"This is utter nonsense, it was entirely the GG's initiative. He represents the Queen completely, for her even to have been consulted would have been a breach of protocol."
You must have missunderstood the bit where I said "via the governer general". Perhaps I was unclear, or perhaps your comprehension sucks, either way I apologise if I gave the impression that the Queen was personally involved in the sacking.
Having said that, the Queen "did it", she just didn't know "she dun it" until after the fact and thus preserved her apolitical stance, a matter of protocol only.
For your edification, section 58 of the Australian constitution:
"When a proposed law passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure." - ie: Every law is rubber stamped by the Queen, but she avoids getting any ink on her own fingers.
"And I've no idea what you mean by "double dissolution" as a cause, perhaps you mean dissolution was the effect?"
Your tell me I speak "utter nonsense", yet you don't have a clue what a double dissolution is? Can you see now, how it "caused" Australia's "constitutional crisis"?
To summarize, Notice the part in section 58 that says "passed by both Houses of Parliament", Labour had the house of reps and Liberal had the senate, the senate "blocked supply" to force an election, ie: the GG could not use his rubber stamp because bills were not getting past both houses. This is not a unique situation, the difference was that Gough decided to play hard ball by repeatedly presenting the bills to the senate rather than withdrawing the bills or calling an election (using "protocol" an election should be called after the second rejection by the senate). Gough deliberately ignored "protocol" and created a legislative and fiscal deadlock that required some sort of "cuircuit breaker". He could have preemptively sacked the GG, but the GG got in first. And yes the "circuit breaker" was in effect a dissolution of the government but as you can see, that is not what I meant!
Personally I think it was a perfectly pragmatic thing to do, and if Gough had not made the GG's actions the one and only issue in his re-election campaign he would have stood a much better chance of gaining the mandate he thought he had when he was sacked. All it did, (to anyone who understood the issue at the time), was make him look like a spoilt brat that couldn't get his own way, the opposition fought the election by critsising the laws they were refusing to pass and largely ignored the contraversy by stating they were "using the constitution as a means to ask the people to decide", that effectively painted Gough as a "pinko", unsurprisingly they won. The constitution "worked" and nothing changed in that respect, the real legacy of Gough was universal health cover that now recieves strong bi-lateral support, but most people remeber him as the PM that got sacked.
How do I know all this - I was there then, and I'm still here now.
Mosquito nets + sensible use of personal repelant is more effective and cheaper in the long run, but when a net costs a weeks wages they are not a high priority on the family budget.
The Queen (via the Gov. General) sacked the Australian goverment in the 70's, much to the surprise of many Aussies at the time. The reason was a double dissolution with the incumbent refusing to call an election. I assume she has similar powers over the UK government under similar circumstances.
Other than that she pretty much minds her own bussiness and was completely apolitical when Aussies had a referendum on becoming a republic a few years back (the referendum failed to pass).
"They were either retarded or stoned our of their minds (same difference, really).
--
Life is too short not to be drunk out of your mind day and night."
I'm confused, is your sig intended to be ironic or retarded./sarcasm
Yes, a parody of a parody in reply to a public challenge to defend thier trademark tells me someone with a bit of class and dignity is on the ball at that company.
True it started of on a modest scale, but Anslinger was the one who turned the domestic quirk of prohibition into a global sacred cow. The war on drugs is simply the latest excuse in a long line of excuses to beat up on a section of society. Drug users and terrorists have taken on the roles in society previously occupied by the "gooks" and "niggers" of my early childhood. Money and power seem to be the only constants in the seemingly endless line of ideological excuses offered for what in many cases amounts to oppression of individuals and/or small nations....and who the hell put up borders on my planet anyway?
"If I mouth off about this, or any other subject, you might want to consider if there might be a reason - particularly when I make it clear that it is not on an emotional basis but on intellectual or professional grounds."
You originally prefaced your speculation with "To answer the question:", however you also claimed the speculation of the archaeologists made them look "stupid". The fact that both versions are speculation by knowledgable people makes your argument the one that is laden with emotion. Thus the reason for my non-intellectual response, I had already assumed you had some knowledge of the subject.
In short, I recognise that what you are saying is a reasonable argument, my point is you are not doing yourself any favours by lacing your argument with ad-homs and arrogance.
"I find it nice on those rare occasions when someone disagrees with me on an intellectual level, I wish it happened more often."
On an intellectual level: I find myself broadly in agreement with your definitions of science and religion, the power of existing theories, the fact that an armchair expert can know more about a specific subject than someone qualified in the broader disipline, the fact that everyone is failable, the (implied on your part) fact that all debate is subject to emotions, and the relevance of a low uid to any of this.
