Labour party has gone full socialist

Remove this Banner Ad

Sep 15, 2007
50,338
46,510
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
How is this not a bigger talking point. Labours policies are becoming scary right now and incredibly unjust.

Subsidising wages of jobs they think are womens jobs. Wtf? People realise the increases the burden on tax payers right?

Having a temporary defecit for high income earners even though the only reason a deficit will exist under labour is because of buying votes with cash hand outs ( liberals are doing the same defecit wise but arent pretending the deficit is an emergency rather then the reality of it now existing to buy votes).

Giving away 100 percent free child care to low income earners whilst high income earners with 3 kids of child care age pay around 90-115 thousand dollars for the same service. Whats the point of even earning a high income if you end up with less after income tax and loss of public funded services. May as well have your wife quit and become a babysitter even if she is a qualified doctor or lawyer.

I dont mind their housing policies except they dont apply to all the investors who were unjustly enriched by them. They continue to prop up the baby boomers just as much as the liberals.

I desperately wanted to vote for Labour this election given how much I despise the Liberals play with the alt right. But the rise of socialism and unjust reward is even worse then the populist nationalists scared of immigrants.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

How is this not a bigger talking point. Labours policies are becoming scary right now and incredibly unjust.

Subsidising wages of jobs they think are womens jobs. Wtf? People realise the increases the burden on tax payers right?

Having a temporary defecit for high income earners even though the only reason a deficit will exist under labour is because of buying votes with cash hand outs ( liberals are doing the same defecit wise but arent pretending the deficit is an emergency rather then the reality of it now existing to buy votes).

If you change a few words here - ie. replace "wages of jobs" with "bank balances", replace "womens jobs" with "middle-class swing voters" - you're basically describing Howard and Costello's middle-class welfare of the late 90s. Doubt anyone is calling them socialists.

Giving away 100 percent free child care to low income earners whilst high income earners with 3 kids of child care age pay around 90-115 thousand dollars for the same service. Whats the point of even earning a high income if you end up with less after income tax and loss of public funded services. May as well have your wife quit and become a babysitter even if she is a qualified doctor or lawyer.

Here's the thing - if you redesigned childcare today, in the age where we want to elevate women to a position of true equality - child care wouldn't be set up anything like it is today. It would be more like school, where you have a public system that is largely free (that Liberals undermined whenever they're in government) and you'd have a private system that bluebloods would pay for, because they believe where you go to school and the networks you make are more important than your brains, ability or hardwork.

I don't think we're ever likely to get to that - I'm not even sure I'd want us to - but if we did, it wouldn't be because of "socialism", it would be because we recognise that women (who are still primary caregivers in the majority of cases) have an important role to play in the workforce, and they add to the workplace and to society when they are able to work.
 

Badesumofu

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2008
7,857
9,504
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Roger Federer
Childhood educators are criminally underpaid for what they do. Childcare is a weird industry because it’s a sort public/private hybrid. As aluded to upthread, it should really be public but the way it’s viewed has shifted a lot over time. I see Labor’s policy as a recognition that it needs to shift from being the private enterprise it traditionally has been to a public service more akin to school that it ought to be in 2019.

And if you want to talk socialism - what do you call handing around $80 billion dollars out as a gift to people lucky enough to have a share portfolio and call it a ‘tax refund’? By calling it that it sounds much less socialist until you realise the people getting it don’t pay tax in the first place.

The Liberals actually love to hand out free money to people but they call it different names to make it sound less socialist. They also tend to give it to classes of people who are more politically active rather than the people who actually need it most. Not that politics is about tactics or anything.

Applying the negative gearing changes without grandfathering would be potentially catastrophic and crash the housing market as all those money losing investment properties all got sold at once. It’s just the way it has to be unfortunately.
 

GoldenSky

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2006
5,289
1,944
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
How is this not a bigger talking point. Labours policies are becoming scary right now and incredibly unjust.

Subsidising wages of jobs they think are womens jobs. Wtf? People realise the increases the burden on tax payers right?

Having a temporary defecit for high income earners even though the only reason a deficit will exist under labour is because of buying votes with cash hand outs ( liberals are doing the same defecit wise but arent pretending the deficit is an emergency rather then the reality of it now existing to buy votes).

