Talking Politics

[TigerMasochist]

It has been well reported that the cabinet decision was only just taken last week. Stop listening to Dutton. There was clearly a lot of debate in the party room about it but I am glad they have made the right decision and they have listened to reason and done what good flexible governments should do.

FMD. Why would I listen to Dutton or any of the other politicians out in the market place? They all just fill your head with *smile* n dribble. The various branches of the meedjia have been putting it to Elbowskneesy n Jimmychoo on a regular basis since before the last election and the lies have always been forthcoming until just a few days ago. If you choose to ignore the reality of that and insist that it was all just a sudden brain fart that Labor had ten minutes ago then you're either a card carrying Stand by Dan member, as full of *smile* as they are, or practicing imbecile. Take your pick.

My comments on the stupidity of this obsession on election promises especially in the relation to the economy being dynamic have been made earlier

So you're more than happy for political parties to continuously lie to the voters before, during, after and whenever it's convenient for them to do so?

How about the coppers n the courts just making *smile* up as they go along? Or perhaps the corporate entities whether big or small, just lie in all their reporting of performance and costing etc to completely avoid all responsibility for whatever they do? Perhaps in the medical profession it'll be o.k. to adjust the truth whenever it suits. Nah you haven't got cancer, it's just a little cough. No need to worry about all that expensive medical treatment, you'll be right as rain in a couple of weeks.
How about your kids and other family members? Is it also an obsession to expect them to be at least halfway truthful sometimes?

Oh, you mean the prime minister and the treasurer.

Surely it wasn't that hard to work out?

 

[TigerMasochist]

The rate of urban sprawl blows my mind. This has been identified as a big environmental problem, and also some social problems, for 30 or 40 years, most reasonable people agree we have to do things differently, that its unsustainable for a lot of reasons, but governments don't seem to be able to do anything about it. Its accelerating.

Populations keep growing so you've got to put them somewhere, either spread the burbs outwards or raise them a shitload higher. Doesn't matter which way they try n control or improve things people are unhappy about the options.

 

[Baloo]

The rate of urban sprawl blows my mind. This has been identified as a big environmental problem, and also some social problems, for 30 or 40 years, most reasonable people agree we have to do things differently, that its unsustainable for a lot of reasons, but governments don't seem to be able to do anything about it. Its accelerating.

We need to switch to apartment living in the big cities. It's the only way forward really. But the state governments need to tighten up their controls over the shonky builders.

 

[tigerman]

We need to switch to apartment living in the big cities. It's the only way forward really. But the state governments need to tighten up their controls over the shonky builders.

And the shonky building materials.

 

[Sintiger]

FMD. Why would I listen to Dutton or any of the other politicians out in the market place? They all just fill your head with *smile* n dribble. The various branches of the meedjia have been putting it to Elbowskneesy n Jimmychoo on a regular basis since before the last election and the lies have always been forthcoming until just a few days ago. If you choose to ignore the reality of that and insist that it was all just a sudden brain fart that Labor had ten minutes ago then you're either a card carrying Stand by Dan member, as full of *smile* as they are, or practicing imbecile. Take your pick.

So you're more than happy for political parties to continuously lie to the voters before, during, after and whenever it's convenient for them to do so?

How about the coppers n the courts just making *smile* up as they go along? Or perhaps the corporate entities whether big or small, just lie in all their reporting of performance and costing etc to completely avoid all responsibility for whatever they do? Perhaps in the medical profession it'll be o.k. to adjust the truth whenever it suits. Nah you haven't got cancer, it's just a little cough. No need to worry about all that expensive medical treatment, you'll be right as rain in a couple of weeks.
How about your kids and other family members? Is it also an obsession to expect them to be at least halfway truthful sometimes?

Surely it wasn't that hard to work out?

