ONCE UPON A TIME ….
Once upon a time, in a far off land, a new king had ascended the throne. It was not a happy time for the new king because the country was, after years of denial by the previous monarchs and the nobility, in deep financial distress.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The king, despite his privileged upbringing, was basically a good and compassionate man who, on the advice of several notable economists, resolved to haul the economy back from the brink of ruin by some new measures which included taxing members of the clergy, the nobles and the bourgeoisie who had previously enjoyed almost total exemption from taxation.
Unfortunately the king needed the support of his assembly to implement the new tax laws but since the assembly was comprised of the very people who would be most adversely affected, the reforms had little chance of being approved. Sadly the king, despite his good intentions, lacked the courage to pursue the advice of his advisors and the country continued to buckle under its huge financial burden and the people continued to suffer.
The final blow to the economy came when, foolishly, the country became involved in the war of a foreign country. This foolishness cost the kingdom dearly for which it received no compensation and very little appreciation from the foreign power it chose to support. The king began to lose favour with his people who saw the lavish lifestyle of the king and his court as a symbol of the country's woes and there was no happy ending to the story.
This is a sad story but true and bears remarkable resemblance to the current situation facing the current Australian government and its leader.
The massive deficit will remain a millstone around the neck of the government of any political persuasion until someone finds the courage to make genuine, fairer reforms to the current tax system. Malcolm Turnbull, thankfully, will not suffer the same fate as the principal of our story but the blade of discontent can fall equally as sharply at the ballot box.
Denise Meredith, Kanahooka
THE FULL STORY
Reading Mr Sargeant's opinion about the medal tally in Rio, I still don't understand his motive.
He quotes the fact that the population in Australia is 24 million against UK population of 64 million. Did he forget that Australia sent 423 athletes against 366 from UK.
It cost each man, woman and child in Australia $25.00 to send the team.
The same formula in the UK cost each person 89 pence ($1.70).
If you want to make a point tell the whole story. Thank you.
Michael Dobson, Windang
DISAPPOINTED IN OLYMPIANS
Australia's Rio Olympic campaign has kicked up some dust that could hang around until the next assault.
Regardless of the expected or actual medal tally, all selected members of our team were expected to represent the people of Australia with respect and honor. Especially after the fiasco of the London games.
It can't be denied that the reported foolish behavior of too many of our team may have disappointed many of us. Being selected to represent your country should be a rare honor, not a right and should be treated with respect.
Not to mention the obscene cost involved with the whole campaign of which a large amount is taxpayer funded.
Behaving badly in this arena on the world stage, only serves to lower the image of the Olympics to nothing more than a glorified and over-expensive sports carnival for young adults.
The funding involved would probably go a lot further and be more appreciated by schools, hospitals and charities etc.
To those that performed and behaved appropriately, congratulations.
Steven Thomas, Shellharbour