Saturday, January 29, 2011
Not happy Julia? Flood victims 'lash out' over Labor tax grab.
Just couldn't let this one go today.
Rosanne Barrett, under the headline "Not happy, Julia Gillard - we've done our bit," writes in today's Australian that front page pictured Samantha Gregg "doesn't begrudge her neighbours in flood-hit New Farm more help - it's just that she believes she did her bit before the government came along and put its hand in her pocket."
It turns out by paragraph two that she is prepared to pay the tax but is not "happy" about it.
By paragraph four it is belatedly revealed that Ms Gregg will not even have to pay the levy, because she earns under $50,000 as an administration worker. Her partner, who earns more as an electrician, may have to pay but is "O.K." with it given that it is only a one off.
As we move along, we are told that Oxlade Drive mother of one Gabrielle Edwards, another flood victim, is in fact so unimpressed with the levy that she is going to pay it regardless of the fact that she could get an exemption (because she qualifies for flood relief assistance). She argues that she doesn't "think we can do enough for people who were affected. If taxes pay for people who were affected by this flood then I'm glad to be part of this society."
Mrs Edwards sounds positively incensed that we live in this kind of society.
Jan Carol, who lives on the riverfront, concurs with Mrs Edwards, having "not even considered applying for the payment," and further to that "did not mind contributing to the tax."
Outraged!
Student Waylon Palmer adds his voice to the growing chorus of dissent, stating that he agrees with the levy in order to get disaster areas back in business as soon as possible.
Although statistically wanting (there are none), a pretty positive snap-survey of opinion I would offer. Not that you would know that reading the headline. While I am personally skeptical regarding the levy, as are most Australians according to the FR, that doesn't change the fact that Barrett's headline brazenly disregards even the meager anecdotal evidence offered in her own article.
I read a while back that 44% of Google News readers read only headlines. Let's hope readers of 'The Oz' are a little more curious than that.
Tweet This
Rosanne Barrett, under the headline "Not happy, Julia Gillard - we've done our bit," writes in today's Australian that front page pictured Samantha Gregg "doesn't begrudge her neighbours in flood-hit New Farm more help - it's just that she believes she did her bit before the government came along and put its hand in her pocket."
It turns out by paragraph two that she is prepared to pay the tax but is not "happy" about it.
By paragraph four it is belatedly revealed that Ms Gregg will not even have to pay the levy, because she earns under $50,000 as an administration worker. Her partner, who earns more as an electrician, may have to pay but is "O.K." with it given that it is only a one off.
As we move along, we are told that Oxlade Drive mother of one Gabrielle Edwards, another flood victim, is in fact so unimpressed with the levy that she is going to pay it regardless of the fact that she could get an exemption (because she qualifies for flood relief assistance). She argues that she doesn't "think we can do enough for people who were affected. If taxes pay for people who were affected by this flood then I'm glad to be part of this society."
Mrs Edwards sounds positively incensed that we live in this kind of society.
Jan Carol, who lives on the riverfront, concurs with Mrs Edwards, having "not even considered applying for the payment," and further to that "did not mind contributing to the tax."
Outraged!
Student Waylon Palmer adds his voice to the growing chorus of dissent, stating that he agrees with the levy in order to get disaster areas back in business as soon as possible.
Although statistically wanting (there are none), a pretty positive snap-survey of opinion I would offer. Not that you would know that reading the headline. While I am personally skeptical regarding the levy, as are most Australians according to the FR, that doesn't change the fact that Barrett's headline brazenly disregards even the meager anecdotal evidence offered in her own article.
I read a while back that 44% of Google News readers read only headlines. Let's hope readers of 'The Oz' are a little more curious than that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment