Same as Venezuela, going broke

Text-book Marxism. It's time to stop using the phrase 'Cost of Living' and replace it with the more accurate phrase 'COST OF GOVERNMENT'.

It’s a joke! It needs to stop yesterday!

Little people,, regarding to the ballot paper we have to fill out,, its all rigged,, so labour will be in for life

Cut government cut taxes

Jacinta thinks that spending heaps of money on new equipment is going to help everything! What a joke. There will be no one left to be volunteers to man the new stuff. They can’t even build the new stuff with good timelines. And even the new stuff has problems and no backup.

Absolutely. It must stop. No one should be peddling off the back of families doing all the hard work!!!

We need doge type enqwiry

Mate,, its too late to fix Australia,, with the government and all these little people we vote for,, I know your trying, but like my father said many years ago,, we will be out numbered,, and we are,, Australia will and has gone to shit

Good work senator

Let’s just downsize the government

Abolish the useless States - we are One Nation and supposed to be one country !

Our debt will be getting bigger now with Labor back in again and it will take 4 decades to pay off and will be the next generation who will be paying it off

Remove taxes on Aussies period

20% royalties on all resources pulled from the ground

And so do we

Time for Aussies to stop paying, until politicians and so called government provide the evidence that they are a lawful 1901 constitutional common wealth government, in which they cant

We know that all politicians are full of shit why would they change anything $$$$

not only in Australia

What we want in this country is the people's Bill of Rights to stop these f****** more on governments from doing exactly what you're saying

The new emergency services levy in Victoria could be the catalyst for change. It’s sparked outrage from farmers and others. Now the public need to understand that they are going to be paying as well.

Taxing for everything WTF

Sounds like nz

As much as I like one nation I think it's time to choose your words more wisely , they are a corporation not a government & are in TREASON against the Australian public.

isn’t that just the Feds? Would be the same amount again if you add the States

Laundrying it for later

Renewables are useful extras only. Wr must gave baseload power.

Funny Australia didn’t seem to worry ya mugs

Spending our future generations wealth to prop up their mismanagement now!

Thank you for your hard work and dedication…what an unbelievable waste. This government is like a drunken sailor..

To take the government to the High Court in Australia, only one person (or entity) is required to initiate a case. There isn't a minimum number of people needed in the way you might think of a class action lawsuit, for example, although a group of people could certainly be involved in a single case if they are all affected by the same government action or law. The key is that an individual or organisation must have a legitimate legal reason to bring a case. This could involve challenging the constitutional validity of a law, appealing a decision from a lower court, or seeking an interpretation of the Constitution. It's important to note that the High Court generally only hears cases of major public importance, and many cases require "special leave to appeal" before they are heard. This means that a significant legal issue must be at stake.

When it rains the power goes out on trains and other things so really what the hell is wind and solar power doing nothing

Nothing else matters but the green dream to Albo and Bowen. They are crippling this country. We Australian’s are paying for it. When will this madness end.

Lost any hope 🙄

Pity help the next generation being led by Albo very scary.

WHO , here we come!!!🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺

Ah, you're referring to the Constitution of Australia. You're right, a direct mention of land tax isn't present in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900. As we discussed, the absence of a specific provision doesn't inherently prevent the imposition of a land tax. In Australia's case, the power to levy a land tax primarily rests with the State governments, not the Commonwealth. Section 52 of the Constitution outlines the exclusive powers of the Commonwealth Parliament, and land tax isn't among them. Similarly, the concurrent powers shared by the Commonwealth and the States (outlined in Section 51) also don't specifically list land tax. Therefore, the States have historically exercised the power to impose land taxes within their jurisdictions. Each Australian State has its own legislation governing land tax. The Commonwealth, on the other hand, has generally not levied a broad-based land tax, although it does have the power to do so under its general taxation powers (Section 51(ii) of the Constitution). However, it has chosen not to exercise this power extensively, leaving it as a significant revenue source for the States. So, while the Australian Constitution doesn't explicitly mention land tax, the division of powers within the Constitution has led to it being primarily a State-level tax. Does that clarify why you wouldn't find a direct reference to land tax in the Commonwealth Constitution?

