Roast Media Shakes Head, Part 7

Remove this Banner Ad

Grave Danger

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2000
23,432
41,095
West Perth
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Woomera Centrals, Jazza

HinkleysHeroes

Club Legend
Jul 1, 2017
2,086
3,512
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Hellier is a below average comedian who realised the only way he can make it on media street is to be a pandering apologist to everything, that suddenly make him a credible opinionist who was once a funny guy, well thats the game he's trying to play.
Ive seen hellier live doing comedy and before I saw that I was close to the same opinion as you regarding his comedic skills. After the show my opinion was changed, funny bugger live, Dont judge by what you see on the screen.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

HinkleysHeroes

Club Legend
Jul 1, 2017
2,086
3,512
AFL Club
Port Adelaide

Tibbs

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 9, 2013
5,224
12,125
Brisbane
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Ive seen hellier live doing comedy and before I saw that I was close to the same opinion as you regarding his comedic skills. After the show my opinion was changed, funny bugger live, Dont judge by what you see on the screen.
I have seen him live too. One of the funniest comedy sets I have seen in many years.

Which is why I take of what is said here on BF with a pinch of salt.
 

PowerBaz

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 13, 2014
11,934
14,615
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
If my friends took me to a Peter Helier stand up show I wouldn’t laugh.

Then I would get new friends
Dave Chapelle was good! Although smoked like they were the last cigarettes on earth... if he doesn’t croak it from a smoking related disease I’ll eat my hat.
 

proman_x

Premium Platinum
Sep 28, 2011
1,658
1,967
South East SA
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Port Magpies

(Log in to remove this ad.)

TheFVK

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 21, 2008
7,439
26,766
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Back in the early 80's through my work I came across 3 or 4 management types in the transport industry who took job transfers from the eastern states to SA and sold their houses for enormous money by Adelaide standards and then bought something better here for less than a 3rd of what they sold the original property for.

I remember one bloke who was originally from Sydney describing the difference in property prices as akin to winning the opera house lottery.
Apparently the interest on his term deposit from the funds left over was more than his wife could earn in a full time job, so she stayed home with the kids.
Those were the days when you could buy a block at West Lakes for less than 30k though.
Those were the days!

Nowadays the only way kids of Australia will own a house is when their parents drop off.

1613380520030.png
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Sep 9, 2007
21,690
53,208
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
If you would like to know why that is, consider that 1992 was when the superannuation guarantee was introduced in Australia. Super contributions were to be progressively increased between 1992-2002, from 3% to 9%. In 1998, reforms to business taxation, including proposals to reduce the CGT rate for super funds to 10%. In 1999, the SIS Act was amended to establish a new category of small superannuation fund, the Self Managed Superannuation Fund to be regulated by the Australian Taxation Office.

Guess where all these newly established SMSFs ploughed their money? Into real estate, because it was the only thing they really knew.

By June 2007, superannuation assets were 119% of GDP - $1 trillion. As of 30 June 2018, Australians had AU$2.7 trillion in superannuation assets, making Australia the 4th largest holder of pension fund assets in the world. In 2020, Australia is only behind the United States and the UK for pension assets under management. In fact, the AUM of Australia is exactly proportional to the relative size of our economy to the UK and the US ($1.8 trillion USD compared to $3.6 trillion USD for the UK and $18.8 trillion USD for the US).

It's also the reason why the S&P 500 outperforms the ASX 200. In the US, dividends are generally reinvested back into company stock to avoid taxation by the IRS, but once you retire in Australia, our super scheme says that you actually get the tax that companies pay back. Why? Because the idea is that the age pension is only ever meant to be a supplement to your own retirement savings. The government wants you to use your own money to live on, not theirs.

If you wanted to make housing more affordable, you'd have to incentivise investment in the Australian stock market while discouraging investment in housing.
 

Jello_B

Premiership Player
Mar 2, 2014
4,229
2,882
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
If you would like to know why that is, consider that 1992 was when the superannuation guarantee was introduced in Australia. Super contributions were to be progressively increased between 1992-2002, from 3% to 9%. In 1998, reforms to business taxation, including proposals to reduce the CGT rate for super funds to 10%. In 1999, the SIS Act was amended to establish a new category of small superannuation fund, the Self Managed Superannuation Fund to be regulated by the Australian Taxation Office.

Guess where all these newly established SMSFs ploughed their money? Into real estate, because it was the only thing they really knew.

By June 2007, superannuation assets were 119% of GDP - $1 trillion. As of 30 June 2018, Australians had AU$2.7 trillion in superannuation assets, making Australia the 4th largest holder of pension fund assets in the world. In 2020, Australia is only behind the United States and the UK for pension assets under management. In fact, the AUM of Australia is exactly proportional to the relative size of our economy to the UK and the US ($1.8 trillion USD compared to $3.6 trillion USD for the UK and $18.8 trillion USD for the US).

