The Politics Thread 2024

[The Nickman]

What even is a pro-Palestinian case.

Not shrugging your shoulders when aid workers are hunted down and slaughtered when trying to deliver food to starving children?

I ain’t touching that. You get labelled an anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser in these parts if you display any sympathy for either side of this argument.
Bassem Yousseff is a great listen to try and understand the Arab side of the conflict.

Ummm... both those insults get labelled to you if you support one side of the conflict, they're not two opposite ends!

Agreed on your comment about Bassem Yousseff though, he's incredible.

[samvucago]

What even is a pro-Palestinian case.

Not shrugging your shoulders when aid workers are hunted down and slaughtered when trying to deliver food to starving children?

I ain’t touching that. You get labelled an anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser in these parts if you display any sympathy for either side of this argument.
Bassem Yousseff is a great listen to try and understand the Arab side of the conflict.

Ummm... both those insults get labelled to you if you support one side of the conflict, they're not two opposite ends!

Agreed on your comment about Bassem Yousseff though, he's incredible.

Ummm .. So what’s Hamas … an after school day care centre or just a misunderstood progressive political party ?

[The Nickman]

What even is a pro-Palestinian case.

Not shrugging your shoulders when aid workers are hunted down and slaughtered when trying to deliver food to starving children?

I ain’t touching that. You get labelled an anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser in these parts if you display any sympathy for either side of this argument.
Bassem Yousseff is a great listen to try and understand the Arab side of the conflict.

Ummm... both those insults get labelled to you if you support one side of the conflict, they're not two opposite ends!

Agreed on your comment about Bassem Yousseff though, he's incredible.

Ummm .. So what’s Hamas … an after school day care centre ?

You missed my point completely... you said you get called either of those things if you display sympathy for either side of the argument, I'm telling you that you get called both those things for showing support for ONE side of the conflict.

[samvucago]

What even is a pro-Palestinian case.

Not shrugging your shoulders when aid workers are hunted down and slaughtered when trying to deliver food to starving children?

I ain’t touching that. You get labelled an anti-Semite or a terrorist sympathiser in these parts if you display any sympathy for either side of this argument.
Bassem Yousseff is a great listen to try and understand the Arab side of the conflict.

Ummm... both those insults get labelled to you if you support one side of the conflict, they're not two opposite ends!

Agreed on your comment about Bassem Yousseff though, he's incredible.

Ummm .. So what’s Hamas … an after school day care centre ?

You missed my point completely... you said you get called either of those things if you display sympathy for either side of the argument, I'm telling you that you get called both those things for showing support for ONE side of the conflict.

You’re making my point that you can’t even sit on the fence on this one.

[The Nickman]

I give up... you clearly can't even see what you've written, or you don't understand your own context.

[samvucago]

Look not gonna lie . 8 schooners in and I mighta stuffed up tryin to be impartial. I apologise . Play on.

[Dr Zaius]

Look not gonna lie . 8 schooners in and I mighta stuffed up tryin to be impartial. I apologise . Play on.

Your mistake was not posting at the 6th schooner.

[samvucago]

Look not gonna lie . 8 schooners in and I mighta stuffed up tryin to be impartial. I apologise . Play on.

Your mistake was not posting at the 6th schooner.

Hang in there team and wait til I get to 12. I’ve got a few things I want to get off my chest about this joint

[gangrenous]

The problem is a lack of houses. Isn't the solution to build more houses? Why isn't that happening? Is there a shortage of builders, what's the problem here?

And GE is 100% correct, as he always is in regards to matters of finance. It's ludicrous to suggest fundamentally changing the tax system to "punish" the haves so that the have nots can also have houses. Just a ridiculous way to go about what's essentially a supply problem.

Another thing that really grinds my gears is the villainisation of "landlords" over the last half a decade or so, like they're some greedy monsters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning an additional property and renting it out to somebody else, and the fact there's also a lack of rentals these days again suggests a lack of housing in general.

So long story short: build more houses. No idea why that's not happening or how to implement this strategy more effectively, but don't **** around with the tax system in an attempt to unbalance it and punish people who are probably just trying to set themselves up for retirement.

It's the same on the franking credits situation. Don't change the rules on people who are almost on retirement to take away from their investments, it's just plain nastiness and quite frankly, classic tall poppy syndrome.

I’m not in my usual mood to give a full rebuttal to this but just quickly:

- You’re assuming the status quo is balanced.
- Other countries don’t have the same rules, so don’t see that treating it like a universal truth makes sense.
- No one is saying you can’t also increase supply. Can walk and chew gum.
- I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the idea that if we decide a system has become perverted from its intentions that those benefitting from it excessively should just get to do that indefinitely at the expense of others.

