Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Bloods86]

How about our employers just pay our salaries directly to the government so they can dole it out equally to everyone?

It's mental leaps like this which show how serious we should take certain posters.

How about we live in a country where basic necessities don't have people working full time, studying or legitimately unable to work, facing financial ruin because of external factors. Or as little as possible anyway.

 

[Bloods86]

Pitting two groups of wage slaves against each other while companies rort the * out of the system. Meh.

I'm not a socialist (a filthy SocDem), so I wouldn't broadly apply the term "wage slave", but yep, why is it that it's mostly the citizenry that suffers during economic strife.

To be clear, we could fund the Stage 3 cuts, provide further relief to lower/middle income earners, welfare recipients etc, but we'd have some of the same people unhappy at where we get the money from, rushing to defend corporate shareholder and executive interests, the investor class (whether it's shares, housing etc).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

It's mental leaps like this which show how serious we should take certain posters.

How about we live in a country where basic necessities don't have people working full time, studying or legitimately unable to work, facing financial ruin because of external factors. Or as little as possible anyway.

The old boomer sexist ways actually worked better.

Dad went to work and earned the family income , mum stayed home.
If something happened and they were strapped for cash, mum could get a part time job.
If Dad became incapacitated and unable to work Mum could get a full time job.
Plenty of safety net there , especially for riding out interest fluctuations.

Now , just to afford the house ,a full time dual income is needed.
The housing market is "self driven".
Houses became more expensive as more and more dual income couples pushed the prices up, until it became mandatory in most cases. Of course this became a money spinner for those who already had investment homes.
If interest goes up there are very few options for dealing with it.
If you rely on 2 incomes , the chances of something bad happening to your income doubles.

Not sure why the costs of house construction have kept pace with the cost of buying existing homes. ( above inflation).
Shortage of Tradesmen allowing them to exploit the situation?

 

[Saint]

This is the way this policy was designed. To get high earners to argue with low earners about income tax rates.

When the real grift is being made on all wage earners by corporations with massive profits and low tax rates, tax exemptions and miniscule resource taxes.

Leave the income tax law, change corporate tax laws and take that money and invest in power and utilities to drive down prices.

Creating a class war or division between people is what all LNP policy for the last 20 years has been about.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

This is the way this policy was designed. To get high earners to argue with low earners about income tax rates.

When the real grift is being made on all wage earners by corporations with massive profits and low tax rates, tax exemptions and miniscule resource taxes.

Leave the income tax law, change corporate tax laws and take that money and invest in power and utilities to drive down prices.

Creating a class war or division between people is what all LNP policy for the last 20 years has been about.

Traditionally you wanted companies to be successful so that they would employ people.

Example : Google Australia employ 2000 people in Australia.
BUT they make a shitload.

Google Australia’s tax bill just $85 million despite profit rise

Search giant Google paid $85 million in tax in 2021 despite earning more than $7 billion from the local economy, shifting the majority of earnings to an international subsidiary.

www.smh.com.au

I don't think the taxation system correctly addresses some of these multinational organisations that can easily shift costs offshore.

Yes Google should be paying more tax, but do it wrong and those 2000 people are gone. Google can easily operate without a local entity.

If you had an Australian based company trying to do run a similar business , they would probably be non-viable due to high costs including taxes.
We screw Australian companies while making it easy for multi-nationals.

 

[Bloods86]

The old boomer sexist ways actually worked better.

Dad went to work and earned the family income , mum stayed home.
If something happened and they were strapped for cash, mum could get a part time job.
If Dad became incapacitated and unable to work Mum could get a full time job.
Plenty of safety net there , especially for riding out interest fluctuations.

Now , just to afford the house ,a full time dual income is needed.
The housing market is "self driven".
Houses became more expensive as more and more dual income couples pushed the prices up, until it became mandatory in most cases. Of course this became a money spinner for those who already had investment homes.
If interest goes up there are very few options for dealing with it.
If you rely on 2 incomes , the chances of something bad happening to your income doubles.

Not sure why the costs of house construction have kept pace with the cost of buying existing homes. ( above inflation).
Shortage of Tradesmen allowing them to exploit the situation?

I think there is something to be said for living within your means, and accounting for changes to financial conditions in future.

