Originally Posted by plague
we're waiting till the weekend to watch it with the family.
The most unexpectedly awesome election campaign flyer I've ever seen
The most unexpectedly awesome election campaign flyer I've ever seen
OK
more from clive
why wouldn't you vote for him."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.
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?
OK
Bronwyn Reid.
Probably the only one who can save us.
Grew up on the Central Coast, has a creepy-as smile & hates mining
Vote Labour for Charlton!:brr:
OK
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
The fact that neither major party are against negative gearing shows what sort of a neo-liberalised shit hole Australia has become.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
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.
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 ?
Last edited by The Dunster; 31-08-2013 at 11:36 AM.
Saul Eslake made the following comment about negative gearing in 2011:
Buy hey. What the **** would Saul know anyway.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.
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.
Last edited by The Dunster; 31-08-2013 at 12:14 PM.
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.
[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.
Last edited by The Dunster; 31-08-2013 at 12:41 PM.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
