|
Title: Photoshopped? Post by: reggie on 09/06/2010, 07:52 PM (http://images.ninemsn.com.au/resizer.aspx?url=http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/news_feeds/751349_9june_WARally_400x300.jpg&width=310)
What do you guys think? Article here http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1067151/kevin-rudd-swan-cop-abuse-in-perth Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: SolidSmiddi on 09/06/2010, 08:14 PM Looks like a chop to me.
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Chalice on 09/06/2010, 09:29 PM I agree..such a chop..the yellow hands in the middle are for "messages on hold". This business creates on hold messages for companies...seems suss
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Number One on 09/06/2010, 09:54 PM we should see what else we can chop in there....hehehe
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: bageled on 10/06/2010, 08:41 AM The demographic seems all wrong for miners. I doubt miners could organise a rally anyway, they'd just send their union rep in for them, oh wait, they're already doing that, they are crying poor through a tv commercial campaign....?!?
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Z00111111 on 10/06/2010, 12:26 PM We should be cutting mining tax. Those hard working executives didn't get to rape Australia to become some of the richest people in Australia.
Oh.. Right.. Liberals lost power. I'm all for heavier taxing of people who are literally making their money from Australia. This way the land itself can support Australia, rather than making the richest woman in Australia richer, fatter and uglier... Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Dex on 10/06/2010, 12:35 PM Do you ever think that the reason you are all for it, and Western Australians aren't, is because all the big mines are in WA, and without us bringing that money into the economy your states would all be poor fucks.
The constitution says that minerals belong to the state that they are mined in. Zoo, if you are all Pro australia and what it stands for, then you should be against Keven Rudd trying to take more of WA's wealth. The mining companies agree that they should probably pay more tax, but not to the extent that Krudd is making them. At the moment, its like 35% tax, and with the new super profit tax it will push it up to 53% or something. Its called "super profit" because apparently they make mega profits (Krudd defines super profit as 6%) but you look at retail shops...Kathmandu for instance, where my sister works, can afford to regularly have 60% off sales, and gives 60-80% off for staff members. If you ask me, that is one mega fucking super profit. So before you all start claiming that you are being ripped off by the mining companies, do a bit of research, and you'll realise you have no claim to it anyway. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: bageled on 10/06/2010, 01:12 PM Suck it up WA, NSW has been subsidising the rest of the nation with it's GST since day one, time to give some back.
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Number One on 10/06/2010, 01:25 PM being in Qld this is a hard one for me, as on one hand there are heaps of mines here too, but then i see all this money going to these executives and not "seeing" it really being put back into the gov't coffers. and in some way i have to agree with both dex and bageled, i fully see how WA should benefit from it's resources, but then most of the people in the mines and it's subsequent support industries come from the eastern states. so in that way i think it only fair all the other states share the wealth as well. mind you i fully think this kind of tax should replace similar taxes for almost every industry we have, across the board and including the banks, we just need to have some regulation that protects our native industry from being undercut from outside, and make sure price gauging doesn't take off
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Dex on 10/06/2010, 02:00 PM If the cost of production goes up (thanks to an increase in tax) then the cost for consumers will go up, and places like China who are our biggest investors will go somewhere else for cheaper goods. Then there will be no money for NSW who is undoubtedly the most important state in australia.
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Number One on 10/06/2010, 02:12 PM you do realize there are not that many competitors to Australia when it comes to bulk ore and coal right?, maybe this will help slow the mining sector and the economy a little and give some of us a break for on our inflation and home loans.
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: inwalda on 10/06/2010, 02:26 PM being a year 11 economics student and a 16 year old who doesn't pay taxes, I am clearly an expert on the subject. What Kevin Rudd is doing may seem bad but your forgeting the big picture. Would you rather be sent down a coal mine in WA just because you are unemployed and not a student? If you would, vote for Tony Abbot
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: bageled on 10/06/2010, 02:40 PM Considering that BHP made 18 billion dollars in profit last year, (which was down 30% from 2008), I think they've got a little room to move before they start pushing up their prices. As I understand it, the biggest factor in our international pricing isn't the local taxes, but the exchange rate, the stronger the australian dollar the lower the profit.