However, the first caveat is that if you're earning $200k, unless you've stretched yourself to buy the best possible house you can and have little savings, then you likely have savings and therefore mobility if you face a change in income or expenses i.e. you have the means to downgrade to some extent without losing everything. You may also be more easily able to get into lower paid work to help out, if you'd lost a higher paid gig.

Then, if you're already on a much lower wage, you don't necessarily have the luxury of savings or accounting for changes to income/expenses, particularly if you have family, medical or other sizeable responsibilities. You may be maxed out just buying any kind of house/unit. If your financial situation changes, you have very little mobility, and although you could claw back some of your deposit by selling up and renting, this will hurt more than it would for someone earning more and with a buffer. Moving also costs time and money.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I think there is something to be said for living within your means, and accounting for changes to financial conditions in future.

However, the first caveat is that if you're earning $200k, unless you've stretched yourself to buy the best possible house you can and have little savings, then you likely have savings and therefore mobility if you face a change in income or expenses i.e. you have the means to downgrade to some extent without losing everything. You may also be more easily able to get into lower paid work to help out, if you'd lost a higher paid gig.

Then, if you're already on a much lower wage, you don't necessarily have the luxury of savings or accounting for changes to income/expenses, particularly if you have family, medical or other sizeable responsibilities. You may be maxed out just buying any kind of house/unit. If your financial situation changes, you have very little mobility, and although you could claw back some of your deposit by selling up and renting, this will hurt more than it would for someone earning more and with a buffer. Moving also costs time and money.

In the latter case, in the current market, you aren't necessarily better off renting. You have people where the value of their home is close to their loan, and people renting simply up their rent with the interest rates.
In an ideal case there would be a surplus of rentals, so those with good equity would drop their prices to ensure that they got tenants.

Buying apartments could be dangerous.
Its mainly land that goes up in value, and if its a cheaply constructed apartment, it could go down in value faster than the loan goes down.

 

[Saint]

Traditionally you wanted companies to be successful so that they would employ people.

Example : Google Australia employ 2000 people in Australia.
BUT they make a shitload.

Google Australia’s tax bill just $85 million despite profit rise

Search giant Google paid $85 million in tax in 2021 despite earning more than $7 billion from the local economy, shifting the majority of earnings to an international subsidiary.

www.smh.com.au

I don't think the taxation system correctly addresses some of these multinational organisations that can easily shift costs offshore.

Yes Google should be paying more tax, but do it wrong and those 2000 people are gone. Google can easily operate without a local entity.

If you had an Australian based company trying to do run a similar business , they would probably be non-viable due to high costs including taxes.
We screw Australian companies while making it easy for multi-nationals.

They "can" operate without a local legal entity, but we can also just tax them more if they do. They're not going to take their business away as long as they're making profits. Those people are here for a reason, it's not out of the goodness of Google's heart.

I agree, the less employees they have here, the more they should be taxed on their corporate profits.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

They "can" operate without a local legal entity, but we can also just tax them more if they do. They're not going to take their business away as long as they're making profits. Those people are here for a reason, it's not out of the goodness of Google's heart.

I agree, the less employees they have here, the more they should be taxed on their corporate profits.

I think it needs to involve infrastructure as well.

A company that builds an automated widget factory in Australia should be taxed less than a company that imports widgets.

 

[Bloods86]

In the latter case, in the current market, you aren't necessarily better off renting. You have people where the value of their home is close to their loan, and people renting simply up their rent with the interest rates.
In an ideal case there would be a surplus of rentals, so those with good equity would drop their prices to ensure that they got tenants.

Buying apartments could be dangerous.
Its mainly land that goes up in value, and if its a cheaply constructed apartment, it could go down in value faster than the loan goes down.

Yeah, it was more that they could gain access to most of their deposit and any repayments made, by selling and then renting, even if that draws down (now liquid) assets at a faster rate, in order to stave off homelessness. A truly horrible situation that as a society we should do whatever we can to avoid.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yeah, it was more that they could gain access to most of their deposit and any repayments made, by selling and then renting, even if that draws down (now liquid) assets at a faster rate, in order to stave off homelessness. A truly horrible situation that as a society we should do whatever we can to avoid.

