Anthony Albanese - How long?

How long for Albo?


  • Total voters
    264
  • This poll will close: .

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying this... Surely the government should only need to contribute the difference between the amount a prospective home-buyer has saved and 20% of the purchase price (which would mean they meet the criteria for no LMI)?

Why does the government need to take between 30%-40% of the total value of the property? Couldn't the contribution be lowered so that the program could support more people?

I'd be keen to see more detail, but I quite like the premise of this, with the increasing value of the average home vs. average annual salary, assisting people to get their foot in the door makes sense (though I would limit it to new homes to help increase housing stock more).
 
The way we are using immigration is a certainly a Ponzi Scheme & it doesnt matter what version of politics is in power.

How else can we keep spending more than we produce ?
Productivity, dont go there ......
Its a capitalist thing this Ponzi Scheme is it? See todays spending by the Feds, not a capitalist in sight.

Face it, a Ponzi Scheme is criminal - there are people in gaol for it.

Yep its a Ponzi Scheme & today Albo & Dr Chalmers are top of the tree, no different to Morrison & Frydo in their time.

The capitalist economic system is a Ponzi scheme… it relies on growth…. No growth and it dies.
Sustainability is the enemy of capitalism.
 

Log in to remove this ad.


Maybe I'm over-simplifying this... Surely the government should only need to contribute the difference between the amount a prospective home-buyer has saved and 20% of the purchase price (which would mean they meet the criteria for no LMI)?

Why does the government need to take between 30%-40% of the total value of the property? Couldn't the contribution be lowered so that the program could support more people?
Probably to keep repayments at a more manageable level.
 
I'm a leftist and I think the immigration rate is ridiculously high.

You need a certain level of immigration to offset the ageing population. But admitting a thousand people a day into the driest inhabited continent, with some of the least affordable housing in the world, is excessive.

If they slashed immigration by half or two thirds, that would instantly go a long way to addressing the horrible mismatch of housing supply and demand. This isn't about blaming brown people. I don't give a s**t about the colour of the skin of a person coming to Australia. If you have one household in your country, build one extra dwelling but have two households immigrate, you won't have enough dwellings. I also believe government needs to dramatically ramp up public, not social, housing. I get that you might need immigrants to build the houses, but surely you don't need this many.

Australia needs to work for the people who already live here - it's not a * ing hotel. People are living on the streets. This is an emergency, and I sure as hell don't see an emergency response.
What do you think would happen to certain industries, such as nursing or aged care, if you slashed immigration by half?
 
What do you think would happen to certain industries, such as nursing or aged care, if you slashed immigration by half?

Those industries would be forced to hire and train locals rather than crying poor to the federal government of the day and scabbing workers from other countries. They would also be forced to pay decent wages.
 
I'd prefer you to discuss the real issues that cause the problem instead of blaming immigration
So immigration levels can never be discussed? That is somewhat limiting.
 
Great letter in today’s SMH:

Rather than a utopian call for “clear, convincing messages”, Anthony Albanese needs clear, convincing policies. He currently leads a conservative Labor government that is intolerant of dissent; pursuing tax cuts for the rich, new fossil fuel subsidies, weak environmental protections, market-based housing subsidies rather than building public housing, and an AUKUS commitment with an extremely volatile Uncle Sam. Albanese has shown commendable support for the Voice, but in many other ways the “Tory-fighter” has turned full Tory. Meanwhile, the Liberal and National parties have zero constructive solutions for the future; including nuclear power, raiding super for housing deposits, and sports rorts 2.0. While both major parties pursue policies that are incompatible with a healthy and sustainable future, Australian voters should continue to take their votes elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
What do you think would happen to certain industries, such as nursing or aged care, if you slashed immigration by half?
They would be fine as they would be priorities within our immigration program, we would slash unskilled migration and do monthly reviews of the job categories to ensure they are actually gaps that we can't fill with our own training.

Won't fix housing alone but would have an immediate impact unlike crackdowns on airbnb etc

On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
What do you think would happen to certain industries, such as nursing or aged care, if you slashed immigration by half?
One can be selective about where reductions occur.
It is also relevant that some may not stay if family reunion doesn’t happen - I think the department needs to do a better and faster job of processing acceptance or refusal of application (heard it can be up to 50 years!)
 