It's also the reason why the S&P 500 outperforms the ASX 200. In the US, dividends are generally reinvested back into company stock to avoid taxation by the IRS, but once you retire in Australia, our super scheme says that you actually get the tax that companies pay back. Why? Because the idea is that the age pension is only ever meant to be a supplement to your own retirement savings. The government wants you to use your own money to live on, not theirs.

If you wanted to make housing more affordable, you'd have to incentivise investment in the Australian stock market while discouraging investment in housing.
You can’t buy a house with a smsf. Surely dual incomes and low interest rates have increased house pricing more than super.
 

Papa G

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 13, 2006
25,797
52,927
The Bitter End
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
You can’t buy a house with a smsf. Surely dual incomes and low interest rates have increased house pricing more than super.
You can buy investment properties in an SMSF but these are usually bought by dumb Mum and Dad investors bedazzled by property spruikers selling overpriced shonboxes. The biggest benefit of SMSFs is buying your own business real property and renting it to your own business. Super has fu** all to do with the huge rise in housing prices in Australia. Relatively low interest rates, relatively high prosperity and high immigration has been the main drivers. Australia's population has increased by a third over the last 30 years.
 

TheFVK

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 21, 2008
7,439
26,766
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
If you would like to know why that is, consider that 1992 was when the superannuation guarantee was introduced in Australia. Super contributions were to be progressively increased between 1992-2002, from 3% to 9%. In 1998, reforms to business taxation, including proposals to reduce the CGT rate for super funds to 10%. In 1999, the SIS Act was amended to establish a new category of small superannuation fund, the Self Managed Superannuation Fund to be regulated by the Australian Taxation Office.

Guess where all these newly established SMSFs ploughed their money? Into real estate, because it was the only thing they really knew.

By June 2007, superannuation assets were 119% of GDP - $1 trillion. As of 30 June 2018, Australians had AU$2.7 trillion in superannuation assets, making Australia the 4th largest holder of pension fund assets in the world. In 2020, Australia is only behind the United States and the UK for pension assets under management. In fact, the AUM of Australia is exactly proportional to the relative size of our economy to the UK and the US ($1.8 trillion USD compared to $3.6 trillion USD for the UK and $18.8 trillion USD for the US).

It's also the reason why the S&P 500 outperforms the ASX 200. In the US, dividends are generally reinvested back into company stock to avoid taxation by the IRS, but once you retire in Australia, our super scheme says that you actually get the tax that companies pay back. Why? Because the idea is that the age pension is only ever meant to be a supplement to your own retirement savings. The government wants you to use your own money to live on, not theirs.

If you wanted to make housing more affordable, you'd have to incentivise investment in the Australian stock market while discouraging investment in housing.
"houses and holes" - the Australian economy in a nutshell

You're seeing a similar thing happening globally via "the everything bubble"; inflation of every asset class, but hey the trillions of dollars being printed needs to go somewhere

Stimulus money:
The rich / financially stable - invest
The poor - spend to survive

Economy is saved, class gap widens, everyone is happy right
 

Janus

Dominus Ex Machina
Sep 9, 2007
21,690
53,208
Portland, Oregon
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Dallas Cowboys, Chicago Bulls
You can’t buy a house with a smsf. Surely dual incomes and low interest rates have increased house pricing more than super.
Sure you can. You just can't live in it.

These are the rules for real estate investment for an SMSF:
  • meet the 'sole purpose test' of solely providing retirement benefits to fund members
  • not be acquired from a related party of a member
  • not be lived in by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
  • not be rented by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
https://moneysmart.gov.au/property-investment/smsfs-and-property

So you can buy as many investment properties as you want as long as you or anyone that is related to you doesn't live or rent it - you can buy a block of units and rent them all out as part of your SMSF if that's what you want to do. Papa G is right in that an SMSF can buy a business premises and leased to the business run by a fund member, but that's pretty useless if you don't run your own business, isn't it? I'm talking about the countless CEOs, board members, presidents, vice presidents etc that actually have the money to have passive income - the people who work for a company but still pull in $200k-$500k per year. A good portfolio of assets is one that is diversified - real estate, stocks, bonds, physical gold etc. These guys do things like renting their own personal property and then using their SMSF with the tax advantages on super contributions to buy investment properties that pay for it.

