Australian Politics, Mark II

[Preliminary_Point2]

Voted to remove Turnbull, Sukkar.

[SMJ]

That’s quite long

[Preliminary_Point2]

Well short is obvious.

Suk Eggs!

[BLOODSTAINED_DEVILS]

It;s easy isn’t it?

SukkarSE

[SMJ]

Obvious would be drawing a c/ck next to his surname. Which I can neither confirm or deny has already been done to one placard

[Preliminary_Point2]

Hitler moustache for the lolz.

[SMJ]

You just can’t beat the classics huh

[Soulnet]

Are these the ad boards that don’t even say he is a liberal candidate? if so just write LIBERAL on them.

[theDJR]

Labor are not doing a “small target” campaign — they just happen to have announced most of the changes over the last three years rather than as a big data dump now.

And credit for that courage given this is a classic drover’s dog election. If anything that’s the Liberal story: we’ll cut all the taxes AND remove all the debt. It’s too good to be true.

[Preliminary_Point2]

There has to be something sharp and snappy about “safe schools” and catholic priests.

[Preliminary_Point2]

Yeah changing negative gearing, franking credits and capital gains tax as well as climate change action isn’t small target.

[HirdMentality]

My house is surrounded by streets full of Michael Sukkar placards. Big ones too.

Creative graffiti suggestions welcome

Don’t let Michael Fukk-ars

[simmo41]

Without wanting to criticise your parents, I do understand their concerns, surely they’ve done pretty well out of their properties?
I assume that even with the recent downturn, the capital growth and tax savings have covered the stamp duty and given them upwards of 5%pa?

I think you could a case forward that property values should be lower, and ‘did pretty well but not as amazing as we thought it was going to be’ isn’t much of an argument against that.

There will be winners and losers in everything, of course.

If we’re projecting 25 years ahead, then maybe more affordable housing now might make it possible for their children to support them later.

Their first investment property was purchased in the late 90s so yeah I’d say they’ve covered most associated costs since then.

Their main motivation is to never have to rely on (traditional) government welfare. The prospect of even having to see out a couple of years at the end of it is worrying for them.

Their kids are late 30s and doing a barely adequate job of supporting themselves. Affordable or not they’ll be paying a mortgage well past retirement age.

-edit- they freely acknowledge that if it weren’t for these policies they’d be all over Labor via the Greens because of how sht the LNP are at literally everything else.

[Albert_Thurgood]

@simmo41
Please read my post above and educate your parents.

They are discrediting boomers badly. Even worse than @barnz does.

[simmo41]

See reply from @Europhoric to your post. They’re concerned about the drop in value if everyone panic sells and less are buying.

[HirdMentality]

Sell now whilst high and then when the market falls buy back in and wait for the recovery.

[Europhoric]

If only it was that easy, nobody would lose money…

[simmo41]

I would have suggested that if I didn’t already know that the property I’m currently renting off them is first on the list.

Self interest wins every time I tells ya

[HirdMentality]

Squatter’s rights??

[Bacchusfox]

There is no reason why they should sell properties they own, as in their case they can still negatively gear and rental returns of 4 to 5 % are much better than any Bank is providing.

If Labor wins on May 18 and if their Negative Gearing reforms happen as proposed, the property market may briefly slow, but it will recover and grow after a year or two. They have assets, so are in a much better position that most.