[Mickey_Raider]

The problem is a lack of houses. Isn't the solution to build more houses? Why isn't that happening? Is there a shortage of builders, what's the problem here?

And GE is 100% correct, as he always is in regards to matters of finance. It's ludicrous to suggest fundamentally changing the tax system to "punish" the haves so that the have nots can also have houses. Just a ridiculous way to go about what's essentially a supply problem.

Another thing that really grinds my gears is the villainisation of "landlords" over the last half a decade or so, like they're some greedy monsters. There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning an additional property and renting it out to somebody else, and the fact there's also a lack of rentals these days again suggests a lack of housing in general.

So long story short: build more houses. No idea why that's not happening or how to implement this strategy more effectively, but don't **** around with the tax system in an attempt to unbalance it and punish people who are probably just trying to set themselves up for retirement.

It's the same on the franking credits situation. Don't change the rules on people who are almost on retirement to take away from their investments, it's just plain nastiness and quite frankly, classic tall poppy syndrome.

I’m not in my usual mood to give a full rebuttal to this but just quickly:

- You’re assuming the status quo is balanced.
- Other countries don’t have the same rules, so don’t see that treating it like a universal truth makes sense.
- No one is saying you can’t also increase supply. Can walk and chew gum.
- I don’t have a lot of sympathy for the idea that if we decide a system has become perverted from its intentions that those benefitting from it excessively should just get to do that indefinitely at the expense of others.

Yeah **** is with this mentality that the status quo is some default, natural law setting from which to deviate disrupts the natural order?

The way it works is that you adjust policy settings to alter social outcomes. If there are distortions or bad outcomes being generated (hard to argue this isn’t the case really), then you adjust setting accordingly.

There should be nothing preventing any government from curbing, capping, grandfathering, banning, increasing or retaining negative gearing or CGT as they see fit if it will lead to a better social outcome in their view.

[The Nickman]

Or perhaps we just need more houses?

[Botman]

David McWilliam’s (who should be president of planet earth) latest pod presents a pro Palestinian case for those trying to wade through the propaganda and discusses how this mess plays out. Great listen .

Ive listened to this podcast a bit recently largely on the recommendations of this thread and i have to say... im unimpressed
There is some stuff i like but much of that pod feed is... not great. He has interesting conversations but he doesnt actually really present things in a balanced way imo, he's quick to gloss over or simply not acknowlege aspects of things that should be acknowleged. And this thread has highlighted the short comings. Its out of my rotation now.
It's a heavy pass for me despite some of it being really good

[Mickey_Raider]

Or perhaps we just need more houses?

Yes we do. Unequivocally.

But why does that mean that demand side levers should be off the table if we have good basis to conclude pulling them will result in more equitable outcomes too?

[The Nickman]

Or perhaps we just need more houses?

Yes we do. Unequivocally.

But why does that mean that demand side levers should be off the table if we have good basis to conclude pulling them will result in more equitable outcomes too?

Because what guys like you and gangrenous are proposing is that you fundamentally unbalance the tax system to punish people who have invested in property, mainly as a means to set themselves up for retirement.

Similar to the franking credits debate, you’re changing the rules for people who have largely invested thinking about their future and a source of income for when they stop working.

As an example, my wife and I have started investing with a plan to retire in 11 years (when I’m 55 and she’s 49), and there’s a government scheme that says if you invest for 10 years or more, then your profits are tax free. They’re doing this so people WILL invest, so they’re self sufficient in their retirement and less reliant on the pension.

So we’re investing quite heavily to ensure we have a nest egg to cover the gap until we can touch our super. If the likes of you and gangrenous in ten years time start hand-wringing and want that scheme rolled back you essentially cannonball our whole retirement into the sun.

That’s simply not fair. You can’t change the rules on people as they get towards their own retirements and “Robin Hood” policies that take from the haves to give to the have nots just simply isn’t fair policy in my book.

Except billionaires. We should legitimately eat them.

[The Nickman]

So yeah, build more **** houses, by whatever means.

But don’t steal from people who are only trying to set themselves up for their future.

And if you’re one of these morons who villainizes the word “landlord”, then just stop. It’s pathetic.

[gangrenous]

- You’re assuming the changes aren’t grandfathered. What’s your argument if we talk changing the tax on new purchases of existing housing?
- Let’s say the changes did affect you, am I crying a river because you now retire at 57 and 51 for your hard work so that others have an opportunity to own their home and fund their own retirement at all for theirs? I’m sorry but I’m not sure I am.

