I don’t think you have been following things. This discussion is about voting entirely on self interest with no regard for the benefit of others. Taken to its logical conclusion we would have no NDIS, for instance, because it is not in the self-interest of the majority.
Dumb questions: Why aren’t negative gearing and franking credits welfare means tested like the pension and other Centrelink welfare?
On that last point 1000%
As a material difference, in terms of tax collected vs potential votes lost
It was an absolute monty
Who doesn’t want international companies to pay their fair share?
Especially when you are paying 30-45% in tax and you read Apple,Google etc are paying close to nothing.
Such an easy thing to run, get that across the line!
Absolutely! Property is now a hugely valuable item.
…property ownership is declining…but if someone with a $1m property can get the same pension as someone with no property who then probably has to use much of that pension to rent one of those expensive dwellings…well it’s unfair and illogical.
(PS. I don’t know the tax laws, I’m assuming I haven’t botched this all up)
The ALP absolutely ran on that.
And if you’re suggesting taking pensions away from little old ladies in houses having less electoral blowback than closing a loophole for millionaires that they were never entitled to anyway, then I don’t think the ALP needs that sort of help.
Edit: Seriously, I could end someone’s career on that in five minutes. I’d probably start by calling it a pre-emptive death tax.
1 Like
Compare the pair
Little old lady in Collingwood - $1.5million house owns outright, $150k in super, $50k in cash
Little old lady in Fitzroy - Rents, $35k in cash
Do you think we should give equal assistance from the government?
One needs it and the other is working the system
I actually I can’t see massive blowback.
Response 'So you are saying you have a net worth of $1.7 million and you still want money from the government?
1 Like
I’ve paid taxes for seventy five years, and that’s a long time, Tommy.
I’ve earned my pension.
And now they want to kick me out of my home.
The home where I had my children, where my grandchildren come to play.
The pension’s all I’ve got since Sam died.
He was a war veteran.
See his photo, Tommy?
See us standing outside our front gate?
All they care about is money. Haven’t we given enough?
They say they want me to take out a loan. At my age. I don’t know what I’m signing. What if they take my house anyway?
I’m old and confused and it’s mean and cruel, Tommy.
Yeah, that’s a sure fire vote-winner.
6 Likes
You still haven’t answered my 1st question about the people financially benefiting.
What I’m saying is that voting self interest doesn’t have to exclude any regard for the wider impact. Its not a choice that has to be made. Whats in the best interest of the majority doesn’t have to be tied to a removal of services or total disregard for another section of the community. By the same token voting on specific interest doesn’t equal whats best for the majority, it doesn’t even necessarily equal whats best for the specific interest. If one party was promising to close the NDIS, send all the disabled out to live on the streets but in return give everyone 5k then sure thats a self interest choice - I’m not seeing anything remotely like that.
I see my vote as a choice of who I think will provide the best governance for the country. That includes things like the NDIS but more widely my self interest is in the financial stability & prosperity of as many Australians as possible. Thats the absolute best way for me & my family to prosper. I’m a business owner, my customers will only buy as long as I have a quality product (that part I can take care of) and there is enough money in the community to spend on what admittedly are not really essential items.
yep - not sure why wanting financial security for your family is linked to multinational companies avoiding tax. They’ve been doing it regardless of the Gvt for decades so I’m not sure why one side even thinks they have a high ground on the issue. Any party who had a genuine plan & could pull off making Google & Apple type companies pay tax would get very wide support for that policy.
Ms Collingwood, whilst we thank your husband for your service and your contribution to society - when just need to clarify a few things
Did you know your net worth of $1.7million puts you in the top 10% wealthiest people in Australia?
That is something you should be really proud of and understand very few will get to that position.
And being in the top 10% wealthiest people in the country, do you think it is fair that the government gives you further financial support?
It’s a bit like asking to be paid in the doll Ms. Collingwood when you are working full time. Not very fair
What we would like to do is, see those junkies on the corner you see every day. We would like to use those extra funds to give them the support - to get them back on their feet.
Do you think that would be a better way to contribute to Australia?
Whilst we are talking about progressive taxes
MINING TAX
do it, just do it.
1 Like
You accuse me of rewriting history ?
Of course the NSW Right backed Bill — They hardly supported Albo ! Don’t make me laugh !
And you claim the “Victorian Socialist Left” gave Shorten the leadership. All 9 of them, eh ?
Albo’s candidature was supported by Combet, Macklin and Wong; Bill’s candidature was supported by Paul_Howes, Nicola Roxon, Kate_Ellis, Peter Beattie, Mark Latham, Bob Carr, and Simon Crean. 55 members of Caucus voted for Bill, 31 for Albo. Of the general membership, 12,196 voted for Bill, while 18,230 voted for Albo.
That only goes to show how fu*ked the leadership election system is, even after Rudd’s reforms, weighted so heavily against the membership and in favor of Caucus. If someone even wants to be a candidate, he/she must have the support of 20% of Caucus to start with !
If Labor was ever going to be a democratic socialist party, it would be one-member-one-vote for the leadership, like the British Labour Party, where the membership elected a left-wing genuine socialist candidate, Jeremy Corbyn, against the wishes of the right-wing Parliamentary Party.
Perhaps you might let me know where exactly I was so wrong in my assessment of Shorten, anyway. I praised him for his abilities as well as criticising him for some of his shortcomings. He was a brilliant backroom boy, but unsuited to being the public face of the Party, in this TV and internet age. He’s now lost two general elections in a row, a repeat of Kim Beazley’s double.
