Levels :
Liberals are saying that the "poor" (the vulnerable) will not be hit the hardest . I have noticed information going back and fourth with limitations on how to express the issues . Labor says effects poor , Liberals then say effects everyone the same , each time forwarding the current focus without actually re-visiting the past knowledge (heightening informatives - creating a "further" narrow path of descriptions)
Overlook :
Politicians are surrounded by constant "heightening" statements , "manipulative" informatives (Liberal & Labor) constantly opposing each other , heightening each other with combative statements that can also cause "friction" or "frustration" , hence elevating (causing often negative public reactives) , also based on positives & negatives , they struggle to express all their topic "direct" as a result , 'often' . They are surrounded by "security" and that will give them confidence formed from knowledge of being vulnerable , creating leveling , they never are "public" once in politics and are never "really" understanding or adapt of "low-level incomes" , how people actually live , I call this overlook (diminished or narrowed information of the "pain" people are actually surrounded in) also is due to angle of view - "viewing angle/s" .
Their training and study is a "direct" informative , its a form of psychological input (learning and levelling/heighening there of) hence their surrounding being more impacting , a heightened level that can "diminish" appearance of lower levels , even when start out and start engaging in politics , they are subject to progressional heightening . They have awareness of their "level" how their impact is perceived (which can create levelling) how to direct information , how information is spoken - directed and perceived, with limitations to all these , no one having whole thought acuity (example : possible knowledge of war tactics , movements , directions) This can also "narrow" a whole perspective or even a specific focus (majority vs minority , instead of individual and the individual's needs)
Fairness :
Its obvious to "thinking" people (as Paul Murray puts it on occasions) that the poor are most heavily effected , they were on "rations" money to begin with .
Example : A working person earns $60,000 a year
A poor person is provided $20,000 a year
- You take $5,000 from the working person with budget measures
- You take $800 from the poor person
Who is effected in this situation ? Answer : The poor person . Yes the working person has bills , has money going into various commitments (just like the poor person ) Though you will find the person earning $60,000 a year may still struggle , but they have more money "to manipulate finances" with in first place and still "in end" . The person earning $60,000 also is already being provisioned with better life still e.g : Healthier nutrition options , more activity's & entertainment , when the poor person was already in a "restriction" they can not afford "already" to entertain themselves (go out as much , pay for petrol as a commodity etc . . )
Money makes money as well , its a system for wealthy.
Liberals idea is fairness , so they try to be fair to the "majority" taking from wealthier and poorer at same time , a popular move but certainly not fairness , obviously taking from the "already restricted" will impact more than taking from someone wealthier . The wealthy have to go from fillet steak for example to rump , the poor from mince to ...? Of course the wealthy will kick up a stink and think it is unfair , like anyone they want to save "keep their money" , though the poor mostly can not save .
An example of differences :
(only)
$60,000 a year :
Nutrition - Ability to keep nutritionally stable
Fuel - Ability to keep petrol in car and have little to no thought about if run out money to refuel .
Bills - Ability to stay on top or on time
Entertainment - More variables in life , less focus on negatives , less sitting around with "over-thought"
Paying tax - Receiving tax as well
Simply more options & more variety ability , more control , happier
$20,000 a year :
Nutrition - Lacking nutrition , effecting health (more issues) , effecting even things like focus ability to get a job
Fuel - Constant worry about running out , need to be extra careful (stress impacting etc.)
