics of envy [and] just another smear“. – Malcolm Turnbull’s response in October to criticism of his government’s decision to exempt large private companies from tax disclosure laws and questions about his investments in the Cayman Islands. “Envy (noun) 1. a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else’s…

Source: Vote One: The Politics of Envy – » The Australian Independent Media Network

The never Bolted down Tim Winton proud observant and ready to use the C-word without being red.Brilliant perception and empathy of movement through our moment of mobility.

Some thoughts about class in Australia

The C word