We have not tried hard enough to shut this down ! Next time PLEASE ! The rape continues ,

It’s money laundering that’s what it is

Government overreaching on taxes is a significant concern for many individuals and businesses. It generally refers to situations where the government's taxation policies are perceived as excessive, unfair, or unduly burdensome, infringing upon the economic freedom and financial well-being of taxpayers. Aspects of Government Overreach in Taxation: * Excessive Tax Rates: When tax rates are deemed too high, individuals and businesses may feel that a disproportionate share of their earnings is being taken by the government, potentially hindering investment, economic activity, and overall prosperity. For instance, very high marginal tax rates could disincentivize higher income earners from working extra or taking risks. * Complex Tax Laws: Overly intricate and convoluted tax regulations can be seen as a form of overreach. Such complexity can make it difficult and costly for taxpayers to comply, often requiring them to spend significant time and money on tax advisors. This can particularly burden small businesses and individuals with limited resources. * Unfair Tax Policies: Tax policies that are perceived as disproportionately benefiting certain groups or industries at the expense of others can be viewed as unfair and an overreach of government power. For example, loopholes that allow some wealthy individuals or large corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes can create resentment and a sense of injustice. * Taxation of Unrealized Gains: Proposals to tax unrealized capital gains (profits on assets that have not yet been sold) are often criticized as government overreach. Opponents argue that this taxes wealth that has not been converted into cash and could create significant liquidity issues for taxpayers. * Lack of Transparency and Accountability: When the public lacks clear information about how their tax money is being spent or when the government is not held accountable for its fiscal decisions, it can fuel perceptions of overreach. Taxpayers may feel that they are being asked to contribute without sufficient oversight or understanding of the benefits they receive. * Disproportionate Penalties: Extremely harsh penalties for unintentional errors in tax filings can also be seen as government overreach, especially when the punishment does not fit the crime. Examples and Considerations: * The Australian Taxpayers' Alliance voices concerns about the "excessive growth in tax revenue" in Australia, suggesting that automatic tax increases faced annually outweigh occasional tax cuts. They advocate for indexing income tax brackets to slow this growth and for spending restraint. * The PwC tax scandal in Australia highlights a case where a consulting firm used confidential government tax plans to advise corporations on tax avoidance, raising questions about the integrity of the tax system and potential overreach in favor of certain entities. * Historically, events like the Boston Tea Party were protests against taxation policies perceived as unjust and imposed without adequate representation, illustrating how tax issues can lead to significant public discontent when seen as government overreach. * Legal limits on government taxation exist in most democratic societies, often enshrined in constitutions or through legal precedents. These limits can relate to the purpose of taxation (e.g., for public good), the fairness and equity of the tax system, and procedural rights of taxpayers. It's important to note that what constitutes "overreach" can be subjective and depend on differing political and economic perspectives. Governments levy taxes to fund public services, infrastructure, and social programs, which are considered essential for a functioning society. The debate often revolves around finding the right balance between the government's need for revenue and the taxpayers' capacity and willingness to pay.

It’s not a Left or Right issue. Just a Common Sense issue. Net Zero is an impossibility. Let’s all join hands for a cleaner world, but never turn your back on zealots or those with financial skin in the game.

Yes, the Prime Minister, like all members of the government, can be held to account for spending taxpayers' money. This accountability is a fundamental principle of democratic governance and is achieved through various mechanisms, particularly in a Westminster system like Australia's: 1. Parliament: * Question Time: A regular feature in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, where ministers (including the Prime Minister) are asked direct questions about government decisions and spending. * Senate Estimates: A crucial process where senators examine in detail how the government plans to spend taxpayer money. Ministers and senior public servants are questioned extensively on their departmental budgets and expenditures. * Budget Process: The government must present a budget to Parliament, outlining its spending plans. Parliament then authorizes this spending through appropriation acts. This process provides a key opportunity for scrutiny and debate. * Parliamentary Committees: Various committees investigate specific policy areas or government actions, including spending, and can summon ministers and officials to provide evidence. * Debate and Legislation: Any proposed laws or changes to spending require parliamentary debate and approval, providing opportunities for opposition and crossbench members to scrutinize and challenge government financial decisions. 2. Independent Oversight Bodies: * Auditor-General (ANAO): The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), led by the Auditor-General, conducts independent audits of government entities' financial statements and performance, providing assurance to Parliament on how public resources are managed. They release public reports on their findings. * Ombudsman: While not directly focused on spending, an Ombudsman can investigate complaints about administrative actions of government agencies, which can indirectly relate to how public funds are used. * Integrity Agencies: Various integrity bodies (e.g., anti-corruption commissions) can investigate misuse of public funds or corrupt practices. 3. Public Scrutiny and Media: * Media: Investigative journalism plays a vital role in uncovering questionable spending and holding the government, including the Prime Minister, accountable. * Public Debate: Community organizations, think tanks, and the general public engage in discussions and debates about government spending, influencing public opinion and putting pressure on the government. * Freedom of Information (FOI): Citizens can request access to government documents, including those related to spending, through FOI laws, increasing transparency. 4. Internal Government Mechanisms: * Department of Finance: This department provides policy and financial advice to the Minister for Finance and the Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) of Cabinet, aiming to ensure reliable budget estimates and sound financial management. * Codes of Conduct: Ministers are subject to codes of conduct that emphasize integrity, appropriate use of public resources, and advancing the public interest in their financial decisions. While the Prime Minister holds significant power, they are ultimately accountable to the Parliament and the public for the effective and responsible use of taxpayer money. These layered mechanisms aim to ensure transparency, prevent waste, and uphold public trust.

