:rof: we're waiting till the weekend to watch it with the family.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The most unexpectedly awesome election campaign flyer I've ever seen :rof:
Printable View
:rof: we're waiting till the weekend to watch it with the family.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The most unexpectedly awesome election campaign flyer I've ever seen :rof:
more from clive
why wouldn't you vote for him.Quote:
"My hair is not as silky as Rudd's and my body not as toned as Abbott's but I offer common sense and real business experience."
also this pearler from the devil.
Quote:
when Bill Heffernan took issue with Greens senator Lee Rhiannon's view on agricultural practices, or some such. "I think," Heffernan began encouragingly, "(there's a bit) too much pot and too much armpit-plaiting going on there." Rhiannon deemed this "really insulting" - and fair enough; who plaits these days? The Heff insisted "we're just having fun", an overly inclusive hypothesis Rhiannon quickly shot down. "Oh, go away," Heff concluded.
KRudd has done an AMA on reddit.
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comment..._of_australia/
Some interesting reading.
Anyone know the full details on the charlton electorate? Apparently the liberal guy withdrew due to an incriminating website.
Disregarding your personal bias etc - who is available to vote for, and how would one vote for the least-labour candidate possible?
Bronwyn Reid.Quote:
Originally Posted by pv4
http://www.abc.net.au/dat/news/elect...R_PUP_Reid.jpg
http://palmerunited.com/wp-content/u...ntitled-13.jpg
Probably the only one who can save us.
:rof: just did a bit of research on Pat Conroy, the Charlton labour candidate, for those Charlton-ites interested.
Grew up on the Central Coast, has a creepy-as smile & hates mining
Vote Labour for Charlton! :rof: :gent: :brr:
10 bucks to join palmer united, get on board guyz
Better still....send me ten bucks and you can have a party.
stop being so anti D
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
The fact that neither major party are against negative gearing shows what sort of a neo-liberalised shit hole Australia has become.Quote:
Hi Kevin,
As a 30 something, I am trying to provide a home for my family. However prices for homes are currently astronomical being 9 times the average wage compared 3 times the average wage 20 to 30 years ago.
I strongly believe that there are government policies (in particular negative gearing) is turning our country into a nation of renters instead of a nation of owners and is draining the monetary resources of all aspiring home owners which means they don't spend the money in the general economy.
And the evidence shows that negative gearing does not address any supply issues (> 7% of negatively geared properties are existing stock instead of new houses/apartments).
Why have you (or the opposition) not noticed this (and the effect it has had on the general community) and changed the tax policy so that everyone gets the chance at home ownership and not just the rich or the ones who bought before the 10 year boom that started in 2000?
It doesn't have to be all in straight away, instead just phase it in.
edit: Thanks very much to the generous redditor who gave me reddit gold, it's greatly appreciated :)
But the evidence does not back up your argument. Australia has approx. 70%+ home ownership, one of the highest in the world. Also If 7% of negative geared are existing stock it means 93% of geared properties must be new stock, so it is having an effect on building and construction.
might be true for you hillbillies but buying property in sydney these days is totally ****ed
don't give me the i worked hard and saved yada yada yada malarkey, even if you do that you have no chance of buying anything that goes on the market in a reasonable place close to where you work - as everything is snapped up by dinosaurs with self-managed super funds or blokes with ten houses buying another investment property
it may be great now but what happens to your pensions etc 50 years down the track when the home ownership rate keeps decreasing and the government has to subsidise rent for an aging population that has no property safety net?
let the bubble burst and the blood run free imo
who you talking to q
:rof:
eazy e all day
my argument was "The fact that neither major party are against negative gearing shows what sort of a neo-liberalised shit hole Australia has become. " Nothing you have said changes that.Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Champ
What's wrong with your comment is that the 93% of new contructions will still be using existing stocks of land which will drive up the price of land.
How the **** does that benefit people looking to buy a first home ?
Saul Eslake made the following comment about negative gearing in 2011:
Buy hey. What the **** would Saul know anyway.Quote:
It certainly does nothing to increase the supply of housing, since the vast majority of landlords buy established properties: 92 per cent of all borrowing by residential property investors over the past decade has been for the purchase of established dwellings, as against 82 per cent of all borrowing by owner-occupiers. Precisely for that reason, the availability of negative gearing contributes to upward pressure on the prices of established dwellings, and thus diminishes housing affordability for would-be home buyers. Eslake, Saul. (2011)“Time to change the unfair rules for negative gearing,” The Age, 25th April.
http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2010/...610-graph1.gif
I won't get stuck into stock flow consistent macroeconomic models here but the above graph is pretty much every reason why governments with external accounts in deficit should never attempt to obtain budget surpluses. And with respect to Housing affordability both Keating and Howard pretty much made it impoossible for lower income earners to ever be able to afford a home. it's an absolute disgrace.
Good news for banks though. Because when the current account is in deficit due to net income payments [thats payments to foreign investors] and the federal government aims to run a surplus it is 100% impossible for the non-government sector to spend less than they earn.
As a result, people are forced to spend via credit, the banks make huge profits, and when households go bust - government steps in, rescues the banks and then we start all over again.