Seriously TM . What we actually need is a government that is willing to adapt to changing conditions. When that election commitment was made it was about 10 rates rises ago, we were still in a pandemic.
We now have much more stress on the working class and the middle class than we did then and I want my government to react to that, I don’t want them to slavishly follow what they said 2 years ago when economic conditions were different just because they would be worried about whining about election commitments. Election commitments are made in a context of a time, if they turn out to need to be changed then I want a government with the guts to do it.
I didn’t think this government had the guts, turns out they do. It also is clear they have had issues with getting some of their members over the line.
I applaud this decision because it was needed and I hope we can move away from this ridiculous notion that the only thing a government can do is what they say they will do in an election campaign.
You know perfectly well that if they had said at any time “ we are internally debating the stage 3 tax cuts” it would have been headlines in the first 20 pages of the HUN. It is almost impossible for a government to consider things publicly these days, especially a government who is not the LNP

 

[Willo]

Seriously TM . What we actually need is a government that is willing to adapt to changing conditions. When that election commitment was made it was about 10 rates rises ago, we were still in a pandemic.
We now have much more stress on the working class and the middle class than we did then and I want my government to react to that, I don’t want them to slavishly follow what they said 2 years ago when economic conditions were different just because they would be worried about whining about election commitments. Election commitments are made in a context of a time, if they turn out to need to be changed then I want a government with the guts to do it.
I didn’t think this government had the guts, turns out they do. It also is clear they have had issues with getting some of their members over the line.
I applaud this decision because it was needed and I hope we can move away from this ridiculous notion that the only thing a government can do is what they say they will do in an election campaign.
You know perfectly well that if they had said at any time “ we are internally debating the stage 3 tax cuts” it would have been headlines in the first 20 pages of the HUN. It is almost impossible for a government to consider things publicly these days, especially a government who is not the LNP

“Core promise” or “non core promise”.

Why promise anything at all? Just govern the country in the best manner possible for all Australians. Circumstances/ state of play constantly change.

 

[Baloo]

Why promise anything at all?

Because the opposition will be all over you so the media will be all over you and you'll have every Richmond forum in the country debating why you refuse to make any promises and how you can't be trusted.

 

[Willo]

Because the opposition will be all over you so the media will be all over you and you'll have every Richmond forum in the country debating why you refuse to make any promises and how you can't be trusted.

And if you do break a “core promise” or a “non core promise”?
The same thing happens anyway

 

[TigerMasochist]

Seriously TM . What we actually need is a government that is willing to adapt to changing conditions. When that election commitment was made it was about 10 rates rises ago, we were still in a pandemic.
We now have much more stress on the working class and the middle class than we did then and I want my government to react to that, I don’t want them to slavishly follow what they said 2 years ago when economic conditions were different just because they would be worried about whining about election commitments. Election commitments are made in a context of a time, if they turn out to need to be changed then I want a government with the guts to do it.
I didn’t think this government had the guts, turns out they do. It also is clear they have had issues with getting some of their members over the line.
I applaud this decision because it was needed and I hope we can move away from this ridiculous notion that the only thing a government can do is what they say they will do in an election campaign.
You know perfectly well that if they had said at any time “ we are internally debating the stage 3 tax cuts” it would have been headlines in the first 20 pages of the HUN. It is almost impossible for a government to consider things publicly these days, especially a government who is not the LNP

Don't have a problem with the Govt deciding that circumstances have changed and that policy decisions need to also sometimes get changed to deal with these situations, Sinnerman. But Elbowsneesy, Jimmychoo n the Labor party were already unhappy and reluctant about the third stage of the tax cuts before the election.
So they should have firstly informed the electorate during the campaign that they'd review and possibly modify the policy and let the voters decide what they wanted.
They've then spent the next couple of years denying that they were planning any form of adjustments or modifications to the third stage cuts, even up until a week ago, the same as they denied over and over again that they were going to do over peoples superannuation. Both of these policy changes mean that inflation and bracket creep will for future generations continue to ream the middle income cash cow.
Neither of these policy changes were midnight brain farts presented by Elbows fairy god mother, they've been working on them from before the last election.

 

[DavidSSS]

You're confusing wealth with salary. They are two different things.