"houses and holes" - the Australian economy in a nutshell

You're seeing a similar thing happening globally via "the everything bubble"; inflation of every asset class, but hey the trillions of dollars being printed needs to go somewhere

Stimulus money:
The rich / financially stable - invest
The poor - spend to survive

Economy is saved, class gap widens, everyone is happy right
By 2030, servitisation is going to be the new buzzword. You won't own anything - you will rent it, but you will only be charged for the time you actually use the device. So you might have a television that you pay a deposit on - which will be the actual cost of manufacture + 20% or whatever - and then every minute you watch tv, a device not to dissimilar to a smart meter will tick over counting how much time you spend and the auto deduct money from your account based on how much you've actually used the television.

That's what they are pushing for. Corporations will own everything. You want to drive somewhere? Here's a Tesla to take you where you want to go - $5. Need cooling on a hot day? That'll be $10. Don't need to go anywhere, and it's a nice day? You don't have to pay $15. Constant consumption.
 

PowerBaz

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 13, 2014
11,934
14,615
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Sure you can. You just can't live in it.

These are the rules for real estate investment for an SMSF:
  • meet the 'sole purpose test' of solely providing retirement benefits to fund members
  • not be acquired from a related party of a member
  • not be lived in by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
  • not be rented by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
https://moneysmart.gov.au/property-investment/smsfs-and-property

So you can buy as many investment properties as you want as long as you or anyone that is related to you doesn't live or rent it - you can buy a block of units and rent them all out as part of your SMSF if that's what you want to do. Papa G is right in that an SMSF can buy a business premises and leased to the business run by a fund member, but that's pretty useless if you don't run your own business, isn't it? I'm talking about the countless CEOs, board members, presidents, vice presidents etc that actually have the money to have passive income - the people who work for a company but still pull in $200k-$500k per year. A good portfolio of assets is one that is diversified - real estate, stocks, bonds, physical gold etc. These guys do things like renting their own personal property and then using their SMSF with the tax advantages on super contributions to buy investment properties that pay for it.



By 2030, servitisation is going to be the new buzzword. You won't own anything - you will rent it, but you will only be charged for the time you actually use the device. So you might have a television that you pay a deposit on - which will be the actual cost of manufacture + 20% or whatever - and then every minute you watch tv, a device not to dissimilar to a smart meter will tick over counting how much time you spend and the auto deduct money from your account based on how much you've actually used the television.

That's what they are pushing for. Corporations will own everything. You want to drive somewhere? Here's a Tesla to take you where you want to go - $5. Need cooling on a hot day? That'll be $10. Don't need to go anywhere, and it's a nice day? You don't have to pay $15. Constant consumption.

‘consumption’ - that word reminds me of why I liked lockdown in a strange way, it made you stop, look around and take time out, it made you realise how the whole world is set up for you to keep doing ‘stuff’, spending money, consuming...

The vaccine rollout is really to keep that going, I’m not sure it’s about our health, it’s all about $.
 

TheFVK

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 21, 2008
7,439
26,766
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Sure you can. You just can't live in it.

These are the rules for real estate investment for an SMSF:
  • meet the 'sole purpose test' of solely providing retirement benefits to fund members
  • not be acquired from a related party of a member
  • not be lived in by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
  • not be rented by a fund member or any fund members' related parties
https://moneysmart.gov.au/property-investment/smsfs-and-property

So you can buy as many investment properties as you want as long as you or anyone that is related to you doesn't live or rent it - you can buy a block of units and rent them all out as part of your SMSF if that's what you want to do. Papa G is right in that an SMSF can buy a business premises and leased to the business run by a fund member, but that's pretty useless if you don't run your own business, isn't it? I'm talking about the countless CEOs, board members, presidents, vice presidents etc that actually have the money to have passive income - the people who work for a company but still pull in $200k-$500k per year. A good portfolio of assets is one that is diversified - real estate, stocks, bonds, physical gold etc. These guys do things like renting their own personal property and then using their SMSF with the tax advantages on super contributions to buy investment properties that pay for it.



By 2030, servitisation is going to be the new buzzword. You won't own anything - you will rent it, but you will only be charged for the time you actually use the device. So you might have a television that you pay a deposit on - which will be the actual cost of manufacture + 20% or whatever - and then every minute you watch tv, a device not to dissimilar to a smart meter will tick over counting how much time you spend and the auto deduct money from your account based on how much you've actually used the television.

That's what they are pushing for. Corporations will own everything. You want to drive somewhere? Here's a Tesla to take you where you want to go - $5. Need cooling on a hot day? That'll be $10. Don't need to go anywhere, and it's a nice day? You don't have to pay $15. Constant consumption.
Personally I don't see servitisation as consumption- I see it as sustainable. Why should I own a car or a washing machine when I only want to use one. The insistence as a society that we all individually own one of everything (despite maybe only using it a fraction of the time) has contributed to the throwaway culture and rampant materialism that we see today.

Servitisation will have the average joe up in arms at the return of the commies but for me it's a more sustainable way for this plague we call humanity to live.
 

Remove this Banner Ad