Talking of the Internet — one of the biggest complaints the general public had about the Lieberals was the fuked up NBN — how Turnbull gave himself and his neighbours the full package and gave a vastly inferior version to most of the country, all at a vastly inflated cost. Labor could have promised to fix all the Lieberals’ NBN stuff-ups, whatever the cost, because we need the complete infrastructure, and if it cost a bomb to fix, blame it on the LNP’s financial mismanagement. But no, Labor said it would cost too much to fix and we’d just have to wear the LNP stuff-up, in the name of good book-keeping. For Fuk’s Sake !!! A real chance of getting Joe Public behind them and they didn’t have the guts to do it.
Lisa Chesters’ seat here in Bendigo was never in any doubt, despite the muddied presentation of policy from the Party. She’a a great local member, and a lovely person, who’s recently ovecome some serious health problems, thankfully.
It wasn’t me who acused Labor of being arrogant or bullying, by the way. Quite the opposite: they were too busy trying to be “nice” and “respectable” and didn’t berate the Liberals strongly enough for their farrago of lies.
Labor didn’t “lose this election because their policy agenda was too much change for most of the morons who vote.” They lost it because they presented their policies in detail to a public who gain their information from HEADLINES and make their decisions accordingly. They lost it because in outlining their policies so early and in such detail they gave the Tories the opportunity of spending weeks attacking Labor’ for their real policies as well as for ones they themselves invented (such as death duties), without ever having to present policies of their own.
Bill spent three weeks talking, and talking seriously and talking more seriously. Scummo spent his time laughing and playing football, laughing and sneering at Bill, laughing and playing pool, laughing and drinking schooners, sneering at Bill and laughing.
Then there were Queensland and Adani, and there were the mythical taxes that Labor never promised to levy — but Scummo said they did…
Now we have the NSW Right attempting to use this loss as an excuse to get their greasy fingers back on the levers of Power which they lost after Obeid was gaoled.
Your statement that the Victorian SL members “could never support Albo because they could not work for him” reminds me of your prior statements about the inability of the same persons to work with Rudd… Maybe it’s time they learnt to work for Albo — the choice will be him or some right-wing Liberal Light ! Time to look forward, not back : Albo needs all the help we can give him.
3 Likes
Obviously a vote can include a responsible balance of self interest and regard for others, but that wasn’t the discussion.
And no, I’m not going into how my friends financially benefit from the Libs (but abhor them anyway). Use your imagination.
1 Like
Well Perce, I could give you an exact call on who voted for Bill, just like who voted for
Rudd over Julia, and in both cases it was SL who ratted. It doesn’t really matter now does it, because we now have another three years of this ■■■■■, and when I hear all these Labor people tell me about keeping to Labor values and presenting policy and educating the Voters, I just wonder what planet they are on.
You posted
Labor didn’t “lose this election because their policy agenda was too much change for most of the morons who vote.” They lost it because they presented their policies in detail to a public who gain their information from HEADLINES and make their decisions accordingly. They lost it because in outlining their policies so early and in such detail they gave the Tories the opportunity of spending weeks attacking Labor’ for their real policies as well as for ones they themselves invented (such as death duties), without ever having to present policies of their own.
Yep and no; the policies maybe could have been presented better, but the morons just would never get it. Just look at Aceman and JBomber who post here. JBomber is a nice guy and probably so it Aceman, but it would not matter what policy Labor put forward, these blokes are just political morons and do not even consider policy.
I didn’t say you called Labor arrogant and bullies, it was another political dill, but blaming Bill is just a step too far for me. And while I voted for Albo before, I will never support him again for the same reason my SL Mates cant. I would actually like Ged Kearney to be the Leader.
What has happened here is that many investors take out interest only loans to buy properties.
This led to the Sydney and Melbourne housing markets shooting up so much.
So the Government/banking regulators thought what can they do about this… so they made it you can only take P&I loans.
Hence the $140 billion in loan conversions. But they whacked the rest of the country just to deal with a problem in Sydney. Real estate prices have not rose in Perth for ten years and are now going backwards. I presume SA and NT have the same problem… not sure about QLD outside Brisbane.
But yeah, negative gearing reform will ruin us.
Careful! The idol of the right, and chief engineer of the Tories’ election win, would not approve of this policy of yours.
Oh, right.
Well it makes sense to have IO loans when building, or buying an apartment off the plan.
There are risks, of course.
Defaults has not been whats driven the downturn thus far I dont think. None of the major lenders are reporting it. Rather a lack of new entrants.
With rates at record lows, employment stable I would be surprised if there is a big trigger for mass defaults.
I am thinking however the whole economy is grinding to a bit of a halt. Negative equity means cash is well king.
I wouldnt borrow into property now with rates at record lows. Perhaps if low rates could be fixed for a long period.(ie 20 years) The banks have got a bit of a challenge.
So you are going to “take” someone’s pension based on people speculating on the property market? Despite the fact they probably bought their house in Collingwood when it was a junkie slum for ■■■■ all, and have very little cash. What happens if the market crashes? How’s living off the house gonna work now? Oh sorry, now your house is only worth 600k, no more left to borrow.
1 Like
This bullshit with corporations is a scrouge on society. Apple in particular (■■■■ of a company).
2 Likes