On an emotional level: It's a pity you combine your thoughts with unwarranted personal attacks on the people who you are disagreeing with on an "intellectual level" (ie: the archaeologists). It's also kind of hypocritical when you then complain that others do the same to you, reap what you sow and all that. Further, when someone points out the emotions in your argument (ie: me), you proceed to deny your arguments have any, and assume the person who pointed them out has the philisophical and scientific credibility of a creationist in a biology lecture.
Occam's Razor: Try an emprical experiment on my emotional theory. For X posts, where X > 100, create your intellectual posts without using ad-homs, maybe even show some respect for your opponents understanding of their chosen disipline. Test to see if the ratio of intellectual/emotional responses shows a significant improvement over the currently small number you are complaining about.
I was born in the UK but grew up in Australia, I visited the UK last year for the first time since 1966. I know exactly what you mean, I had a chance to wander through a neolitic village near John O'Groats (the guy at the B&B told us how to find it), it was all overgrown by long grass as it had only recently been excavated and partialy reburried, it was larger and in similar condintion to the nearby Skara Brea (including the Flintstone style furniture). You cannot visit places like that and fail to feel a connection with the long lost souls who built it.
One thing the neolithic people who built the stone circles had in common with their castle and church building ancestors was their eye for spectacular real-estate.
"The history of the area is confusing, though less because of the facts and more because of a desire to dramatize. There really isn't any need to make things sound more amazing than they really are, and all the archaeologists do when they do that is make themselves look stupid to anyone who knows even a little of the history of the region."
One of the "facts" is that the buildings showed no real evidence of people living in them (ie: no domestic waste from "holiday makers"). That kind of shoots down your "I know better than the archeologists" rant that is based on a little knowledge and an apparent predisposition to translate everything into modern cultural terms. Occam's Razor may be good for deciding the simplest theory that explains a particular phenomena but it's is of no real use when talking about human behaviour in a very distant culture. (eg: A rain dance may be performed repeatedly until it rains at which point it is declared to have "worked", the dance is simply a random ritual and as such is more or less immune to a logic tool that removes unessasary random components).
"There really isn't any need to make things sound more amazing than they really are, and all the archaeologists do when they do that is make themselves look stupid to anyone who knows even a little of the history of the region."
I agree that a little knowledge can lead people into wild fantasy, but I don't think that particular problem lies with the archaeologists in this case. The archaeologists evidence for their version of events may be weak, your questions may be pertinent but your bald assertions don't even register.
I agree, geeks only every call ISP's to tell them the problem is at their end, and if you show them you know the help desk routine by pre-empting their questions in the initial problem description, it's normaly easy to convince them quickly.
I also agree that the majority of users are not geeks. Many will not even put in the half-hour or so of effort required to learn the basics of FPS movement via keyboard and mouse. I once had the idea of a "fixed for $50 plus parts or it's free" service to home users but then I thought some people I know drive me bat-shit with stuff like responding to spam and installing any old crap that has the word free attached to it. Why encourage it after they have repeatedly demonstrated they won't read or can't comprehend a "for dummies" guide, it's like encouraging a bad salior to loose sight of dry land!
Speaking of the technically challeneged (TC), I once worked with a linesman who's explanation for a streched phone cable fault to TC customers was "fat electrons". -- Yep "look here, I'll show you", these (rather common) fat electrons "clog" the individual thin wiress in the microsopic gap underneath the screw joint...like cotton balls would clog the drain in the sink...*pause for nodding agreement*.... SO, we unscrew the wires one at a time, and re-tighten the screws with a neat join...see, easy.....and we don't mind if you do it yourself since there is no danger of a shock...except maybe in a thunderstorm....,here try the other wire...that's it...blah,bulshit,blah...sign here...have a nice day.
The "war on drugs" can pretty much be traced back to the crusade of one Harry J. Anslinger. However it was still motivated by racisim as it is today, eg: $2B in attack choppers to Burma's miltary junta in the 90's, to be used to "intercept and destroy drugs reaching US shores". How many Apache helicopters patrol beverly-hills, would it be acceptable to blow up a small village in the US to aid the drug war, how many small villages?
