An article from the Brisbane Times – I expect we’ll see more of this over time.
Why should a blue-collar man whose net contribution to the public purse is close to zero, or even less, after various rebates and assistance packages and carbon tax hand-outs fund gilt-edged cribs and Dior nightgowns for the fabulously wealthy?
Why should this pretty woman who put her head down at school, blitzed her year 12 exams, then studied for four more years at law school building a sizeable HECS debt in the process and then worked long hours at a law firm for most of her twenties and now, at the apex of her career while paying almost a third of her salary in income tax, be temporarily supported while she births a new Australian?
What a strange shadow that question, and our response to it, casts over the election. Do we really loathe success, however minor, that much? What intellectual runts we are.
Then the punch line.
An interesting exercise is to reverse the question. Why should a hard-working lawyer, putting in 12 hours a day provide any sort of assistance to a man who’s going to throw his carbon tax hand-out, family and healthcare rebates into the mouth of a poker machine at West Tradies …