Honestly I don't care any more, I don't give a fuck, to hell with this country. They voted Labor They can fucking have it.

When considering whether a government has overreached its powers, several important aspects come into play, particularly within a democratic system like Australia: What Constitutes Government Overreach? Government overreach generally refers to instances where the government acts beyond the limits of its legal or constitutional authority, or where its actions unduly infringe upon the rights and liberties of individuals or entities. This can manifest in various ways, such as: * Exceeding Constitutional Limits: Acting outside the scope of powers granted by the Constitution. * Infringing on Civil Liberties: Unjustifiably restricting freedoms like speech, assembly, privacy, or movement. * Regulatory Overreach: Enacting regulations that are overly burdensome, go beyond the intended purpose of legislation, or lack proper legal authority. * Executive Overreach: The executive branch (Prime Minister and ministers) exceeding its delegated powers. * Lack of Due Process: Failing to follow fair legal procedures. * Retrospective Legislation: Creating laws that retroactively change the legal status of past actions (as was noted in one of your search results regarding Victoria's border closures). Safeguards Against Government Overreach in Australia: Australia's system of government incorporates several key principles and mechanisms designed to prevent the overreach of power: * Separation of Powers: Power is divided among the Parliament (law-making), the Executive (implementing laws), and the Judiciary (interpreting laws). This prevents any single branch from becoming too dominant. * Rule of Law: Everyone, including the government, is subject to and accountable under the law. * Parliamentary Sovereignty (with Constitutional Limits): While Parliament is the supreme law-making body, its powers are defined and limited by the Australian Constitution. The High Court has the power to review legislation and determine if it is constitutionally valid. * Responsible Government: The executive government is accountable to the Parliament. If the government loses the confidence of the House of Representatives, it must resign. * Judicial Review: The High Court of Australia has the power to review legislative and executive actions to ensure they are within the bounds of the Constitution and the law. * Federalism: Power is divided between the Commonwealth (national) government and the state governments, providing a further layer of checks and balances. * Elections: Regular elections ensure that the government is accountable to the people. * Freedom of the Press and Expression: A free media and the right to express opinions hold the government accountable. * Civil Society: Various non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups play a role in scrutinizing government actions. Examples of Potential Government Overreach (General Concepts): While your initial question was about taxes, in a broader context, examples of actions that could be considered government overreach might include: * Implementing surveillance programs that unduly infringe on citizens' privacy without proper legal authorization. * Restricting freedom of speech or assembly without legitimate and proportionate reasons. * Enacting laws that discriminate against particular groups in society. * Detaining individuals without due process or legal justification. * Using executive powers to bypass parliamentary scrutiny on significant matters. * Creating regulations that stifle legitimate business activity without clear public benefit. In Conclusion: Whether a government has overreached its powers is often a complex legal and political question. It requires careful consideration of the specific actions taken, the legal and constitutional framework, and the potential impact on individual rights and liberties. The safeguards in place within Australia's democratic system are intended to prevent such overreach, but their effectiveness is constantly subject to scrutiny and debate. If individuals or groups believe the government has acted beyond its powers, they can challenge those actions through legal channels, political advocacy, and public discourse.

AUSTRALIA IS IN TROUBLE. SO MUCH POLITICAL CORRUPTION. NOTHING IS CLEAR OR OBVIOUS. SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.

