Opinion AUSTRALIAN Politics: Adelaide Board Discussion Part 5

Remove this Banner Ad

Saw this on another sight today.:think:

on ABC for Kids...


GGnNNRyaoAAGIGp
It's not ABC kids at 8.30pm.
 
Saw this on another sight today.:think:

on ABC for Kids...


GGnNNRyaoAAGIGp
It's not ABC Kids at that hour of the night.

That channel has dual usage/programming - it's ABC Kids during the day, ABC TVPlus at night (with more adult oriented shows). It stops showing ABC Kids shows at 7:30pm.
 
Q
It's not ABC Kids at that hour of the night.

That channel has dual usage/programming - it's ABC Kids during the day, ABC TVPlus at night (with more adult oriented shows). It stops showing ABC Kids shows at 7:30pm.

Given that the channel is filled with adult content after 7:30 I can't say I'm surprised that the one and only program that's been cherry picked is a LGBTQ program.

Clearly for some Interview with a Vampire passes the pub test for a "kids channel", but a LGBTQ program is a bridge too far.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Succinct!!!!!



Would be good to see the whole picture here.

Is it actually the same property? Have there been any changes to the property between those dates? What was the land value assessment on the two dates? And the bottom of the 2022 assessment is covered - was the Covid repayment plan information on there too?

Don't just eat up information without any verification. Oh wait, that is just what you do.

Edit: a cursory review of land tax rates in Vic shows this is complete bullshit. The amount payable for 2022 puts the value of the property at about $1 million. The amount for 2024 puts it at about $1.6 million. That covers the bulk of the increase.

Even if the value was the same between the two years, the repayment plan would add around $1,000 to $1,500. Not exactly the $6,000 being suggested here.

And these are for investment properties. Manufactured outrage.
 
Last edited:
Would be good to see the whole picture here.

Is it actually the same property? Have there been any changes to the property between those dates? What was the land value assessment on the two dates? And the bottom of the 2022 assessment is covered - was the Covid repayment plan information on there too?

Don't just eat up information without any verification. Oh wait, that is just what you do.

Edit: a cursory review of land tax rates in Vic shows this is complete bullshit. The amount payable for 2022 puts the value of the property at about $1 million. The amount for 2024 puts it at about $1.6 million. That covers the bulk of the increase.

Even if the value was the same between the two years, the repayment plan would add around $1,000 to $1,500. Not exactly the $6,000 being suggested here.

And these are for investment properties. Manufactured outrage.

I went on the SRO website and worked it out too as well either the land value has increased 50% in two years or they've bought another property (which is the most likely)

It's like the post before about the ABC, it's intentionally misleading just to create outrage and people don't even bother to check whether it's accurate before posting it.
 
Last edited:
So let's get this straight, purchased with $300,000,000 of taxpayers money now they want to sell?


An ILSC spokesperson said there would be "ongoing consultation and engagement with the local First Nations peoples to understand their aspirations and in particular who should benefit from the land divestment process and how those benefits are to flow".

"At this stage, there is no certainty as to what the ultimate outcome of the assessment will be," the spokesperson said.
It literally tells you in the article

The ILSC's primary objective is to fulfil its statutory obligations of returning land to First Nations peoples, and in doing so, create Indigenous benefit for traditional owners, and local, regional, and national First Nations peoples," a spokesperson said in a statement
 

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed concerns as a scare campaign drive by the opposition and said there would be no impact on the price of the cars most targeted by the policy, especially the favoured utes.

“There’s a few big vehicles in the United States,” he said. “Indeed, they’re a fair bit bigger than vehicles that are available here.”

But one industry figure, who asked not to be identified, said the comparison with the US was false. Car making in America was heavily subsidised and vehicles weighing over 3.86 metric tonnes were exempt from the emissions standards, which was why US manufacturers made such big utes.


The Australian government’s preferred standard has an upper mass limit of 4.5 tonnes for light commercial vehicles, meaning it would include many vehicles not included in the US standard, the source said. That includes 45 per cent of all the F-series trucks – America’s best-selling vehicle.

Also, the Americas do not put the heavy 4WDs in a different category.

“I don’t think there is any genuine opposition to Australia introducing a fuel efficiency standard and I don’t think anyone would be opposed to us copying what they have in the USA.”

“Where the government is cocking this up, is that what they’ve proposed looks nothing like what they have in the USA.”

Another industry source said it was clear the government did not understand its policy and had made an error by announcing its preferred option at the start of the four-week consultation phase.


This would make any sensible change look like a backdown, he said.


Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said it was “inconceivable that the government can go ahead with this new tax on cars and utes”.

“I don’t know any tradies in the country at the moment who can afford to pay Albo’s $15,000 tax on a Toyota HiLux,” he said.
GG2RaUKaQAA4gCd
What are you complaining about, our electricity bills have come down by $275.00 - the prime minister told us they would and he keeps his promises. This other stuff you post is just white noise (to them)
 

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese dismissed concerns as a scare campaign drive by the opposition and said there would be no impact on the price of the cars most targeted by the policy, especially the favoured utes.

