|
The only problem with Peter Costello's under-reported idea of making groups that organise boycotts against
companies for moral or ethical reasons financially responsible is its
limited scope.
While Costello's target is animal welfare
groups who campaign against struggling designers like Gucci for using
animal fur, he should have the courage to go much further.
People making what are, in the modern
globalised world, totally outmoded ‘moral' arguments against
the ‘excesses' of free enterprise should have to pay for the trouble
they cause. It's about taking responsibility.
 It's time charities gave something back to the community
Charities
Charities are some of the worst offenders
at this moral thuggery. Their conscience-tugging campaigns have
cruelly played on middle class guilt leading to mass contributions to
the likes of ‘The Christian Children's Fund' and ‘The
Salvation Army'. If these monies had been used to produce more
as a society, who knows how many bridges could have been built, and
how our economy could have ballooned. With more for all, not just the
poverty-stricken few.
What they owe us: $220 billion
Unions
Their odious moral insistence that workers
‘need' safe workplaces and ‘fair' pay has caused many a business
to go to the wall. This in turn has ramifications for our whole
economy. Imagine how much more wealth there would be to go around
if only workers were paid less.
What they owe us: $200 billion
Farmers
The near-constant squawking and whinging
of these glorified gardeners has tugged many a government heartstring
into action. If it's not the ‘drought' it's ‘dry land
salinity', ‘cattle prices', ‘rabbit plagues' or some other
fictitious hardship that's dreamed up to make us feel some ethical
obligation to our inefficient and backward country cousins. Whether
it be diesel rebates to the tune of a billion dollars a year, subsidised
telephony, cheap postal, ten-billion-dollar Murray River plans or drought
assistance money, you name, it we've done it. Funnily enough, these
same government aid beggars tend to be the most hard-hearted about other forms
of welfare. So the fact that we let their whining have an affect on us probably has them in stitches.
What they owe us: $240 billion
Churches
Their moral posturings have been costing
society for over 2000 years. Isn't it time it stopped? Look
at the Ten Commandments for starters. Sure it begins all right. I mean, not worshipping other Gods before Jehovah is just plain efficient.
And fair enough, if we could cut out blasphemy, there'd be even more
time savings. But spending eons honouring your mother and father
is hardly helpful; next they'll be insisting on protecting weekend
penalty pay or paid holidays so families can spend time together.
And what about stealing and murdering and committing adultery?
Surely chasing up all these thoroughly natural impulses and insisting
offenders are prosecuted and gaoled etc wastes more time than it's
worth. And for what, so some people can feel better morally?
Maybe instead of wistfully staring off into space and dreaming up ways
we can all feel morally superior, these slackers could busy themselves
with the slightly more pressing and important issue of turning a dollar
What they owe us: $310 billion
Stan Zemanek
Stan Zemanek is scum.
What he owes us: Stan Zemanek is
scum
So there you have it. If Costello
gets some intestinal fortitude, we as a society stand to make about $970
billion. How many hospitals and schools could that build?
But if our Treasurer fails our purpose and thinks this is going too
far, isn't it time we added him to our list of ‘moral marauders'?
Isn't it time we started doing the maths on what HIS ethics are costing
this great nation?
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
[Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Biscuit March 6th, 2007 - 7:11 PM
But Tim, half the schools and hospitals are catholic or of some religious order. Won't it just be taking with one hand, giving with the other? Are you running for the senate? | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
fadeaway March 6th, 2007 - 8:29 PM
Return to articleBut Tim, half the schools and hospitals are catholic or of some religious order. Won't it just be taking with one hand, giving with the other? Are you running for the senate?
Don't worry about Tim, he never thinks through his ideas very well. | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Nick 2 March 6th, 2007 - 8:31 PM
Incredible as this may sound, I actually think the legislation is a good idea.
Don't you think people who cause a loss ought to take responsibility for restitution? | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
fadeaway March 6th, 2007 - 8:33 PM
Incredible as this may sound, I actually think the legislation is a good idea.
Don't you think people who cause a loss ought to take responsibility for restitution?
If you make a loss then you don't pay tax on it. It's tax deductible as well.  | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Nick 2 March 6th, 2007 - 8:35 PM
That's retarded. Not having to pay tax is a stupid reason to make a loss. | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Biscuit March 6th, 2007 - 8:35 PM
Incredible as this may sound, I actually think the legislation is a good idea.
