It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'Kill the poor to balance budget' Many a truth said in jest me thinks

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 02:55 AM
checked the search and political area and didn't find this. If it's already up somewhere, mods feel free to throw this out or redirect people.

Well here ya go,

An article responding to the government’s planned super changes targeting the wealthy, has recommended killing off the poorest 20 per cent of Australians as an alternate way to balance the nation’s budget.

“A modest cull would strike at the root of our fiscal dilemma,” suggested author Toby Ralph in his piece titled “Kill the poor” published on the website of Liberal Party-aligned think tank, Menzies house.

Below is a link to the full article

Down here in Oz, there are 2 main political parties. The labor party (ALP) who is in power presently and the liberal national party (LNP) coalition.

The ALP, even though they have had to suffer a minority government have been able to pass over 900 pieces of legislation, were able to keep Australia out of recession during and after the global financial crisis, organised a panel of experts to solve the refugeee crisis that was brought on when the LNP in all of their wisdom, refused to allow a bill through parliament for the simple reason of disrupting government (the bill would have interrupted the business plan of the boat smugglers but because allowing people to be sent to Malaysia was not able to be passed through parliament gave these slime a way of getting around any laws being put in place, organised a panel of experts (not politically biased) to put together a procedure to assist in getting ALL kids to receive a decent, equitable education and the list goes on. When items have been placed on here in the past, there have been the usual, let's just say misguided individuals who insist on bagging out the ALP.

Well, here you go, there is an organisation set up by upper level LNP people and one of their illustrious members has countered the arguments put up by the ALP to change rules to our superannuation policy that would cause a very small percentage of those who have quite extreme wealth to pay a bit more so that ALL Australians can retire on decent pension.

His (apparent) tongue in cheek solution is to "cull" the poorest 20% of Australians.

How much does this sound like those "who have" wanting to remove (eliminate) those "who have not". If this tongue in cheek approach was so "innocent", why has he gone to the trouble of even calculating how many "billions" it would save the country.

Tongue in cheek or wishful thinking.

since my attention span is quite limited, I appologise in advance for not giving the input that apparently has to be done. The thread is more for members to discuss THEIR thoughts and feelings rather than for me or any one person to have all of the answers.

so as a notable figure recently said "give it your best shot"

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:10 AM

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:23 AM
that's a global solution for the eu too, the idea being to acquire all means of production control all means of distribution then distribute poisons throughout using inflation to target the poorest sections of society, the cheapest option in the supermarket is most likely the deadliest, all hail codex allimentarius

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:48 AM
reply to post by TravisBickle451

Thanks Travis, maybe they have a fan base in the LNP

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:51 AM
reply to post by mykingdomforthetruth

Yep, trouble is, at what point do they stop? At first it's the poorest, then a few more then more and on it goes. I guess they would have to work out how many they want left to do the dirty work that they would never do. so maybe the upper middle class will be OK

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:19 AM
reply to post by TravisBickle451

Man, that was quick.

No time to dilly dally, when you're about

great song, not sure OP... haha I think macdonalds is killing the poor.

what am I saying, Im poor and I don't eat that crap.
ripe old age it is, with beans and rice.

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:08 AM
reply to post by greatfriendbadfoe

Killing Off the Poor?

I think they are already working on this. In the states, if you get a Tetnus shot they ask what kind of work you
do, depending on the answer, you get a different shot. Same thing with a flu shot. If you are productive, you get
a different one.

I think they accidentally discovered hwo to do this during the Gulf war. My Gulf War I friend says all his unit are dead and he has cancer.

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:26 AM
reply to post by UMayBRite!

I don't doubt it at all. Thanks for your contribution. I guess that's one good thing about being old, I'm close to the back end of life anyhoo.

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 05:55 AM
That's funny as the other day I read that the top 1% has much more money than the bottom 20%. That makes all the middle class look dirt poor too.

Most farmers tend to pick the fat juicy apples at the top of the tree than the junk rotting on the ground.

If the government, or some black ops, team "liquidated" the top 1% then estate taxes would have to be paid. (55% on inheritance over $1,000,000) Then there would be enough money in the budget for the military, business incubation, free university, cheap medical, ... We would have a much more egalitarian society.

(Of course the smart rich have realized their social responsibility and are giving money to charity now. They can be overlooked. eg: Warren Buffet, Bill gates, and George Soros)

You have my permission to use this idea as the basis of the next movie script you write.

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:09 AM
Didn't the poorest 20 pct contain all of the aboriginals? Not sure what to make of that. But doesn't it hide some important agenda?

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 06:11 AM
I bet killing all the banksters and the filthy rich would help more than killing the poor, heck, without that great sucking sound coming from them, most of the poor wouldn't be poor anymore. Our nations wealth goes to paying debt and interest on magically created money and keeping up with inflation.

Why don't I have money? Because the mega rich and the bankers have it all.
Why am I broke? Because they stole the means of production.
Why again? because the rich send our jobs to the sweat shops.

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:51 AM
Just a thought or 2 here.... From the research and reading I've personally done over the years, when they are taking a country down (so to speak), they usually go after the rich folks first. Why? Because they can claim a large amount of wealth in a short amount of time, making their job easier etc....

I'm not saying that they won't try to kill off the poorer folks, or that they perhaps are already doing so. I'm just saying that when governments- like Rome, for example, needed money and wanted to take over land and wealth, they didn't bother with the poor folks- they went after the rich. Same with England when Henry 8th went after the monastaries- they were rich with gold and other offerings the people had given through the years, so he went after them first.

Going after the poor means they are cutting their own throats, as no one would be left to ensure the fields get plowed and the crops gathered in. They won't be willing to do the work, no matter how much they have to pay to ensure their own food supplies.

In the end, even fewer folks will have even more wealth, while the poor get even poorer and eventually die off from disease and starvation. Result- a massive cull in population.

Another thought- as our factories and such all get moved to other countries, skilled labor becomes less and less. Again, look to England and Europe for history's answers. If the whole thing does come to a screeching halt, we will go into another "Dark Ages" span in history.

Just my own thoughts here. Thanks for listening.


posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by Deominous

Interesting thoughts deo. Thanks for sharing. Maybe the LNP might want to look at your ideas.

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 04:58 PM
Thanks for your input dumbass, toad and sweet. All top ideas. One thing I AM noticing here is that the usual LNP backers are steering well clear of this. When I silent down and listen for their input, all I can hear is the sound of crickets in the background. I wonder if the author of said article will lose his LNP membership card for making the wealthy squirm

so if the LNP backers run away and hide when put under the spotlight, I wonder what sort of government they would be if they were in power. Oh, that's right, their leader has refused skynews interviews for hundreds of days. He is ??? leading from the front ???? hmmmm sounds like prime minister material in my book (sarcasm)
edit on 17-4-2013 by greatfriendbadfoe because: afterthought

posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Dumbass
Didn't the poorest 20 pct contain all of the aboriginals? Not sure what to make of that. But doesn't it hide some important agenda?

Hi again dumbass

I did a bit of checking and found this. Looks like you are correct. It does take in ALL aboriginals and also quite a few others. (external source link, hope it works)

It is a link to the Australian bureau of statistics site so I guess the figures are pretty accurate. There's a table showing where aboriginal and torres straight islanders are found and it shows the totals along with percentages of the total population. Leaves a lot of space for the LNP to "cull" some other groups as well : )

One quetion is, what is classed a poor? We have a large lump of land (in one of the "poorest socioeconomic areas of Australia) so would we be classed in the bottom 20%?

top topics


log in