Bills - Harder to stay on top with levels of money at a lower "manageable" rate
Entertainment - Increased boredom (effects psyche , may even impact on how one is perceived in job search "positive vs negative") Ability to get "out" narrowed substantially , social limitations
Paying Tax - n/a (pays tax on food , cigarettes , alcohol : the poor having more time on hands and as result have increased susceptibility to trying to alter state/moods & susceptible to influence (weakened states from nutrition/medications : sleep deprivation)
Less options and ability
As you can see from only "narrowed examples" the wealthy have a higher rate to purchase in first place by far , ability to control is at a higher rate than someone living on or below poverty line . Though I am below poverty line with my financial situation , so my opinion is formed from there . I am sure you could "manipulate" this article into supporting a need to share the impact of budget "including taking more from poor" - "maybe" (mis-informatives , mis-direction : language is very powerful and has its complexity & angles )
Overlook :
Politicians are surrounded by constant "heightening" statements , "manipulative" informatives (Liberal & Labor) constantly opposing each other , heightening each other with combative statements that can also cause "friction" or "frustration" , hence elevating (causing often negative public reactives) , also based on positives & negatives , they struggle to express all their topic "direct" as a result , 'often' . They are surrounded by "security" and that will give them confidence formed from knowledge of being vulnerable , creating leveling , they never are "public" once in politics and are never "really" understanding or adapt of "low-level incomes" , how people actually live , I call this overlook (diminished or narrowed information of the "pain" people are actually surrounded in) also is due to angle of view - "viewing angle/s" .
Their training and study is a "direct" informative , its a form of psychological input (learning and levelling/heighening there of) hence their surrounding being more impacting , a heightened level that can "diminish" appearance of lower levels , even when start out and start engaging in politics , they are subject to progressional heightening . They have awareness of their "level" how their impact is perceived (which can create levelling) how to direct information , how information is spoken - directed and perceived, with limitations to all these , no one having whole thought acuity (example : possible knowledge of war tactics , movements , directions) This can also "narrow" a whole perspective or even a specific focus (majority vs minority , instead of individual and the individual's needs)
Fairness :
Its obvious to "thinking" people (as Paul Murray puts it on occasions) that the poor are most heavily effected , they were on "rations" money to begin with .
Example : A working person earns $60,000 a year
A poor person is provided $20,000 a year
- You take $5,000 from the working person with budget measures
- You take $800 from the poor person
Who is effected in this situation ? Answer : The poor person . Yes the working person has bills , has money going into various commitments (just like the poor person ) Though you will find the person earning $60,000 a year may still struggle , but they have more money "to manipulate finances" with in first place and still "in end" . The person earning $60,000 also is already being provisioned with better life still e.g : Healthier nutrition options , more activity's & entertainment , when the poor person was already in a "restriction" they can not afford "already" to entertain themselves (go out as much , pay for petrol as a commodity etc . . )
Money makes money as well , its a system for wealthy.
Liberals idea is fairness , so they try to be fair to the "majority" taking from wealthier and poorer at same time , a popular move but certainly not fairness , obviously taking from the "already restricted" will impact more than taking from someone wealthier . The wealthy have to go from fillet steak for example to rump , the poor from mince to ...? Of course the wealthy will kick up a stink and think it is unfair , like anyone they want to save "keep their money" , though the poor mostly can not save .
An example of differences :
(only)
$60,000 a year :
Nutrition - Ability to keep nutritionally stable
Fuel - Ability to keep petrol in car and have little to no thought about if run out money to refuel .
Bills - Ability to stay on top or on time
Entertainment - More variables in life , less focus on negatives , less sitting around with "over-thought"
Paying tax - Receiving tax as well
Simply more options & more variety ability , more control , happier
$20,000 a year :
Nutrition - Lacking nutrition , effecting health (more issues) , effecting even things like focus ability to get a job
Fuel - Constant worry about running out , need to be extra careful (stress impacting etc.)
Bills - Harder to stay on top with levels of money at a lower "manageable" rate
Entertainment - Increased boredom (effects psyche , may even impact on how one is perceived in job search "positive vs negative") Ability to get "out" narrowed substantially , social limitations
Paying Tax - n/a (pays tax on food , cigarettes , alcohol : the poor having more time on hands and as result have increased susceptibility to trying to alter state/moods & susceptible to influence (weakened states from nutrition/medications : sleep deprivation)
Less options and ability
As you can see from only "narrowed examples" the wealthy have a higher rate to purchase in first place by far , ability to control is at a higher rate than someone living on or below poverty line . Though I am below poverty line with my financial situation , so my opinion is formed from there . I am sure you could "manipulate" this article into supporting a need to share the impact of budget "including taking more from poor" - "maybe" (mis-informatives , mis-direction : language is very powerful and has its complexity & angles )