Giving away 100 percent free child care to low income earners whilst high income earners with 3 kids of child care age pay around 90-115 thousand dollars for the same service. Whats the point of even earning a high income if you end up with less after income tax and loss of public funded services. May as well have your wife quit and become a babysitter even if she is a qualified doctor or lawyer.

I dont mind their housing policies except they dont apply to all the investors who were unjustly enriched by them. They continue to prop up the baby boomers just as much as the liberals.

I desperately wanted to vote for Labour this election given how much I despise the Liberals play with the alt right. But the rise of socialism and unjust reward is even worse then the populist nationalists scared of immigrants.

:thumbsu: Spot on. :thumbsu:

Subsidising wages of jobs they think are womens jobs. Wtf?

Couldn't have put it better myself. Of all Labor's policies this election (there are some good ones), this one is just weird. Like it's been shoehorned into the agenda by a Cabinet minister on a particular feminist crusade or something. Really dumb policy making.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 4, 2012
5,425
9,147
County Grant
AFL Club
Geelong

GoldenSky

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 6, 2006
5,289
1,944
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast

Fire

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 12, 2003
11,362
5,953
New York
AFL Club
North Melbourne
And this is totally stupid from the Coalition too.

That's an understatement.

This is the worst, and most desperate policy I have ever seen from a major party. It's implications will interfere with the free market, inflate a bubble, destroy the budget and enslave the nation to a crippling national debt for generations to come.

But you'll still vote for them won't you. Because they're your team, even when they're communists.
 

Herne Hill Hammer

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 22, 2008
24,580
21,272
AFL Club
Geelong
How is this not a bigger talking point. Labours policies are becoming scary right now and incredibly unjust.

Subsidising wages of jobs they think are womens jobs. Wtf? People realise the increases the burden on tax payers right?

Having a temporary defecit for high income earners even though the only reason a deficit will exist under labour is because of buying votes with cash hand outs ( liberals are doing the same defecit wise but arent pretending the deficit is an emergency rather then the reality of it now existing to buy votes).

Giving away 100 percent free child care to low income earners whilst high income earners with 3 kids of child care age pay around 90-115 thousand dollars for the same service. Whats the point of even earning a high income if you end up with less after income tax and loss of public funded services. May as well have your wife quit and become a babysitter even if she is a qualified doctor or lawyer.

I dont mind their housing policies except they dont apply to all the investors who were unjustly enriched by them. They continue to prop up the baby boomers just as much as the liberals.

I desperately wanted to vote for Labour this election given how much I despise the Liberals play with the alt right. But the rise of socialism and unjust reward is even worse then the populist nationalists scared of immigrants.

Why don't you quit and stay home?
 
Sep 15, 2007
50,338
46,510
Where i need to be
AFL Club
Geelong
Has anyone else noticed that most low income earners have far bigger and more beautiful houses then high income earners?

High income earner jobs are all in the inner city where house prices are insane and people end up paying millions to live in the old tiny shanty homes that the poor used to live in during the 1870s. Most low income earners jobs are in the outer suburbs where land and homes are much bigger and much more modern.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone else noticed that most low income earners have far bigger and more beautiful houses then high income earners?

High income earner jobs are all in the city where house prices are insane and people end up paying millions to live in the old tiny shanty homes that the poor used to live in during the 1870s. Most low income earners jobs are in the outer suburbs where land and homes are much bigger and much more modern.

We have a new final round leader for the dumbest ******* thing written during this election campaign. Not just on BF - anywhere.

Show us some research to back up this stupidity.
 
Jan 12, 2011
25,397
35,576
AFL Club
Collingwood
Has anyone else noticed that most low income earners have far bigger and more beautiful houses then high income earners?

High income earner jobs are all in the city where house prices are insane and people end up paying millions to live in the old tiny shanty homes that the poor used to live in during the 1870s. Most low income earners jobs are in the outer suburbs where land and homes are much bigger and much more modern.
This place gets dumber by the day
 
Has anyone else noticed that most low income earners have far bigger and more beautiful houses then high income earners?

High income earner jobs are all in the city where house prices are insane and people end up paying millions to live in the old tiny shanty homes that the poor used to live in during the 1870s. Most low income earners jobs are in the outer suburbs where land and homes are much bigger and much more modern.

Seeds, I mean, *.....
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back