🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3195aa6b.0@cheese.pcug.org.au> andrew@pcug.org.au (Andrew Boyd) 
writes:
>petemack@ozemail.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
>(chomp)
>>Glad he's not running the country then.  He'd promise us L.A.W. tax cuts,
>>but if you read between the lines, you'd see he really didn't mean it.
...
>What about the pre-election promises by the new regime?
>- no significant public service job cuts?
>- no cuts to childcare places?
>- no cuts to childcare allowance?
>- no timed local calls? (just wait for this one - it'll affect all
>private net users in Australia)
>- and last but not least, no new taxes, no new G.S.T. ("It's not a GST
>by another name, it's a tariff" and that other gem - referring to the
>disarmament tax (Costello on Sunday, today "It's not a tax, it's a
>one-off levy"). 

>Is there a credability gap here?  I know that there is with me.  IMHO
>you are a fool if you trust the new regime to be any better than the
>old. 
Well, let's summarize:
Regardless of promises no politician would come out and tell you "We will 
collect less money from you people!" All new policies are just a bunch of 
rules that re-shuffle the rules of how the ordinary people are paying what the 
government wants to collect. To some extent it can be argued that one taxing 
system is less fair, but in total the current government will collect the same 
real amount of taxes as the previous one... 
...
>He's a politician.  If you expect him or any like him from either side
>to implicitly tell the truth every time then you will be disappointed
>again and again.  They aren't there to tell the truth.  They are there
>to serve their country as best they see fit, and if that means telling
>a few porkies now and then, well, *most* of us expect that of them.
>Granted, it isn't ethical.  But it would seem by the repetitious
>nature of their fibbery that it is legal.
OK, you haven't met Senator Harradine. But then again - exception proves the 
rule, doesn't it?
Lubosh