Don't you think people who cause a loss ought to take responsibility for restitution?
Are you crazy? This goes against the very heart of the way we do business in Australia. A decent loss means a golden handshake, and maybe a ministerial portfolio! | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
fadeaway March 6th, 2007 - 8:41 PM
That's retarded. Not having to pay tax is a stupid reason to make a loss.
Not at all. It's a perfectly good reason, although it's actually illegal (Part IVA and all that).
However, one has to pretend that the loss is legitimate by creating fanciful things which don't actually exist, so no actual loss occurs, except in your tax return.
It's called accounting. | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Nick 2 March 6th, 2007 - 8:48 PM
I have much to learn. | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
fadeaway March 6th, 2007 - 8:49 PM
I have much to learn.
I know this. At least you're man enough to admit it. | [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Alarm Duck of Awesomeness March 7th, 2007 - 5:47 AM
Heh...I get to be the first to complain about:
subsidised telephony
What he owes us: Stan Zemanek is scum
Heh...we are owed a scummy Stan Zemanek? | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Mez March 7th, 2007 - 2:22 PM
Not at all. It's a perfectly good reason, although it's actually illegal (Part IVA and all that). However, one has to pretend that the loss is legitimate by creating fanciful things which don't actually exist, so no actual loss occurs, except in your tax return. It's called accounting.
You're an accountant aren't you, Fades?
Terrific article Timmy! I agree, it's certainly time those blood-sucking charities gave something back to the community.  | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
fadeaway March 7th, 2007 - 5:58 PM
You're an accountant aren't you, Fades?
Afraid so. And a Chartered one at that. *blows trumpet* | [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
pseudonym March 8th, 2007 - 9:37 PM
Hey Tim - great article. | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
squiggleyak March 9th, 2007 - 1:37 AM
that was almost....toobisian. | [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
bdude March 13th, 2007 - 3:38 AM
lol @ stan zemanak | [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
hammerondaridiculous March 14th, 2007 - 6:09 AM
So let me clarify my understanding of this proposal.
If you cause a loss to any involved parties because of the way you feel and believe about something, you should be made financially responsible?? Is that how it works? Is that Peter's Point?
CATHOLIC CHURCH BEWARE! AND THE MUSLIMS! Fuck - everyone!
This should be called the "Lawyers Paradise Legislation!"
So If I don't buy my coffee from Makfucktheworldforprofit, because I think that's not really a good thing for the rest of the users of this planet, then Makfucktheworldforprofit can sue me for the price of a cup of coffee?:
In that case, I think Peter will revise his idea very very quickly after the next election. - Pete - you make me go wee weees!
And they dump on Kim and anyone else who tries to take over the opposition leaders job
Journo's - Please bring this one into the public eye!
Please report this peice of nonsense! Widely! - oh! of course, John told Kerri, what's his name? James? that you should not!
Somehow, I don't think Pete will enjoy the consequences of the entire Liberal Party suing him for the financial losses caused when the Liberal Party loses the next election.
Except there's bound to be a politician exempt clause in his idea!
There usually is when an incompetent politician makes a really stupid idea - law!
It really annoys me that no politician will mandate an automatic death sentence for any politician who advocates war - that would be THE BEST LAW EVER! 
| Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
TimBrunero March 14th, 2007 - 7:56 PM
Heh...I get to be the first to complain about:
subsidised telephony
What he owes us: Stan Zemanek is scum
Heh...we are owed a scummy Stan Zemanek?
yeah he's called John Laws
| Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Biscuit March 14th, 2007 - 9:08 PM
yeah he's called John Laws
I thought the "John Laws" were things like:
* Don't pee on the seat
* Put the seat down after use
etc
Do I deserve a *groan* for that?
| Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
pseudonym March 15th, 2007 - 6:05 PM
Do I deserve a *groan* for that?
Yes. Yes you do. *groans* | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Hammo March 16th, 2007 - 8:48 AM
You mean to say that there are John Laws? I think I need to brush up on them.  | Re: [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Darq Gus April 4th, 2007 - 8:12 AM
I think I saw Stan Zemanek in the Australian movie Kenny. | [Article]It`s time to make the non-profits pay
Mr Pants April 7th, 2007 - 3:16 AM
Heh. |
(22) comments
|