One can be selective about where reductions occur.
It is also relevant that some may not stay if family reunion doesn’t happen - I think the department needs to do a better and faster job of processing acceptance or refusal of application (heard it can be up to 50 years!)
As with everything the Liberal Party doesn't like, the immigration department has been cut to bare bones.
 
So immigration levels can never be discussed? That is somewhat limiting.
People have talked about the reality of why we have immigration in here and also why politicians use it as the problem.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But someone running with it's the damn immigrants can get in the bin.

We've also had the conversation before about the "record immigration levels" myth so when posters go back to that well and ignore everything else it's just dog whistling
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

People have talked about the reality of why we have immigration in here and also why politicians use it as the problem.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But someone running with it's the damn immigrants can get in the bin.

We've also had the conversation before about the "record immigration levels" myth so when posters go back to that well and ignore everything else it's just dog whistling
Or people have not read through the entire thread perhaps

I think you are very quick to conclude dog whistling.

edit also the other contributing issues do not have a relatively quick solution to be applied for their component, while the immigration lever is easier to apply. It will not fix the housing situation on its own, but excessive non productive immigration can exacerbate housing issues.
 
What do you think would happen to certain industries, such as nursing or aged care, if you slashed immigration by half?

They could try to "motivate" young Australians to do that work.

We could also, "Train Australians to become accountants"
Get by with less Acupuncturists and Advertising Managers ( train an Australian ).
Do we really need Aeronautical Engineers? I've heard of graduates that can't get a job in the field.
Agricultural Consultants?
it goes on and on.


Average 5000 nurses per year.

Immigrants, around 200 000 per year.

Don't ask the question , do the math.

Its not the issue.
 
People have talked about the reality of why we have immigration in here and also why politicians use it as the problem.

There's nothing wrong with that.

But someone running with it's the damn immigrants can get in the bin.

We've also had the conversation before about the "record immigration levels" myth so when posters go back to that well and ignore everything else it's just dog whistling

My comments on the matter were that Immigration has outstripped forcast, and that infrastructure , including housing is not adequate.

 
Or people have not read through the entire thread perhaps

I think you are very quick to conclude dog whistling.

edit also the other contributing issues do not have a relatively quick solution to be applied for their component, while the immigration lever is easier to apply. It will not fix the housing situation on its own, but excessive non productive immigration can exacerbate housing issues.

Mate, it is dog whistling. That's the problem.

Next time someone blames immigration for something, dig a little deeper into their understanding of labour economics. 99% of them have no understanding of how immigration contributes to the economy. The same people who complain about immigration are the first to whinge about high prices and a lack of services. It's one thing to query why immigration levels are as they are, which is what I think you are doing. But the overwhelming majority of people who query immigration levels are not actually querying immigration levels at all, if you get my drift.

Such people should be summarily dismissed and ridiculed for their ignorance.
 
Don't ask the question , do the math.

Too hard, remember this:

4000 beds 24/7 ICU staff, do the math to the tune of 'whistling dixie' (the vain hope that the Confederacy, known as Dixie, would win the Civil War.)
 
Those industries would be forced to hire and train locals rather than crying poor to the federal government of the day and scabbing workers from other countries. They would also be forced to pay decent wages.
Good news for sick and old people in five to 10 years, less so for the ones neglected in the present because there would not be enough staff.
 
Mate, it is dog whistling. That's the problem.

Next time someone blames immigration for something, dig a little deeper into their understanding of labour economics. 99% of them have no understanding of how immigration contributes to the economy. The same people who complain about immigration are the first to whinge about high prices and a lack of services. It's one thing to query why immigration levels are as they are, which is what I think you are doing. But the overwhelming majority of people who query immigration levels are not actually querying immigration levels at all, if you get my drift.

Such people should be summarily dismissed and ridiculed for their ignorance.
I read the initial poster as querying the level rather tag a querying it at all (ie the dog whistle implication). Maybe I am a Pollyanna type about regular posters
 
Training can include methods of encouraging people into university degrees.
A nursing degree includes training and a qualification.

When grads expect 9-5 jobs, its a waste of taxpayers money, not to mention the hospital educators. How did they get that far ?
Yes, I'm sure there are exceptions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top