I do however agree with the idea of a "war on terror", we should start by eradicating the sources of terror that we have some control over. ie: Take away the right of democratic governments to kill anyone (including their own citizens) or to declare war against anyone, for reasons other than the immediate self defence of the nation. In short give up on state sponsered revenge. (yeah I know, the concept of equality in a tribal species is a pointless waste of time)
Then there is the strange behaviour of one Dr Jacob who commendered the bones on behalf of the Indonesian state, cut off access to them by other scientists (including the discoverers), published his own ideas, and refused to allow digging to continue.
I understand the Indonesians want control over their own heritige and they are certainly entitled to it, but if it were not for this one man's apparent desire to dictate the conclusion we would have more data and less dogma.
"The fact all the other bones in the cave were of the same size and represent several indiviuals should put to rest it was a disease."
Thanks, for a while there I thought my memory was faulty. IIRC there were 9 indiviuals and one skull found before Jacob shut them down.
"Prizes" given away on game shows are not taxed at all, in fact the company giving away the prize can write the cost of the promotion off at tax time. Gambling attracts a 5-15% "sales tax" on every wager. If someone makes a bet on the lottery for $1 and wins $1M, they will pay a maximum of $0.15 tax on their $1M "prize". How far under the "poverty line" do you have to be to get that sort of deal from income tax calculations?
Gambling with odds that gaurentee you will loose in the long run is what I would call retarded, making it simple for retards to do so is just good business sense.
"The Democratic party has a lot of people (especially young people) with a lot of people who really want to make positive changes in the world; this sort of passion, while commendable, is primarily emotional in nature, not rational, and routinely risks falling into traps where catchy slogans take precedence over well-reasoned arguments, and being diverted by either those merely looking to profit or gain power from it."
Politicians of all stripes advertise their dreams, many end up delivering nightmares.
"Clearly, all of the above are also pet agendas in Australia (especially gun control after the knee-jerk reactions to ONE psychopath's killing spree)."
Last time I checked Australia was still a democracy that was not founded on it's own constitution. According to opinion polls 80+% of the population strongly support our current gun laws.
Clearly there are right-wing wacko's in the US who speak of freedom in an attempt to ram their idea of it down my throat. I suggest you take your "pet agenda" for my country and shove it up your star spangled arse.
Yes, that's right, the state gets ~15% of the total pot that goes into the gambling industry, but as I pointed out somewhere else, company promo's and charity raffles are not taxed. A company that gives away a car gets to write off the cost. You could say we tax the sinners not the winners, but I think it's just political pragmatisim to have what amounts to a sales tax on "entertainment" and a tax credit on "advertising".:)
That's a good point, I was only talking about the gambling industry, not company promo's. AFAIK: A company running a promo gets a tax write off and the winner gets a tax free prize, however you do need some sort of state permit to run the promo. Other states could be slightly different (there is something in SA about not having to purchase a product to enter), but all states rely to a similar degree on revenue from gaming and more or less just watch companies that run competitions.
Not that the taxman is above stooping for small change, but the revenue from the Aussie gaming industry dwarfs any revenues they could possible hope to get from company promo's. It has not always been this way, "windfalls" used to be taxed but there have been huge "reforms" and a "convergence" in gambling laws across the country in the last few decades. Every state capital has at least one casino, all were founded in the last three decades or so and are now touted by their respective governments as "tourist destinations".
I'm not sure about other states but here in Victoria the state govt takes ~15% of lottery and other major gambling transactions (excluding the stock market;). The organiser is also restricted on what percentages they can take. In the main the taxation and profit percentages on gambling is fairly transparent and distributed amoungst all players.
There are a lot more gambling options here than there were 30yrs ago and the state rakes in the revenue. There has been a well publicised "increase in problem gambling", or mabye it's just a "problem" because it shifted from "husbands and horses" to "housewifes and pokies". Just my impressions, no hard stats, and I'm almost positive I'm over-generalising the sexes.
Ahhhh, yes, well...I wasn't thinking about "social welfare" type discounts, I agree that for some borderline cases (+/-$2K) a raise can sometimes mean an overall loss at tax time, paid overtime can also be "problem" in that respect.
OTOH: You could spend the extra (in your example) $2 on unpaid leave and still retain the better tax deal! No offense, but I can't help thinking "what's for lunch" when my accountant talks about these things for more than 3min. It's kind of like financial ADD, I have to force myself to think about tax, super,...., ummm, what's for lunch?
Slashdot Mirror
"This is utter nonsense, it was entirely the GG's initiative. He represents the Queen completely, for her even to have been consulted would have been a breach of protocol."
You must have missunderstood the bit where I said "via the governer general". Perhaps I was unclear, or perhaps your comprehension sucks, either way I apologise if I gave the impression that the Queen was personally involved in the sacking.
