Wealthy benefit from reform
Before addressing D. Syme's challenge (Times letters, February 3) there are a couple of points that need to be highlighted. Enterprise/workplace agreements provided employers with flexibility and the removal of restrictive work practices, resulting in greater productivity.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Contrary to the theory that the benefits of workplace reform would be shared, employees did not benefit from the productivity gains. The emphasis should now be on preventing further loss of working and living conditions. I have no problem with businesses making profits, providing it is not at the expense of employees and they meet their tax commitment. Unfortunately there is a tendency for many small businesses not to pay award wages, pay cash in hand and avoid superannuation contributions. When it comes to big business the profits of banks, the result of high fees and lack of real competition, produces very little benefit and is paid to shareholders. At the same time branches are closed, the workforce is downsized and a large percentage of employees are casual or part-time.
Those well off need to make a greater contribution. For example, reduce the tax concessions related to superannuation which mainly advantage wealthy households. Other areas of revenue could come from cutting out negative gearing and the removal of capital gains tax concession both of which do nothing to make housing more affordable. The other obvious source of revenue is to get multinationals and other big businesses to pay their share of tax.
K. Bone, Conjola Park
Irresponsible drug stance
As an ex copper and a person who has never indulged in illegal drugs, I am incensed at the stance taken by Councillor Amanda Findley, in relation to the “waste of resources” in the recent raid on the Commercial Hotel.
Amanda Findley surely has a very conveniently short memory of recent well-publicised events elsewhere that have resulted in the death of patrons attending such “cruisy nights”.
I notice the article stated that Cr Findley lives just 100 metres from the Commercial Hotel. I don’t see the relevance of that information but, what I do find disturbing, is the fact Cr Findley, whoseems to have a relaxed view on the taking and detection of illegal drugs, lives adjacent to Milton Public School, attended by hundreds of impressionable and vulnerable children.
I am disappointed at the Times for putting a headline ‘Police ruin Milton gig’ over the story. I am also extremely disappointed at Cr Findley’s irresponsible and dismissive response to the issues.
R. Charlton, Milton
Merger ads propaganda
Contrary to the state government’s ads on radio and TV there has been no community consultation in our area re the councils merging. So their ads smack of propaganda to me.
Our South Coast MP is a member of the Liberal state government and has been particularly quiet on the proposed amalgamation along with our mayor, who is also a former Liberal member in the House of Representatives.
What are they hiding from us? Have they been gagged? Why the secrecy? Who suggested this merger?
Professor Brian Dollery, director of the Centre for Local Government at the University of New England, says the NSW council amalgamation report is full of errors and ignores what it wants to ignore.
I see this as cost cutting with the opportunity for the state government to get its greedy hands on our golden resource/asset - Shoalhaven Water - and the loss of jobs and services.
I would like to keep our communities run by community representatives who know and care about those who they represent.