[Mickey_Raider]

Or perhaps we just need more houses?

Yes we do. Unequivocally.

But why does that mean that demand side levers should be off the table if we have good basis to conclude pulling them will result in more equitable outcomes too?

Because what guys like you and gangrenous are proposing is that you fundamentally unbalance the tax system to punish people who have invested in property, mainly as a means to set themselves up for retirement.

Similar to the franking credits debate, you’re changing the rules for people who have largely invested thinking about their future and a source of income for when they stop working.

As an example, my wife and I have started investing with a plan to retire in 11 years (when I’m 55 and she’s 49), and there’s a government scheme that says if you invest for 10 years or more, then your profits are tax free. They’re doing this so people WILL invest, so they’re self sufficient in their retirement and less reliant on the pension.

So we’re investing quite heavily to ensure we have a nest egg to cover the gap until we can touch our super. If the likes of you and gangrenous in ten years time start hand-wringing and want that scheme rolled back you essentially cannonball our whole retirement into the sun.

That’s simply not fair. You can’t change the rules on people as they get towards their own retirements and “Robin Hood” policies that take from the haves to give to the have nots just simply isn’t fair policy in my book.

Except billionaires. We should legitimately eat them.

Did you miss the part where I said that I negatively gear? And I am a landlord.

You’re making some grand assumptions about what I am apparently proposing.

All I am saying is that these things need to legitimately be on the table if we are serious about addressing housing affordability. And there is no reason why they should be regarded as sacred cows which can never ever be changed ever.

Also, where does your definition of a “Robin Hood” policy starts and end?

Do you consider that it is Robin Hood to deny someone with 10 properties the opportunity to negatively gear their 11th? Or is it confined to changes with retrospective effect?

Actually from re-reading your post it seems like your view is the former.

[papabear]

Or perhaps we just need more houses?

Yes we do. Unequivocally.

But why does that mean that demand side levers should be off the table if we have good basis to conclude pulling them will result in more equitable outcomes too?

Because what guys like you and gangrenous are proposing is that you fundamentally unbalance the tax system to punish people who have invested in property, mainly as a means to set themselves up for retirement.

Similar to the franking credits debate, you’re changing the rules for people who have largely invested thinking about their future and a source of income for when they stop working.

As an example, my wife and I have started investing with a plan to retire in 11 years (when I’m 55 and she’s 49), and there’s a government scheme that says if you invest for 10 years or more, then your profits are tax free. They’re doing this so people WILL invest, so they’re self sufficient in their retirement and less reliant on the pension.

So we’re investing quite heavily to ensure we have a nest egg to cover the gap until we can touch our super. If the likes of you and gangrenous in ten years time start hand-wringing and want that scheme rolled back you essentially cannonball our whole retirement into the sun.

That’s simply not fair. You can’t change the rules on people as they get towards their own retirements and “Robin Hood” policies that take from the haves to give to the have nots just simply isn’t fair policy in my book.

Except billionaires. We should legitimately eat them.

tbh i prefer to eat retired 55 year olds.

JK

What government scheme has you investing in property and if you stay in for 10 years any income/capital gain (I presume thats what you meant by profits) are tax free....

[papabear]

Or perhaps we just need more houses?

Yes we do. Unequivocally.

But why does that mean that demand side levers should be off the table if we have good basis to conclude pulling them will result in more equitable outcomes too?

Because what guys like you and gangrenous are proposing is that you fundamentally unbalance the tax system to punish people who have invested in property, mainly as a means to set themselves up for retirement.

Similar to the franking credits debate, you’re changing the rules for people who have largely invested thinking about their future and a source of income for when they stop working.

As an example, my wife and I have started investing with a plan to retire in 11 years (when I’m 55 and she’s 49), and there’s a government scheme that says if you invest for 10 years or more, then your profits are tax free. They’re doing this so people WILL invest, so they’re self sufficient in their retirement and less reliant on the pension.

So we’re investing quite heavily to ensure we have a nest egg to cover the gap until we can touch our super. If the likes of you and gangrenous in ten years time start hand-wringing and want that scheme rolled back you essentially cannonball our whole retirement into the sun.

That’s simply not fair. You can’t change the rules on people as they get towards their own retirements and “Robin Hood” policies that take from the haves to give to the have nots just simply isn’t fair policy in my book.

Except billionaires. We should legitimately eat them.

Did you miss the part where I said that I negatively gear? And I am a landlord.

You’re making some grand assumptions about what I am apparently proposing.