Having said that, the Queen "did it", she just didn't know "she dun it" until after the fact and thus preserved her apolitical stance, a matter of protocol only.
For your edification, section 58 of the Australian constitution:
"When a proposed law passed by both Houses of Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure." - ie: Every law is rubber stamped by the Queen, but she avoids getting any ink on her own fingers.
"And I've no idea what you mean by "double dissolution" as a cause, perhaps you mean dissolution was the effect?"
Your tell me I speak "utter nonsense", yet you don't have a clue what a double dissolution is? Can you see now, how it "caused" Australia's "constitutional crisis"?
To summarize, Notice the part in section 58 that says "passed by both Houses of Parliament", Labour had the house of reps and Liberal had the senate, the senate "blocked supply" to force an election, ie: the GG could not use his rubber stamp because bills were not getting past both houses. This is not a unique situation, the difference was that Gough decided to play hard ball by repeatedly presenting the bills to the senate rather than withdrawing the bills or calling an election (using "protocol" an election should be called after the second rejection by the senate). Gough deliberately ignored "protocol" and created a legislative and fiscal deadlock that required some sort of "cuircuit breaker". He could have preemptively sacked the GG, but the GG got in first. And yes the "circuit breaker" was in effect a dissolution of the government but as you can see, that is not what I meant!
Personally I think it was a perfectly pragmatic thing to do, and if Gough had not made the GG's actions the one and only issue in his re-election campaign he would have stood a much better chance of gaining the mandate he thought he had when he was sacked. All it did, (to anyone who understood the issue at the time), was make him look like a spoilt brat that couldn't get his own way, the opposition fought the election by critsising the laws they were refusing to pass and largely ignored the contraversy by stating they were "using the constitution as a means to ask the people to decide", that effectively painted Gough as a "pinko", unsurprisingly they won. The constitution "worked" and nothing changed in that respect, the real legacy of Gough was universal health cover that now recieves strong bi-lateral support, but most people remeber him as the PM that got sacked.
How do I know all this - I was there then, and I'm still here now.
Mosquito nets + sensible use of personal repelant is more effective and cheaper in the long run, but when a net costs a weeks wages they are not a high priority on the family budget.
"thanks for the cheap fuel"
Quiet, if you tell the whole world you have cheap fuel, someone is likely to liberate you and/or the fuel.
The Queen (via the Gov. General) sacked the Australian goverment in the 70's, much to the surprise of many Aussies at the time. The reason was a double dissolution with the incumbent refusing to call an election. I assume she has similar powers over the UK government under similar circumstances.
Other than that she pretty much minds her own bussiness and was completely apolitical when Aussies had a referendum on becoming a republic a few years back (the referendum failed to pass).
"They were either retarded or stoned our of their minds (same difference, really).
/sarcasm
--
Life is too short not to be drunk out of your mind day and night."
I'm confused, is your sig intended to be ironic or retarded.
Yes, a parody of a parody in reply to a public challenge to defend thier trademark tells me someone with a bit of class and dignity is on the ball at that company.
True it started of on a modest scale, but Anslinger was the one who turned the domestic quirk of prohibition into a global sacred cow. The war on drugs is simply the latest excuse in a long line of excuses to beat up on a section of society. Drug users and terrorists have taken on the roles in society previously occupied by the "gooks" and "niggers" of my early childhood. Money and power seem to be the only constants in the seemingly endless line of ideological excuses offered for what in many cases amounts to oppression of individuals and/or small nations....and who the hell put up borders on my planet anyway?
"If I mouth off about this, or any other subject, you might want to consider if there might be a reason - particularly when I make it clear that it is not on an emotional basis but on intellectual or professional grounds."
You originally prefaced your speculation with "To answer the question:", however you also claimed the speculation of the archaeologists made them look "stupid". The fact that both versions are speculation by knowledgable people makes your argument the one that is laden with emotion. Thus the reason for my non-intellectual response, I had already assumed you had some knowledge of the subject.
In short, I recognise that what you are saying is a reasonable argument, my point is you are not doing yourself any favours by lacing your argument with ad-homs and arrogance.
"I find it nice on those rare occasions when someone disagrees with me on an intellectual level, I wish it happened more often."
On an intellectual level: I find myself broadly in agreement with your definitions of science and religion, the power of existing theories, the fact that an armchair expert can know more about a specific subject than someone qualified in the broader disipline, the fact that everyone is failable, the (implied on your part) fact that all debate is subject to emotions, and the relevance of a low uid to any of this.