The public often expresses concern and frustration when parliamentarians receive pay rises, especially if there are perceived issues with government spending or economic conditions. Here's a breakdown of the common arguments and facts surrounding this issue in Australia: Parliamentary Pay Rises: * Independent Tribunal: In Australia, the salaries of federal parliamentarians are set by an independent body called the Remuneration Tribunal. This body considers various factors when making its determinations, often including economic conditions, public sector wage growth, and the complexity and demands of the roles. It's not parliamentarians directly voting on their own pay. * Recent Increases: As of July 1, 2024, federal parliamentarians in Australia received a 3.5% pay rise. This increased the basic salary for an MP to $233,660 per annum. Higher office holders, such as the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader, receive additional salaries. * Public Reaction: These pay rises frequently draw criticism, particularly when the broader public is facing cost-of-living pressures or when there are reports of government budget deficits or overspending in other areas. Overspending and Taxpayer Money: * Budget Deficits: Governments, regardless of political persuasion, often run budget deficits, meaning they spend more than they collect in revenue. This is funded through borrowing, which adds to national debt. * Spending Scrutiny: There is ongoing scrutiny of government spending by various bodies, including the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), parliamentary committees, and the media. Reports often highlight areas of overspending, inefficiencies, or questionable allocation of funds. * Public Perception of "Wasted" Money: Specific examples of government spending that are perceived as wasteful or unnecessary contribute to public anger, especially when contrasted with parliamentary pay rises. Examples might include large consultancy fees, specific projects, or administrative costs. Why the Disconnect? The frustration often stems from: * Perceived Hypocrisy: The idea that those responsible for managing public funds are increasing their own remuneration while the public feels financially constrained or sees evidence of budgetary mismanagement. * Lack of Transparency (at times): While the Remuneration Tribunal is independent, the rationale behind specific increases isn't always clearly communicated or easily understood by the general public. * Economic Context: During times of economic hardship or high inflation, any pay rise for politicians can be particularly jarring for those struggling to make ends meet. It's a recurring theme in democratic systems, where the role of elected officials, their compensation, and the management of public finances are constant subjects of debate and public opinion.

Talk a lot of trash but that’s to be expected for the mentally challenged

Unfortunately now that Albo and the greens have the bal of power in the senate, Australia is doomed. Hard to believe that our government wants to destroy our country.

I have been trying to find an article I read that had some home truths in it about so called "fossil" fuels. They are NOT from fossils at all, as the popular narrative would have you believe. (Nor are we running out..) So, until I find the article again here are some points I recall: 1. The deepest [in the Earth's crust] actual fossils have been found at 16,000'. Yet today's drilling is currently at 30,000' where there are NO fossils! 2. There is only a general "consensus of opinion" by scientists that they are from the breakdown of organic matter over thousands if not millions of years. Consensus is NOT proof or FACT! 3. Methane, the majority of the outer planets gases is in liquid form [because it is so cold it has change its physical state from gas to liquid..], can not in any stretch of the imagination be "fossil" created! So the concept that Earth's fossil fuel ARE, would therefore dictate that all of the outer planets and many moons of those planets, had abundant life on them, which is even more far fetched than the idea that oil came from fossils. 4. Methane is a one of the group of energy the hydrocarbons, just to be clear here. 5. Where there is liquid oil, there is gas above it and shale oil below it. The heavier compounds like machine oil sinks to the bottom of the pool and the light stuff goes to the top. Natural separation of hydrocarbons in fact. From this fact, wherever there is a gas field there lies beneath it substantial oil reserves. Australia has the largest oil reserves in the world bar none. Even bigger than the M.E. Our reserves stretch from East Timor sea (which Australia has claimed sovereignty over despite not recognised under International law), west of the Great dividing Range, east of the Pilbara's and iron ore region of the far west and south down well into the Great Australian Bight. This is ONE oil field! (How I know this as a fact is because I had the pleasure to speak with the 2 Geophysicists who were mapping our reserves back in 1990ish through my job at that time. They were Americans, tasked by the US Govt to do this. After their survey was done, the US Govt "requested" that the Australian Gvt cap them and NOT drill them as future proofing against the M.E. reserves.. ie, use up the M.E. first.. What ALSO came of that conversation was that the samples they extracted were so pure that they were able to tap off the diesel layer, filter it with nothing more than coffee filter paper and they ran their diesel trucks on it directly. No where else in the world is it that good!) Australia is ALSO the most stable tectonic plate, probably WHY the fuel reserves had separated so nicely as it hadn't been "stirred up" by earthquakes etc). 6. There is simply no way THAT much area was that rich in "plants and dinosaurs" to create such a colossal oil field. 7. IF such oil was indeed made from "fossils" then why is it that Australia ALSO has the best OPAL fields... which absolutely are from animal and fish bones? Why did they fossilise and not "oil-ize"? Perhaps just think about this part for a moment... and see the nonsense that has been accepted by "consensus".. 8. The oil crisis of the 70's was meant to run out of world stocks in 10 or 20 years time... now 50 years ago. 9. The leading financiers of the day in the mid to late 1800's knew it wasn't from fossils but came up with that idea for two reasons, money and more money. When a commodity is perceived as rare, difficult to obtain or limited, then the price can be held high and people will pay it. Rockefellers in particular engineered this scam, as pioneer financiers for oil in those days. All of this is from memory and I will try to find some info /link /reports that back up what I recall. However, the Geophysicist notation is from me, personally, and I was warned not to speak of it. I don't care anymore. In my most humble opinion, everything we have been told about "fossil" fuels is a lie. Any questions?