I just hope this isn't another of Rudds bright ideas. I'd say this scrabble for extra money is a result of his recent expensive mistakes. I'm still amazed that his approach to tackle climate change. He could have poured millions into any number of renewable energies, or improved public transport infrastructure so we don't need cars, no...not our Kevin....he subsidises ceilng insulation....a band aid that turned out to be dirty, caused an infection and took a chunk of skin when it was ripped off....what a fucking idiot. This whole mining thing reeks of desperation to me. The labor party was founded by workers unions, and now a labor government is targeting one of the last union strongholds. I wonder what he is going to do next, issue us all with umbrellas to combat skin cancer? Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: reggie on 10/06/2010, 02:45 PM (http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l319/Qaman123/Thread-Direction.jpg)
This is NOT why i started the thread... Take your politics elsewhere. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Dex on 10/06/2010, 02:57 PM As far as reggies original post goes, there was a massive protest in the city somewhere. No idea if they had signs and shit.
Bageled, profit is relative to the business... Sure BPH made a fuckload of profits, but they also spend a lot. On the other hand, there is Dampier Salt, who my dad works for. They don't make huge profits, but i'm sure its around 6% or more. (Krudd assumes superprofit is above 6%) Then there is retail shops, who must make over 6% profit. As i said, Kathmandu can afford to give staff members up to 80% discount and still sell their products above cost. Anglo also mentioned banks... They must also make above 6% profit... Where are the taxes on those? I bet if they increased taxes on banks, and retail shops, there would be more angry people. As far as your opinion on Rudd goes, I agree, he spends far too much and it will be up to the liberals to bring the money in again. On a side note, I was talking to a friend of my parents last night who has spent the last 20 years in america, and she says Obama is much the same. He sent stimulus packages to people who dont even pay taxes, and those that do pay taxes had to pay their package back in taxes. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Number One on 10/06/2010, 04:01 PM i agree at least some of those signs have to habe been photoshopped.
if i could get away with it, i'd vote for dick smith, and get this bloody country back on it's feet . rudd really stuffed up with this crap about insulation and shit, what a load of crap, for all that money we could have begun producing hydrogen for fuel and be 50years ahead of the rest of the world. one thing i can say, it really seams as if a LOT of cash keeps leaving this country for over seas, and a lot of this via our resources owned by over seas companies. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: KARNAGE on 10/06/2010, 07:32 PM personally, asking to tax for 53% of your money is bullshit in any persons business, who cares if they made a huge fuckin profit last year (even though the thought of seeing that much money shits my pants) our countries capitalist, they can do it i they like. think about this, you work 9-5 monday to friday at say 10$ an hour (yer, your boss is gay) and you end up with $80 each day, so in a week you get $400. but if you were taxed 53%, you have less than $200. thats a bit shithouse to me. k-rudd spends too much, but he's the lesser of 2 evils
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Dex on 10/06/2010, 07:42 PM Karnage, I agree that it is too much but your math is wrong..
You earn $400 per week, spend $50 on food, $50 on electricity and gas bills, $30 on mobile bills, and $70 on the mortgage. That leaves $200; You are then taxed 53% of that $200, so you are paying just over $100 in tax. It is a tax on your profit, not on your total income Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: KARNAGE on 10/06/2010, 07:44 PM oh. really? what are the girls crying about? these are the richest bastards in australia, someone needs to backhand these guys hard
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Dex on 10/06/2010, 08:04 PM its not the CEO's that are being taxed, its the companies.
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: KARNAGE on 10/06/2010, 08:05 PM this is more fucked than i thought
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Number One on 10/06/2010, 08:17 PM i am still thinking those signs may be photoshopped
actually you'd pay $0 in tax as non of it could be considered profit. how ever if you where a publicly listed company and after declaring all your expenditures and other costs, any profits you make over 6% will be taxed a 40%. i still dont get how they came up with those numbers. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Dex on 10/06/2010, 08:43 PM its actually 53 or so per cent in total Anglo,
I listened to my dad explain it last night, something about a company tax, then another tax which i think is the super profit tax. From what i remember, currently mining companies pay a 35% company tax, and now they are lessening the company tax, and bringing in the super tax which brings it up to 53% in total. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Number One on 10/06/2010, 09:45 PM so you pay 53% tax on profits, where do they come up with this stuff?