On an emotional level: It's a pity you combine your thoughts with unwarranted personal attacks on the people who you are disagreeing with on an "intellectual level" (ie: the archaeologists). It's also kind of hypocritical when you then complain that others do the same to you, reap what you sow and all that. Further, when someone points out the emotions in your argument (ie: me), you proceed to deny your arguments have any, and assume the person who pointed them out has the philisophical and scientific credibility of a creationist in a biology lecture.
Occam's Razor: Try an emprical experiment on my emotional theory. For X posts, where X > 100, create your intellectual posts without using ad-homs, maybe even show some respect for your opponents understanding of their chosen disipline. Test to see if the ratio of intellectual/emotional responses shows a significant improvement over the currently small number you are complaining about.
I was born in the UK but grew up in Australia, I visited the UK last year for the first time since 1966. I know exactly what you mean, I had a chance to wander through a neolitic village near John O'Groats (the guy at the B&B told us how to find it), it was all overgrown by long grass as it had only recently been excavated and partialy reburried, it was larger and in similar condintion to the nearby Skara Brea (including the Flintstone style furniture). You cannot visit places like that and fail to feel a connection with the long lost souls who built it.
One thing the neolithic people who built the stone circles had in common with their castle and church building ancestors was their eye for spectacular real-estate.
"The history of the area is confusing, though less because of the facts and more because of a desire to dramatize. There really isn't any need to make things sound more amazing than they really are, and all the archaeologists do when they do that is make themselves look stupid to anyone who knows even a little of the history of the region."
One of the "facts" is that the buildings showed no real evidence of people living in them (ie: no domestic waste from "holiday makers"). That kind of shoots down your "I know better than the archeologists" rant that is based on a little knowledge and an apparent predisposition to translate everything into modern cultural terms. Occam's Razor may be good for deciding the simplest theory that explains a particular phenomena but it's is of no real use when talking about human behaviour in a very distant culture. (eg: A rain dance may be performed repeatedly until it rains at which point it is declared to have "worked", the dance is simply a random ritual and as such is more or less immune to a logic tool that removes unessasary random components).
"There really isn't any need to make things sound more amazing than they really are, and all the archaeologists do when they do that is make themselves look stupid to anyone who knows even a little of the history of the region."
I agree that a little knowledge can lead people into wild fantasy, but I don't think that particular problem lies with the archaeologists in this case. The archaeologists evidence for their version of events may be weak, your questions may be pertinent but your bald assertions don't even register.
I agree, geeks only every call ISP's to tell them the problem is at their end, and if you show them you know the help desk routine by pre-empting their questions in the initial problem description, it's normaly easy to convince them quickly.
I also agree that the majority of users are not geeks. Many will not even put in the half-hour or so of effort required to learn the basics of FPS movement via keyboard and mouse. I once had the idea of a "fixed for $50 plus parts or it's free" service to home users but then I thought some people I know drive me bat-shit with stuff like responding to spam and installing any old crap that has the word free attached to it. Why encourage it after they have repeatedly demonstrated they won't read or can't comprehend a "for dummies" guide, it's like encouraging a bad salior to loose sight of dry land!
Speaking of the technically challeneged (TC), I once worked with a linesman who's explanation for a streched phone cable fault to TC customers was "fat electrons". -- Yep "look here, I'll show you", these (rather common) fat electrons "clog" the individual thin wiress in the microsopic gap underneath the screw joint...like cotton balls would clog the drain in the sink...*pause for nodding agreement*.... SO, we unscrew the wires one at a time, and re-tighten the screws with a neat join...see, easy.....and we don't mind if you do it yourself since there is no danger of a shock...except maybe in a thunderstorm....,here try the other wire...that's it...blah,bulshit,blah...sign here...have a nice day.
"not exactly sure where the line is drawn between troll and flamebait"
It's more like a bridge than a line.
The "war on drugs" can pretty much be traced back to the crusade of one Harry J. Anslinger. However it was still motivated by racisim as it is today, eg: $2B in attack choppers to Burma's miltary junta in the 90's, to be used to "intercept and destroy drugs reaching US shores". How many Apache helicopters patrol beverly-hills, would it be acceptable to blow up a small village in the US to aid the drug war, how many small villages?
I do however agree with the idea of a "war on terror", we should start by eradicating the sources of terror that we have some control over. ie: Take away the right of democratic governments to kill anyone (including their own citizens) or to declare war against anyone, for reasons other than the immediate self defence of the nation. In short give up on state sponsered revenge. (yeah I know, the concept of equality in a tribal species is a pointless waste of time)
Tax rules for prizes - Australian tax office website, look to the source AC, look to the source.
