Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Australia’s richest politician deserves our admiration
|
BRW produces its annual Rich List edition today. It apparently features just one current federal politician. As the ABC reports:
Mr Turnbull’s net worth is certain to become something of a media talking point in the next 24 hours … reports will be framed around an underlying assumption that he should in some way be embarrassed by his financial success. What rot. If only we had a parliament dotted with rich listers. Men and women who have achieved something in their lives more concrete than the stacking of party branches and the backstabbing of their colleagues. People who entered politics out of a sense of public spirit and duty, never mind the shabby pay and punishing hours. What a rich parliament it would be. |
|
|
10 Comments
Well, you could think of it like that. You could also think that businesses are run in order to generate profits for the shareholders and pay handsome salaries to those at the top. I suspect that a country run by business people would look to squeeze every last drop of sweat out its employees (or the general public) in order to provide increasing dividends to the shareholders in the government (the companies who ‘donate’ to them). Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
Who wrote this post by the way? Come on Crikey, get your act together.
This article is as one sided as those that postulate Turnbull should be embarressed by his wealth.
Let’s take everything into context here. If Turnbull is as rich as has been said in BRW magazine, then perhaps we may feel as though he isn’t in touch with those of us who are well, earning less than say $250 000 a year? (Most of us in other words) We’d be kidding ourselves to think that all the pollititians that make it as far as Malcom Turnbill has don’t have any sense of self richousness and enjoy the power this sort of position commands. It’s different to something you get in the private sector, and if someone has beaten the private sector in their mind, then moving to the public for a change isn’t out the question.
I’m certainly not saying that’s what Turnbull has definetly done, but we can’t assume he, along with many other pollititians haven’t done it either.
I agree with this article. Too many people criticise Malcolm Turnbull for his wealth. It’s just as bad as criticising someone at the other end of the socio-economic scale.
Wealth is the last thing Malcolm needs to worry about. He is a bit posh though. And posh Aussies are excruciating in the extreme
@Scoogsy: So, if this article is “as one sided as those that postulate Turnbull should be embarressed [sic] by his wealth”, then we have what’s called “balanced reporting”, yeah?
Personally, I think all the talk of politicians needing to be “in touch with” us is a bit creepy. And a furphy. No-one can be in touch with everyone in that way. We all have our own perspectives. If a rich man (by which you mean “richer than you”, so it’s really just envy, yeah?) isn’t “in touch with” you, just because of a differing bank balance, then presumably we shouldn’t have male politicians because they wouldn’t be “in touch with” women. Or female politicians because they wouldn’t be “in touch with” men.
I don’t want my leaders to be “in touch with” me. I want them to make sound, coherent decisions about the future of the country.
is crikey trying to poke the lefty’s in their audience? Between the “anyone can run for parliament if you dont like it” editorial and this ” only let the achievers(rich) in parliament”? I agree with stilgherran, I want them to do the job they appplied for, representing their electorate and governing for all. As all electorates differ we should see a robust parliament.
I agree with Mark Riboldi and Scoogsy. How dare Crikey run an article that isn’t unashameably left wing! I was digusted. Anyone who makes any money from private enterprise should automatically be disqualified from holding a seat in government.
We should instead populate parliament solely with academics who are aware of the theory of how to successfully run a business and an economy, rather than with people with long term track records of business success.
We should always tax the rich at 95% for every dollar they earn over $250,000 because anyone who earns that much is obviously fleecing other people out of money and could never actually be earning money legitimately.
How dare our politicians amass fortunes in private enterprise before deciding to give something back by going into public service.
This whole situation is appauling.
@ Damnumalone. Underneath your thin veil of irony, I suspect you don’t agree with me at all. Or bothered to understand what I was saying. Like Heathdon, I’m all for a robust and diverse parliament. I am wary though of large-scale corporate involvement in government, because I think the priorities of each are different.
My main gripe is that the article doesn’t have an author. People shouldn’t be writing opinion if they’re unwilling to put a name to it, even an psuedonym.
A parliament with rich-listers such as Bond, Anthony Pratt, James Packer and the loony Clive Palmer? Give us a break. Money and ethical intelligence are poles apart.
Mark - in regards to your suspicions, you would be correct. I took your “c’mon get your act together” as a disappointment in Crikey supporting someone on the right faction for once. I agree with you, I am for robust and diverse parliament also. My apologies.
Christine - thank you for the most extreme examples you could think of. no I do not think those people should be in parliament. What about some other rich people though? What about Dick Smith? You always know that Dick Smith has his heart in the right place, should we exclude him because he has money?
I notice also you mention the heirs, Anthony Pratt and James Packer rather than the people who actually knew about business, in Richard and Kerry. No I do not want spoilt heirs who have inherited their money out of luck in my parliament, I dont support putting Paris Hilton in parliament either. But Richard and Kerry Packer were two brilliant minds that I would have loved to see get a chance on the floor of the Senate or House of Reps.
Would you exclude Bill Gates from sitting in parliament because he has too much money? I doubt it.
Am I saying I think only rich people deserve seats at the table, no of course not. As Mark so kindly pointed out, robust and diverse parliament is the way forward. But what I am saying is that to leave out the minds who have been able to think outside the box and employ thousands of people in the process, is a silly notion. You should at least want their input. Where better to get an idea about how to boost employment than from someone who employs a thousand people?