But the master stroke is to actual make the masses beleive that everyone will benefit. It's pure evil genius.
And for those of you that think you are working very hard and yet not actually benefiting from it take a look at this little gem of a graph.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blo..._1978_2010.jpg
[Source:http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blo...1978_2010.jpg]
Productivity is increasing rapidly and yet wages growth is practicially flat. Karl Marx would get a shot away over that graph.
Interesting how workplace relations reform is still being talked about. How ****ing greedy can these khunts get ?
Note: Conservatives should not get too excited about the rises in real wages from 1997 onwards. One you take the top 20% out of the distribution it's far from a victory for the average wage earner. Ans if you want to look at the minimum wgae as a percentage of the average wage - the minimum wage has been in rapid decline in relative terms.
I wouldn't vote for any of these ****s. Labour, Liberal, Green. All shit, and not worth pissng on.
I never said negative gearing was fair/unfair. Saul eastlake mentions 82% of borrowings are for owner occupiers....pretty high % don't you think. Why dont you post some graphs with comparisons with home ownership with other nations... lets see where we are at with the rest of the western world.
Start of with the G8 see how we compare.
Yeah. Heaven forbid bosses should get what they pay for.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
I'm sure next time you order 4 beers at a Jets game and they only give you 3 you'd walk away without a problem.
(Wait, getting less mid strength Carlton IS probably a good thing).
The whole workplace reform debate isn't just about productivity.
82% of borrowings are for owner occupiers would be pretty high except for the fact that 100% could be achieved if Negative Gearing was culled.Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Champ
I agree. It's about exploitation and a graph comparing incomes to productivity demonstrates it.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The reason I would receive three beers rather than four is because my non-capitalist share of income is growing at a much slower rate than the capitalist share of income.
The gap between the two series on the graph is essentially the difference between the value of total output and the wage share of income unable to purchase that output.
Again, great news for banks bad news for household balance sheets.
The microeconomics of the workplace is unsolvable and it is pointless even going there. The macroeconomics of the workplace though can easily be solved to benefit all parties.
You will never achieve 100% of owner occupiers. Not every one wants to own a home eg if you move away to another town to work for a few years, you may be happy to rent whilst away. You must have a short memory, negative gearing was abolished in the mid/late eighties, it worked such a treat that it was re-installed. (for want of a better word)
Cool story bro.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
My comment was more about unfair dismissal laws and the general double standards we display depending on which side of the transaction we are on at any particular time.
Cool graph though
Viva le revolution and all that comrade.
This thread has gone to shit. Labor can produce a graph that points down and Lib will use the same figures and it will point up. The only thing that matters is that Kev can speak Mandarin
It was abolished or brought back around 1987. And rents increased in Sydney and Perth and decreased everywhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by De-Champ
Pressure from the elites is what brought it back. Much like the current nazi like workplace relations reforms [Labour and Liberal] or the fiscal consolidation propoganda the financial services / banking industry as a whole are selling to the masses.
Edit: Estimates of the cost of negative gearing upon the public purse range from around 30 to 35 billion dollars a year. That's a lot of money for health care, education ... you name it.
I understood what you were talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Given that productivty is growing faster than real wages it would appear conclusive that workers need more power not less in the bargaining process, or indeed in being retained in employment.
Obviously, there are cases where the employers gets screwed. But in aggregate the data suggests that the employers are winning by a considerable margin.
Maybe this will make more sense:
A CEO of a large corporation, a union representative, and a small business owner are sitting at a table.
A waitress places a plate containing 12 donuts on the table.
The CEO eats 11 of the donuts then turns to the small business owner and say's " keep an eye on that union guy he's about to eat you donut".
I hope this makes more sense than my previous posts.
ahhhhhhh yes, the old "All CEO bad, all small business owners are wannabe CEOs, all Union men here for the good of the worker" schtick.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
I think its a tired old cliched and you are obviously too intelligent to even believe it.
Anyway, keep fighting the good fight comrade.
I'm with my2bobsworth though, any chance you can put together a graph on the correlation between Mardarin speaking Prime Ministers and relative wage growth in the last century?
ta
Good luck to both Rudd and Abbott with respect to threading a camel through the eye of a needle.:grin:
Anyone keen for a riot next Sunday if anyone bar Clive palmer ends up prime minister?
It would be an honour to lead the line with you Blackmac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmac79
This would require multi coloured chalk I suspect
Clive Palmer looking likeily to win a seat.
FFS.
Team Labor after their All Age Grand Final today:
"well, you know, we got beat 12-5 today, but geez how awesome were those 5 goals".
Clive and Katter plus Abbott is going to keep comedians in jobs for the next three years at leastQuote:
Originally Posted by Thomas477
Assuming Katter wins, which isnt a sure thing.
Above the line voting for Palmer United :cool:
Where do we meet ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmac79
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200901/r331745_1496920.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by pv4
we done it
Don't blame me, I voted for GVE
Found this on an SBS link:-
What Abbott has promised
Scroll down to
In First Term
*Locate a Commonwealth agency in Gosford CBD :fright:
Liberal voter fail right there!