Jacinta Allan is the current Premier of Victoria, Australia, and her government's spending and the state's escalating debt have been a significant point of contention and criticism. Calls for her removal due to overspending are a prominent part of the political discourse in Victoria. Here's a breakdown of the concerns and arguments: Key Criticisms Regarding Victorian Government Spending Under Jacinta Allan (and the previous Andrews Government, where she was a senior minister): * Soaring State Debt: Victoria's net debt has dramatically increased. Projections indicate it could reach around $194 billion by mid-2029, a staggering rise from pre-Labor levels. This is frequently highlighted as the highest debt of any Australian state, leading to massive interest repayments that divert funds from essential services. Reports indicate interest payments could reach over $26 million per day by 2027-28. * Major Project Cost Blowouts: Numerous large-scale infrastructure projects, particularly in transport (e.g., Suburban Rail Loop, North East Link, West Gate Tunnel, Metro Tunnel), have experienced significant cost overruns, totaling tens of billions of dollars beyond initial budgets. Critics argue these blowouts demonstrate poor financial management and a lack of transparency. * Increased Taxes: To manage the growing debt, the Victorian government has introduced or increased a significant number of taxes (reportedly 56 since 2014), including those on land, payroll, and schools. This is seen by critics as burdening Victorians and businesses, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis. * Spending on Contractors and Consultants: The Victorian Auditor-General's Office has reported a substantial increase in spending on contractors and consultants, reaching nearly $12 billion over four years (2018-19 to 2021-22), despite election promises to cut waste. This raises concerns about efficiency and reliance on external providers. * Perceived Lack of Fiscal Responsibility: The opposition and other critics frequently argue that the government has demonstrated "reckless" and "irresponsible" economic management, leading to Victoria being the "highest taxed state" and having a "debt bomb." * Cancellation of Commonwealth Games: The decision to cancel the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Victoria due to escalating costs resulted in a significant financial penalty and reputational damage, further fueling criticism of financial mismanagement. Arguments in Defense (from the government's perspective): * Infrastructure Investment: The government argues that its massive infrastructure program is necessary to meet the demands of a growing population and to modernize Victoria's transport and services, creating jobs and long-term economic benefits. * COVID-19 Response: A portion of the debt accumulation can be attributed to the significant spending required to manage the COVID-19 pandemic, including health measures and economic support packages. * Economic Growth: The government points to overall economic growth in Victoria, with some analyses suggesting the state's economy has recovered solidly from the pandemic and that its net worth has increased. They argue that including capital investment in deficit figures distorts the picture. Political Implications: Calls for Jacinta Allan's removal stem from the strong criticism of the state's financial position. The opposition frequently uses the rising debt and perceived overspending as a central plank of their platform, arguing that it negatively impacts the everyday lives of Victorians through higher taxes and reduced services. The Victorian budget, including the most recent one (May 2025), is closely scrutinized for its approach to debt management and spending. In summary, the sentiment for Jacinta Allan's removal due to overspending is driven by significant concerns about Victoria's spiraling debt, major project cost blowouts, increased taxes, and perceived financial mismanagement. This remains a key political battleground in Victoria.