In many cases a good chunk of the deposit went in stamp duty. ( Possibly one of the reasons that governments haven't been too upset at the value of homes skyrocketing ).
Selling fees are usually around 2% ( Estate agents should be on flat rates IMO, i don't agree with them charging commission).
So generally 10-20 grand for advertising your house and showing a few people through. No wonder they are door knocking to try to get you to sell.

 

[Balls In]

The old boomer sexist ways actually worked better.

Dad went to work and earned the family income , mum stayed home.
If something happened and they were strapped for cash, mum could get a part time job.
If Dad became incapacitated and unable to work Mum could get a full time job.
Plenty of safety net there , especially for riding out interest fluctuations.

Now , just to afford the house ,a full time dual income is needed.
The housing market is "self driven".
Houses became more expensive as more and more dual income couples pushed the prices up, until it became mandatory in most cases. Of course this became a money spinner for those who already had investment homes.
If interest goes up there are very few options for dealing with it.
If you rely on 2 incomes , the chances of something bad happening to your income doubles.

Not sure why the costs of house construction have kept pace with the cost of buying existing homes. ( above inflation).
Shortage of Tradesmen allowing them to exploit the situation?

People nowadays are too poor and overworked in Australia to have kids. So the good old government imports millions from elsewhere which perpetuates the housing problem. Then they apply punitive tax at the only demographic who can even think about entering the housing market "because they are rich" even though most of their money goes to the banks.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

People nowadays are too poor and overworked in Australia to have kids. So the good old government imports millions from elsewhere which perpetuates the housing problem. Then they apply punitive tax at the only demographic who can even think about entering the housing market "because they are rich" even though most of their money goes to the banks.

Its self inflicted to a point.
If you gave everyone $50 000 a year extra , a huge number of them would rush out to auctions and put it all on a house.

 

[nut]

The old boomer sexist ways actually worked better.

Dad went to work and earned the family income , mum stayed home.
If something happened and they were strapped for cash, mum could get a part time job.
If Dad became incapacitated and unable to work Mum could get a full time job.
Plenty of safety net there , especially for riding out interest fluctuations.

Now , just to afford the house ,a full time dual income is needed.
The housing market is "self driven".
Houses became more expensive as more and more dual income couples pushed the prices up, until it became mandatory in most cases. Of course this became a money spinner for those who already had investment homes.
If interest goes up there are very few options for dealing with it.
If you rely on 2 incomes , the chances of something bad happening to your income doubles.

Not sure why the costs of house construction have kept pace with the cost of buying existing homes. ( above inflation).
Shortage of Tradesmen allowing them to exploit the situation?

House loans were also around 15 years… which limited the amount people could borrow and controlled the housing market.
Soon they’ll make home loans 45 years… or generational.

The issues is the banks… and how they are allowed to lend money.
Relaxing the lending rules in a pandemic was criminal IMO. Thanks scomo.

 

[Festerz]

As flagged in this thread months ago. Expect an announcement on this very soon. Long overdue imho:

The Albanese government is finalising plans to launch the first full-scale price-setting review of Australian supermarkets in almost two decades, conducted by the consumer watchdog with compulsory information-gathering powers and backed by ministerial decree.

Exclusive: Coles and Woolworths to face full ACCC inquiry

As the government launches another review of supermarkets’ conduct, the corporate watchdog is expected to announce its first full-scale supermarkets inquiry in 16 years.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

 

[Rob R]

As flagged in this thread months ago. Expect an announcement on this very soon. Long overdue imho:

The Albanese government is finalising plans to launch the first full-scale price-setting review of Australian supermarkets in almost two decades, conducted by the consumer watchdog with compulsory information-gathering powers and backed by ministerial decree.

Exclusive: Coles and Woolworths to face full ACCC inquiry

As the government launches another review of supermarkets’ conduct, the corporate watchdog is expected to announce its first full-scale supermarkets inquiry in 16 years.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

Wow, a review. Means nothing until we actually see forced changes in behaviour and benefits to the consumer.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Festerz]

Wow, a review. Means nothing until we actually see forced changes in behaviour and benefits to the consumer.

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Wow indeed.