“There’s a few big vehicles in the United States,” he said. “Indeed, they’re a fair bit bigger than vehicles that are available here.”

But one industry figure, who asked not to be identified, said the comparison with the US was false. Car making in America was heavily subsidised and vehicles weighing over 3.86 metric tonnes were exempt from the emissions standards, which was why US manufacturers made such big utes.


The Australian government’s preferred standard has an upper mass limit of 4.5 tonnes for light commercial vehicles, meaning it would include many vehicles not included in the US standard, the source said. That includes 45 per cent of all the F-series trucks – America’s best-selling vehicle.

Also, the Americas do not put the heavy 4WDs in a different category.

“I don’t think there is any genuine opposition to Australia introducing a fuel efficiency standard and I don’t think anyone would be opposed to us copying what they have in the USA.”

“Where the government is cocking this up, is that what they’ve proposed looks nothing like what they have in the USA.”

Another industry source said it was clear the government did not understand its policy and had made an error by announcing its preferred option at the start of the four-week consultation phase.


This would make any sensible change look like a backdown, he said.


Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said it was “inconceivable that the government can go ahead with this new tax on cars and utes”.

“I don’t know any tradies in the country at the moment who can afford to pay Albo’s $15,000 tax on a Toyota HiLux,” he said.
GG2RaUKaQAA4gCd
The whole thing is a beat-up. It makes the fundamental assumption that cars sold in 2030 will be powered the same way they were in 2023. It's expected that the vast majority of vehicles sold in 2030 will be either fully electric, or hybrid - with straight petrol engines being a rarity. If/when that happens, the prices paid in 2030 will be virtually unchanged from what they are today.

It really is a case of "never let the facts get in the way of a good story", especially if that story is NewsCorpse having a go at an ALP Govt.
 
The whole thing is a beat-up. It makes the fundamental assumption that cars sold in 2030 will be powered the same way they were in 2023. It's expected that the vast majority of vehicles sold in 2030 will be either fully electric, or hybrid - with straight petrol engines being a rarity. If/when that happens, the prices paid in 2030 will be virtually unchanged from what they are today.

It really is a case of "never let the facts get in the way of a good story", especially if that story is NewsCorpse having a go at an ALP Govt.
In 2030, diesel & petrol powered cars will still be the clear majority sold. I have no doubts about that.
 
In 2030, diesel & petrol powered cars will still be the clear majority sold. I have no doubts about that.

There is probably an unfortunate truth to all this. Australia has been widely thought of as the hardest country to crack by car manufacturers because we require specific types of vehicles to survive basically everywhere thats not a city, even then we even need a better car again to survive the outback. Not sure the technology will be available in time. This should have been thought of 20 years ago so the tech had time to develop.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

In 2030, diesel & petrol powered cars will still be the clear majority sold. I have no doubts about that.
It's going to be interesting to watch.

Its got nothing to do with stupid.

I see the current state of southern USA as akin to the dark ages in Europe where religion ruled. Not for any other purpose than to control the masses and make everything appear evil. Right now, Trump and the republicans started a religion war over Abortion and now this is merely the next step in the process of religion taking over. By making it harder for childless couples to conceive they can promote gods will and claim only natural births are the way.

The frightening thing is where do they go next? Make C sections illegal?

There is probably an unfortunate truth to all this. Australia has been widely thought of as the hardest country to crack by car manufacturers because we require specific types of vehicles to survive basically everywhere thats not a city, even then we even need a better car again to survive the outback. Not sure the technology will be available in time. This should have been thought of 20 years ago so the tech had time to develop.
We were the only country outside Russia to not have the fuel standards recently brought in.

That's not congratulating Labor, they are long over due. I dare say people who don't need huge cars, will stop buying them
 
In 2030, diesel & petrol powered cars will still be the clear majority sold. I have no doubts about that.
They're forecasting for hybrids to make up the vast majority of all ICE sales by 2030... and the taxes on hybrids are nowhere near as high as they are for the full gas guzzler experience.

In any case, these are laws which should have been introduced years ago. We're catching up with the rest of the world here - not setting any precedents.
 
So what is your take away from that report?

It seems like China is going hard on Renewables but for a few different reasons had an increase in coal uses.

It looks very similar to the EU once Russia invaded, if increase in coal, but huge investment in renewable.
Australia will take up the slack and neutralize China's emissions.:think:

That wasn't the point of that report. It's actually quite an interesting read though.

Perhaps get one of your kids to read it and give you a summary 😉😁
 
Last edited:
Not sure what there is to disagree about, it's not unexpected


We have seen declines in global coal demand a few times, but they were brief and caused by extraordinary events such as the collapse of the Soviet Union or the Covid-19 crisis. This time appears different, as the decline is more structural, driven by the formidable and sustained expansion of clean energy technologies,” said Keisuke Sadamori, IEA Director of Energy Markets and Security. “A turning point for coal is clearly on the horizon – though the pace at which renewables expand in key Asian economies will dictate what happens next, and much greater efforts are needed to meet international climate targets.”
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top