Then there is the strange behaviour of one Dr Jacob who commendered the bones on behalf of the Indonesian state, cut off access to them by other scientists (including the discoverers), published his own ideas, and refused to allow digging to continue.
I understand the Indonesians want control over their own heritige and they are certainly entitled to it, but if it were not for this one man's apparent desire to dictate the conclusion we would have more data and less dogma.
"The fact all the other bones in the cave were of the same size and represent several indiviuals should put to rest it was a disease."
Thanks, for a while there I thought my memory was faulty. IIRC there were 9 indiviuals and one skull found before Jacob shut them down.
"Prizes" given away on game shows are not taxed at all, in fact the company giving away the prize can write the cost of the promotion off at tax time. Gambling attracts a 5-15% "sales tax" on every wager. If someone makes a bet on the lottery for $1 and wins $1M, they will pay a maximum of $0.15 tax on their $1M "prize". How far under the "poverty line" do you have to be to get that sort of deal from income tax calculations?
Gambling with odds that gaurentee you will loose in the long run is what I would call retarded, making it simple for retards to do so is just good business sense.
"draw specious conclusions based on no evidence when it suits there agenda."
"Probably end up in politics."
Yes minister!
"The Democratic party has a lot of people (especially young people) with a lot of people who really want to make positive changes in the world; this sort of passion, while commendable, is primarily emotional in nature, not rational, and routinely risks falling into traps where catchy slogans take precedence over well-reasoned arguments, and being diverted by either those merely looking to profit or gain power from it."
Politicians of all stripes advertise their dreams, many end up delivering nightmares.
Errata: "that was not founded" should read "that was founded".
"Clearly, all of the above are also pet agendas in Australia (especially gun control after the knee-jerk reactions to ONE psychopath's killing spree)."
Last time I checked Australia was still a democracy that was not founded on it's own constitution. According to opinion polls 80+% of the population strongly support our current gun laws.
Clearly there are right-wing wacko's in the US who speak of freedom in an attempt to ram their idea of it down my throat. I suggest you take your "pet agenda" for my country and shove it up your star spangled arse.
Yes, that's right, the state gets ~15% of the total pot that goes into the gambling industry, but as I pointed out somewhere else, company promo's and charity raffles are not taxed. A company that gives away a car gets to write off the cost. You could say we tax the sinners not the winners, but I think it's just political pragmatisim to have what amounts to a sales tax on "entertainment" and a tax credit on "advertising". :)
I thank you for not judging Aussies by our prime minister, I will return the favour. :)
That's a good point, I was only talking about the gambling industry, not company promo's. AFAIK: A company running a promo gets a tax write off and the winner gets a tax free prize, however you do need some sort of state permit to run the promo. Other states could be slightly different (there is something in SA about not having to purchase a product to enter), but all states rely to a similar degree on revenue from gaming and more or less just watch companies that run competitions.
Not that the taxman is above stooping for small change, but the revenue from the Aussie gaming industry dwarfs any revenues they could possible hope to get from company promo's. It has not always been this way, "windfalls" used to be taxed but there have been huge "reforms" and a "convergence" in gambling laws across the country in the last few decades. Every state capital has at least one casino, all were founded in the last three decades or so and are now touted by their respective governments as "tourist destinations".
I'm not sure about other states but here in Victoria the state govt takes ~15% of lottery and other major gambling transactions (excluding the stock market ;). The organiser is also restricted on what percentages they can take. In the main the taxation and profit percentages on gambling is fairly transparent and distributed amoungst all players.
There are a lot more gambling options here than there were 30yrs ago and the state rakes in the revenue. There has been a well publicised "increase in problem gambling", or mabye it's just a "problem" because it shifted from "husbands and horses" to "housewifes and pokies". Just my impressions, no hard stats, and I'm almost positive I'm over-generalising the sexes.
"the retirement savings credit"
...., ummm, what's for lunch?
Ahhhh, yes, well...I wasn't thinking about "social welfare" type discounts, I agree that for some borderline cases (+/-$2K) a raise can sometimes mean an overall loss at tax time, paid overtime can also be "problem" in that respect.
OTOH: You could spend the extra (in your example) $2 on unpaid leave and still retain the better tax deal! No offense, but I can't help thinking "what's for lunch" when my accountant talks about these things for more than 3min. It's kind of like financial ADD, I have to force myself to think about tax, super,