Outline what specific 'forced changes in behaviour' you would like to see and the evidence base that demonstrates that:

1. those specific 'forced changes in behaviour' are actually required;

2. that those 'specific forced changes in behaviour' are fit for purpose, legally enforceable and will achieve the desired outcomes to fix the problems identified without un-necessary changes on other businesses or other parts of the economy and consumers; and

3. and makes it clear who it is that will implement and enforce those 'forced changes in behaviour'.

Or maybe get an inquiry conducted by an expert independent body with the skills base and legislative powers to force the participation of retailers in their inquiry to gather the evidence of what is happening, its impacts and then provide the informed advice on what specific actions are required to be made to achieve sustainable change. An Inquiry that reports not just to Government but to Parliament and whose evidence, findings, recommendations and rationale are openly transparent and publicly available - thereby providing the government and the cross benches with the evidence, facts and impetus it needs to get the right legislative changes passed in Parliament that are not open to future Constitutional challenge or avoidance by retailers, including multi-nationals.

Or just keep up with the knee-jerk culture wars of the Coalition under Dutton that is all about cheap populist tabloid headlines but doesn't change a bloody thing on the ground for consumers (except the simpletons and those wanting more cheap plastic Chinese made Australia Day flags, eh?)

 

[Crankyhawk]

Which subsidies?

Things like capital gains discounts, residential property being treated as a valid investment, allowing household maintenance to be a tax write off that sort of thing

 

[Crankyhawk]

How about our employers just pay our salaries directly to the government so they can dole it out equally to everyone?

So you are advocating for more wealth inequality. Awesome person you are.

 

[Crankyhawk]

House loans were also around 15 years… which limited the amount people could borrow and controlled the housing market.
Soon they’ll make home loans 45 years… or generational.

The issues is the banks… and how they are allowed to lend money.
Relaxing the lending rules in a pandemic was criminal IMO. Thanks scomo.

Reminds me of a gag on fast forward I think where a First Nations person was telling people to take out loans for 20000 years at zero percent

 

[Rotayjay]

So the Dunkley by-election will be on 2 March. In my view, by-elections are overrated. What is the real significance of 1 out of 151 very diverse seats, where voters can 'send a message' knowing the result can't change the government?

I can see a big deal being made about the size of the inevitable swing against the Albanese government. But it won't tell us anything we don't already know. Lots of oxygen will be spent fighting the campaign and talking about it, and come the next general election nobody will remember the by-election.

 

[Vindicater]

So the Dunkley by-election will be on 2 March. In my view, by-elections are overrated. What is the real significance of 1 out of 151 very diverse seats, where voters can 'send a message' knowing the result can't change the government?

I can see a big deal being made about the size of the inevitable swing against the Albanese government. But it won't tell us anything we don't already know. Lots of oxygen will be spent fighting the campaign and talking about it, and come the next general election nobody will remember the by-election.

The sad part is that Labor taking Aston in a by election was a once in a lifetime event and it got hardly any airplay.

If Labor lose Dunkley it will never leave the news cycle.

 

[DaRick]

So the Dunkley by-election will be on 2 March. In my view, by-elections are overrated. What is the real significance of 1 out of 151 very diverse seats, where voters can 'send a message' knowing the result can't change the government?

I can see a big deal being made about the size of the inevitable swing against the Albanese government. But it won't tell us anything we don't already know. Lots of oxygen will be spent fighting the campaign and talking about it, and come the next general election nobody will remember the by-election.

I expect there to be a swing against the ALP because voters resent being made to go to the polls before an election, but Dunkley's in an anti-Dutton state. And I don't know if the MP passing away, rather than leaving voluntarily, will win the ALP a few sympathy votes.

But it's not a big deal, because even if Dutton somehow wins Dunkley, that just takes the ALP back to where they were after the 2022 election.

 

[Gavin Excell]

I expect there to be a swing against the ALP because voters resent being made to go to the polls before an election, but Dunkley's in an anti-Dutton state. And I don't know if the MP passing away, rather than leaving voluntarily, will win the ALP a few sympathy votes.

But it's not a big deal, because even if Dutton somehow wins Dunkley, that just takes the ALP back to where they were after the 2022 election.

Anti Dutton state....
if they are writing Victoria off completely they have zero chance winning government

 

[DaRick]

Anti Dutton state....
if they are writing Victoria off completely they have zero chance winning government

I don't know what the LNP are planning, but I know he isn't popular in your neck of the woods.