All I am saying is that these things need to legitimately be on the table if we are serious about addressing housing affordability. And there is no reason why they should be regarded as sacred cows which can never ever be changed ever.

Also, where does your definition of a “Robin Hood” policy starts and end?

Do you consider that it is Robin Hood to deny someone with 10 properties the opportunity to negatively gear their 11th? Or is it confined to changes with retrospective effect?

Actually from re-reading your post it seems like your view is the former.

I agree with Mickey.

If you want to actually fix a problem you have to put all the potential options on the table.

[Mr Squiggle]

Mass stabbing at Bondi Junction. Six dead. Death toll likely to increase.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -stabbings

[Dr Zaius]

****. Iran has launched drone and missile strikes on Israel.

[The Nickman]

****. Iran has launched drone and missile strikes on Israel.

It begins.

[gerg]

****. Iran has launched drone and missile strikes on Israel.

It begins.

I'm actually surprised it's taken this long to escalate. Let's hope some common sense and diplomacy takes over now, before things get completely out of hand.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Dr Zaius]

****. Iran has launched drone and missile strikes on Israel.

It begins.

I'm actually surprised it's taken this long to escalate. Let's hope some common sense and diplomacy takes over now, before things get completely out of hand.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Listening to one podcast during the week that suggested that Netanyahu may try to bring Iran into the conflict to solidify dwindling American support.

It doesn't bode well for Biden.

[yeh raiders]

Mass stabbing at Bondi Junction. Six dead. Death toll likely to increase.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -stabbings

A mate of mine fled into a retail store, closely followed by the lunatic… thankfully said lunatic saw the cop following him and left the store.

Shockingly bad incident.

Im hearing it took about 20 minutes for cops to arrive, which is astonishing and appalling.

There’s no other spot in Bondi where cops would take that long to get to - and we’re talking about a spot with thousands of people.

With our population ever growing, so does the likelihood of incidents like this.

Big shopping centres should reduce the number of security guards they employ, and pay actual police officers to roam the centres instead. The cost difference is probably a drop in the ocean for the government or Westfield.

[Finchy]

Mass stabbing at Bondi Junction. Six dead. Death toll likely to increase.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -stabbings

A mate of mine fled into a retail store, closely followed by the lunatic… thankfully said lunatic saw the cop following him and left the store.

Shockingly bad incident.

Im hearing it took about 20 minutes for cops to arrive, which is astonishing and appalling.

There’s no other spot in Bondi where cops would take that long to get to - and we’re talking about a spot with thousands of people.

With our population ever growing, so does the likelihood of incidents like this.

Big shopping centres should reduce the number of security guards they employ, and pay actual police officers to roam the centres instead. The cost difference is probably a drop in the ocean for the government or Westfield.

I think they do - but usually only on late-night Thursdays when it’s the busiest, and areas of high crime (west and south west Sydney). Need to make it a more permanent thing, or allow security to be armed

[Riaan]

How good is the mainstream media leading with their civil court win over Bruce Lehermann after 6 people were killed in a mass murder and WW3 might be breaking out in the Middle East. Pathetic

[yeh raiders]

Mass stabbing at Bondi Junction. Six dead. Death toll likely to increase.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -stabbings

A mate of mine fled into a retail store, closely followed by the lunatic… thankfully said lunatic saw the cop following him and left the store.

Shockingly bad incident.

Im hearing it took about 20 minutes for cops to arrive, which is astonishing and appalling.

There’s no other spot in Bondi where cops would take that long to get to - and we’re talking about a spot with thousands of people.

With our population ever growing, so does the likelihood of incidents like this.

Big shopping centres should reduce the number of security guards they employ, and pay actual police officers to roam the centres instead. The cost difference is probably a drop in the ocean for the government or Westfield.

I think they do - but usually only on late-night Thursdays when it’s the busiest, and areas of high crime (west and south west Sydney). Need to make it a more permanent thing, or allow security to be armed

To be fair, unless security have a seriously high level of training, I wouldn't want security guards armed with any more than a batton. Can't really be trusted otherwise.

It's the job of the police to take down murder threats, and to take what I'm hearing was 40 minutes from the first stabbing to finally removing the threat - is extraordinarily slow. Cops posted in the busy shopping centres, is pretty straight forward solution to that.

Imagine if the guy had a gun! He had actually been posting on Facebook groups, asking to meet up with people and go shooting with them.