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: inwalda on 10/06/2010, 10:20 PM again guys, its either Kevin or Abbot. Personally, I don't want to go to church every sunday and the rest of the week down a mine shaft
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Dex on 10/06/2010, 11:17 PM Kevin will be voted out next election. (I hope)
I know as my first federal election, i wont be voting for him.. A question to the older members... When labor was last in government, did they screw shit up as bad as kevin? I've always been taught that liberals make the money, and labor spends it... So it would make sense that it's not Kevin screwing everything up, but the whole labor party. Therefore, if Abbot got in, while he is a strong religious nut, the views of his party would keep him in check Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: naf on 11/06/2010, 06:17 AM Dex you gotta remember the money they make is from taxes, taxes are collected by the goverment to be spent on improvements etc for the country . The goverment shouldn't be making huge profits imho...
I pay a lot of tax so those fuckers better be spending it on improving my country. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: naf on 11/06/2010, 06:25 AM oh and politcal arguments are ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Most people just vote the way their parents did and have no real understanding of why they do it. The typical arguments are: Labour waste money & the Liberals only care about business. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: KARNAGE on 11/06/2010, 06:58 AM i'd rather go with liberal and not labor, but id also rather go with kevin instead of tony. so either a new guy comes in or kevins staying
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: DonutKing on 11/06/2010, 07:05 AM You guys forget that Howard was trying to force workchoices down our throats- despite overwhelming public opposition. that was why I voted for Rudd last election. Now between Rudd's shenanigans and Conroy trying to send us back to the dark ages I've come to regret that. I think I'll vote Green next election because they seem to be more rational than the two major parties :o
no point voting independent because your vote only ends up going back to the major parties in the end- at least greens have a chance of getting a member in. Maybe i'll just abstain (donkey vote) because the state of politics in this country is fucked beyond belief, none of the bastards deserve my vote. When the revolution comes they will be first against the wall Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: KARNAGE on 11/06/2010, 07:09 AM where's Rove when you need him?
i think the only thing good rudd's done is that renewable energy thing, i cant remember what it was called now. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: reggie on 11/06/2010, 10:39 AM Can someone please lock or split this thread. It wasnt meant to turn into a massive political debate. It was meant to show a news company using a photoshopped picture in their article.
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: DonutKing on 11/06/2010, 10:55 AM The picture in question is used in an article about a hot political topic... you can't be surprised that it evolved into a discussion about that topic. It's the natural evolution of threads on a discussion forum.
The photoshopped picture is nothing new, the media lie to us all the time. This one does seem pretty obvious but I'm sure there are plenty of others that slip under the radar. I'm guessing that some trainee got told to get a picture off the internet of the protesters, couldn't find one and just photoshopped one instead. In my town there are 2 newspapers, ones the NewsLimited one and there's also a free community one... they are both at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and they are both so biased its amazing. They both tell half truths and word their articles in such a way as to manipulate their readers. Its even worse in the USA, I was amazed when I watched their news on TV and its basically like A Current Affair or Today Tonight over here... in other words, disgustingly one-sided. Don't believe what you read or hear, even from the media. Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: inwalda on 11/06/2010, 07:21 PM or from internet forums. For all we know Donut is Tony Abbot incognito
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: KARNAGE on 11/06/2010, 07:23 PM but his picture has kevin rudds smile on it
Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: DonutKing on 11/06/2010, 11:04 PM do I look like a liberal fag?
(http://i39.tinypic.com/25h2s7p.jpg) Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: KARNAGE on 12/06/2010, 11:41 AM I had a steel mill in the original version (not deluxe) that made over 1000 tons of steel a month WITHOUT iron ore. DONUTKING FOR PM!Title: Re: Photoshopped? Post by: Number One on 12/06/2010, 12:02 PM DONUTKING FOR BENEFICENT LEADER, GENERAL OF THE PEOPLE AND ALL ROUND GOOD FELLA
ALL HAIL OUR BENEFICENT LEADER Or face THE wall |