If we were to confiscate one third of what Gina Rinehart earns every day from what she digs out of our soil and in equal measure give it back to us, the people, every taxpayer would get nine hundred and thirty-five dollars more a year. This would leave Gina still earnig in twenty-eight minutes what Barack Obama earns in a year.
Is anybody against this partial nationalisation of accidental wealth? Will anybody argue her need is greater than that of a night nurse, or a ditch-digging council worker, or a teacher like John Faulkner of profoundly disabled children? Anybody?
I invite contributions, and will print them all.
Class warfare, anyone?
Arise.
Name:
Dig it out yourself, Bob.
No, set your sights a bit lower and establish something a little more modest - like say, a polling company.
Let’s see how you go.
Gotta say, I’d enjoy seeing Gina dig it out.
Deserves it, you say?
Just say yes.
Bob you are dead wrong on Ginny and her ilk. We need as many oliogarchs by inheritance as possible….the more the merrier. Let’s become the new Russia and run a real democracy like Putin has managed to put together. I can’t wait for the day Gina is in charge of the SMH and any other media assets she can scoop up. Why don’t we rip up the 100 year gift lease of the Show Grounds to Newscorp and give it to someone far more deserving…Gina.
Vale Gina
Ruler and Judge of Australia.
Aboriginal half sister lives in a Humpy. She cares heaps
No, no, no! Cash payments from the government are not the way to go, except in the case of genuinely low income people. The rest just leverage it into ever-higher asset prices.
Government SERVICES is what it should be spent on. Hospitals, schools, power stations, dental care, child care, etc….things that benefit everyone.
I reckon that the original proposal for a mining tax would have helped the causes of the nurses/workers/teachers, before it was buggered up by Swan opening his gob in WA.
In this century I am of the mind that we don’t have to wear the same grey tunics and work in the salt mines to have a social conscience.
So I’m not that much of a socialist that I begrudge Gina her income. The whole business under her old man took a long time to happen.
And even with the so called boom, that Swan reckons we are all sharing in,the fact is all of us are not, which includes the said nurses/workers/teachers, the people at the ‘coal face’ caring for the aged etc. The penny hasn’t dropped for our current controllers just yet that Australian society is more than ‘working families’.
Mind you, I can’t begin to imagine the horror story of the clueless Libs, so still sticking with my party thanks.
Listen up to the premier of western Australia and you will hear the turdling saying things like: WA is drifting further and further away from Eastern Australia…we are integrating with China and Asia. The right honorable Premier implied WA could one day fly in Chinese troops to assist in severing WA from the rest of us.
Who funds that dog…does Ginny?
Its all paper money not realised until she cashes out.
I imagine the capital gains tax when she does cash out her share will be put to good use including some of which you have mentioned.
Otherwise I am guessing it will be re-invested to keep the company growing/going.
It could all still amount to zip, over leveraged, stock market crash and China’s demand falls bada bing, company goes broke, workers don’t get paid etc etc.
Does she deserve to earn in twenty-eight minutes what Barack Obama earns in a year?
Please answer this.
Forget Gina.
Get your focus back on the Abbott-is-Bad-ification of Canberra for effs sake.
Our Democracy is under assault.
Abbott is against ‘the politics of class envy’ and Gina is the essence of it.
Yep, I agree… class warfare is good.
Personally I don’t know why we just don’t nationalize the mines, That should pay our government bills, provide for lots and lots government services,
and our main customer, the Chinese would not mind either way, would probably just clap and say about time…
The thing is democracy and big differences of wealth don’t mix; that is not a new point, I believe Aristotle made it. (Nor is it a partisan point, Aristotle being no particular friend of democracy).
This seems to me common sense, but in any case examples of this truth in application are easy to find. It means that any friend of democracy must support some levelling of wealth, must in a broad sense be a socialist. Or be to that extent a fool. Read all about it in the Putney Debates, hot off the press in when was it 1647 or thereabouts.
Of course, its possible to be a socialist without being a democrat, Lenin and all that. True, not very relevant, has probably reached its ” best before” date as a debating point.
The modern decline of sccialism is closely linked to the decline of democracy. Democratic forms are not now seen as a necessarily imperfect vehicle of popular rule but as a means of putting power into the hands of capable elites who do not regard popular rule as desirable.
People in general had pretty much become resigned to this until with the Global Crisis the shocking secret came out…..the “capable elites” are largely a bunch of venal , um, dicks.
I mean, the Rudd and Gillard governments are apparently amongst the _smartest_ governments in the world. That should be scary……
OK, in a nutshell, yeah, resdistribute Gina by all means. You’d probably be doing her a favour, she doesn’t look like a happy woman to me, but that is another story…
No to class warfare!
More cream, less dregs!
And Gina is cream, right?
The divine right to dig. Based only on Lang Hancock’s aerial surveys, a few good guesses and a mining lease or three.
And that entitles his daughter to overtake Bill Gates, Carlos Slim, and now Zuckerberg(?) as richest person in the world.
We must be joking.
Strip her of ALL of it. Now.
Strip her of all of it - we’d all be $3,000 richer, every year.
And she’d better shut up, as should Twiggy and Clive; the tumbrils are not entirely gone from the world.
Vive la Revolution.