[Lamenting Actions]

How good is the mainstream media leading with their civil court win over Bruce Lehermann after 6 people were killed in a mass murder and WW3 might be breaking out in the Middle East. Pathetic

Mainstream journalism died with Hemmingway. They've gone from being social clarifiers to agenda drivers because of people like Murdoch. I expect nothing less from the 'media' in this day and age. I haven't read a newspaper (both physical and online) nor used free-to-air tv for over a decade. It's been great.

[gerg]

How good is the mainstream media leading with their civil court win over Bruce Lehermann after 6 people were killed in a mass murder and WW3 might be breaking out in the Middle East. Pathetic

Mainstream journalism died with Hemmingway. They've gone from being social clarifiers to agenda drivers because of people like Murdoch. I expect nothing less from the 'media' in this day and age. I haven't read a newspaper (both physical and online) nor used free-to-air tv for over a decade. It's been great.

TBF the Higgins / Lehrmann story has been pretty topical for about three years. Scandal at Parliament House with a classic 'he said, she said' and a famous female journalist in the middle. This story hit the media at the height of the 'metoo' movement and the fact that the judge believes and passed a judgement that Higgins in all probability was raped is a big story.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Lamenting Actions]

How good is the mainstream media leading with their civil court win over Bruce Lehermann after 6 people were killed in a mass murder and WW3 might be breaking out in the Middle East. Pathetic

Mainstream journalism died with Hemmingway. They've gone from being social clarifiers to agenda drivers because of people like Murdoch. I expect nothing less from the 'media' in this day and age. I haven't read a newspaper (both physical and online) nor used free-to-air tv for over a decade. It's been great.

TBF the Higgins / Lehrmann story has been pretty topical for about three years. Scandal at Parliament House with a classic 'he said, she said' and a famous female journalist in the middle. This story hit the media at the height of the 'metoo' movement and the fact that the judge believes and passed a judgement that Higgins in all probability was raped is a big story.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

There's no denying it is a big story. Reporting on it as relentlessly as they do is akin to watching a parasite at work though.

[gerg]

How good is the mainstream media leading with their civil court win over Bruce Lehermann after 6 people were killed in a mass murder and WW3 might be breaking out in the Middle East. Pathetic

Mainstream journalism died with Hemmingway. They've gone from being social clarifiers to agenda drivers because of people like Murdoch. I expect nothing less from the 'media' in this day and age. I haven't read a newspaper (both physical and online) nor used free-to-air tv for over a decade. It's been great.

TBF the Higgins / Lehrmann story has been pretty topical for about three years. Scandal at Parliament House with a classic 'he said, she said' and a famous female journalist in the middle. This story hit the media at the height of the 'metoo' movement and the fact that the judge believes and passed a judgement that Higgins in all probability was raped is a big story.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

There's no denying it is a big story. Reporting on it as relentlessly as they do is akin to watching a parasite at work though.

I thought it could have been an even bigger story. She was raped in Parliament House. That in and of itself is staggering, and again the timing was during the 'metoo' movement. But more than that, it was in the lead up to the 2019 election. We were all told that the Micro-manager / Control freak - PM Morrison - knew nothing about it. Well sorry I don't buy that at all. He won the election - in his own words - by a miracle. Well it was either a miracle or a carefully orchestrated cover up which kept that story on the downlow until the election was run and won. There is no way in hell that Reynolds kept this information from the PM. Absolutely no way. As soon as she found out I'll bet my left nut she was on the phone to the PMO.

Another factor for making it a big story, as I touched on, is Wilkinson. A very highly respected journalist and media personality. Her mates in the media of course are all behind her. Because she is a mate and as a shot to Freedom of the press. They see this as a victory for the press after a period where other whistle blowers have been hung out to dry. Who could forget those AFP raids on the ABC?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[papabear]

If someone did or did not get raped at parliament house during albos run will play 0 bearing on whether I vote for him.

Frankly, using that as a reason to vote for or against a particular party is odd to me.

If the elected representative raped someone then obviously that would play a very big factor.

[Rick]

If someone did or did not get raped at parliament house during albos run will play 0 bearing on whether I vote for him.

Frankly, using that as a reason to vote for or against a particular party is odd to me.

If the elected representative raped someone then obviously that would play a very big factor.

I see your point, however is that did happen and the PM was aware of it,and did nothing, then that is a different story.

Integrity and accountability should be qualities we vote towards.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mickey_Raider]

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-n ... indexation


About bloody time they did something on HECS indexation.

It really is one of the more egregious rorts in this country, devised by people that likely got their education for free.

Imagine paying your mortgage all year and then they apply interest to what the principal was 12 months ago rather than what it is now. Complete and utter scam.

People would be rioting in the streets and burning down the banks if home loans worked that way.