When I read this as an Australian tax payer, it frustrates me, I feel like my tax money is directed into paying peoples wages doing pointless jobs. Going into supporting systems and paying for things like NDIS which are frequently fraudulent.
How much of these positions and payments are needed I can't say. There has been times in the past where I was unable to get any assistance when I needed it badly, only to be hit with additional tax payments to pay when I had no money to give.
I am working my proverbial arse off, living frugally, not getting into trouble in a private sector role to get ahead, paying huge tax like a chump, getting zero financial assistance. Its days like this when I feel like I too should just scheme the system and not work, it sure would be less stressful and less work.
Maybe this article was designed to incite these exact feelings, if they did, well mission accomplished.
> Maybe this article was designed to incite these exact feelings
It's the AFR, that's exactly the purpose of the article. All we need is some union-bashing, praise for return to the office and clumsy attempts to frame Labor's overwhelming electoral success as weakness and we'd have hit AFR bingo.
You've hit the nail on the head. The article is disingenuous in entirety.
Nearly every business in Australia that registers for GST and has eligible fuel expenses they can claim, receives a govt subsidy - so technically, that is what would account for most of the 50% of voters that rely ... eh ... I wish I could think of a funny smart-arsed way to use the term rely in an equally most overly generous but technically right manner.
From TFA, it appears the trend is actually rapidly accelerating, including this interesting fact:
>Four in five jobs created in the past two years have been in the non-market sector, which are occupations in industries heavily influenced by government spending and regulation.
Why? I immediately thought: Which country and starting to read the article gives the answer.
Americans seem to assume that there is only one country and abroad is an exception needing extra disclaimers.
Edit: The article also says the study is by a right of center thinktank. Would that also be needed to be mentioned in the title? Of course it would the context. But the rule is not to editorilize, we can read and think ourselves.
Readit News
How much of these positions and payments are needed I can't say. There has been times in the past where I was unable to get any assistance when I needed it badly, only to be hit with additional tax payments to pay when I had no money to give.
I am working my proverbial arse off, living frugally, not getting into trouble in a private sector role to get ahead, paying huge tax like a chump, getting zero financial assistance. Its days like this when I feel like I too should just scheme the system and not work, it sure would be less stressful and less work.
Maybe this article was designed to incite these exact feelings, if they did, well mission accomplished.
It's the AFR, that's exactly the purpose of the article. All we need is some union-bashing, praise for return to the office and clumsy attempts to frame Labor's overwhelming electoral success as weakness and we'd have hit AFR bingo.
Nearly every business in Australia that registers for GST and has eligible fuel expenses they can claim, receives a govt subsidy - so technically, that is what would account for most of the 50% of voters that rely ... eh ... I wish I could think of a funny smart-arsed way to use the term rely in an equally most overly generous but technically right manner.
I kid, I kid. Just channeling my inner Heinlein. There is a conversation to be had about perverse incentives, though.
All they can vote for is proliferation of government policies and limiting freedoms of people who are actually creating value.
>Four in five jobs created in the past two years have been in the non-market sector, which are occupations in industries heavily influenced by government spending and regulation.
Americans seem to assume that there is only one country and abroad is an exception needing extra disclaimers.
Edit: The article also says the study is by a right of center thinktank. Would that also be needed to be mentioned in the title? Of course it would the context. But the rule is not to editorilize, we can read and think ourselves.