And no one here is saying anyone in the 200k bracket deserves as much sympathy as someone on minimum wage is tough. All thats being said is that earning a higher than average salary doesn't make them a fatcat or rich. They have the same financial struggles when the economy is bad, and probably magnified more because their debt is a lot bigger.

But your "*smile* em, they make too much already" is pure ignorance and lacking in empathy.

Are really, bringing in the multi million dollar comp packages the CEOs are getting into the same discussion as someone in the 200k range just further shows your lack of understanding, and willingness to try to understand.

Excuse me but I know the difference between wealth and salary, I was talking about returns on wealth. You seem to lack an understanding that capital gets a return, along with concessional tax.

There is a reason this system is called capitalism, you make money by owning capital and the wealthier you are the more you make.

You have also completely missed my point about how whenever the less well off try to advocate for their interests it is called class war, but when the wealthy do the same it isn't called class war. I thought that was clear . . .

Sorry if I lack empathy for those in the top 2.5% of income earners, I similarly lack empathy for those who own very large amounts of capital and have way more empathy for those who are actually struggling.

DS

 

[Redford]

And the shonky building materials.

And the complete dog boxes they are building.

 

[tigerman]

And the complete dog boxes they are building.

Yep

 

[DavidSSS]

In terms of housing the problem I see in my area is the council constantly pushing to relax the height limits to allow 12 storey apartment blocks. Considering most of the housing is single storey houses this is not appropriate. What we need is sensible planning. I would not have a problem with 4 storey apartment blocks along main roads, the big tall ones are hideous. They are also not cheap, one near me had apartments going for around $700K to $3million.

We should look at Europe where the apartment blocks are not high rise and they also have courtyards in the middle to let in natural light. Of course, that means less apartments per block so the developers just go apeshit when you suggest liveable apartment blocks. More medium density, with apartments with multiple bedrooms to raise kids and we can have more people housed and not wreck the suburbs. Plus, more apartments means you need more open space, in my municipality we have the least public open space in Victoria, so they need to fix that if they want to build apartments. Plus, they need to do something about transport. Despite the fact I live near trains, trams and buses along with a big highway, they are all packed, so having more people live here will require better transport.

DS

 

[Baloo]

You have also completely missed my point about how whenever the less well off try to advocate for their interests it is called class war, but when the wealthy do the same it isn't called class war. I thought that was clear . . .

Have a read of your comments and tell me if that's what you were doing. No one here, from what I have read, has said the stage 3 cuts should have remained as they were in this economy. No one was advocating that the 200k bracket deserves the 9k discount more than the average salary bracket concessions in the new stage 3..

But there was plenty of "*smile* the 5%ers, they don't need anything, they're rich. " type comments. Didn't see any hint if a comment the other way.

The anger and resentment was only flowing one way.

 

[Sintiger]

“Core promise” or “non core promise”.

Why promise anything at all? Just govern the country in the best manner possible for all Australians. Circumstances/ state of play constantly change.

Are you suggesting that a party goes to an election without policies?
I am not against policies because they are a guide to who a party is, what their values and priorities are.
I think the economy is the key issue here, we need a government who adapts to circumstances that can change. So yes, ideally our governments should just govern in the best manner for all Australians

 

[Sintiger]

Don't have a problem with the Govt deciding that circumstances have changed and that policy decisions need to also sometimes get changed to deal with these situations, Sinnerman. But Elbowsneesy, Jimmychoo n the Labor party were already unhappy and reluctant about the third stage of the tax cuts before the election.
So they should have firstly informed the electorate during the campaign that they'd review and possibly modify the policy and let the voters decide what they wanted.
They've then spent the next couple of years denying that they were planning any form of adjustments or modifications to the third stage cuts, even up until a week ago, the same as they denied over and over again that they were going to do over peoples superannuation. Both of these policy changes mean that inflation and bracket creep will for future generations continue to ream the middle income cash cow.
Neither of these policy changes were midnight brain farts presented by Elbows fairy god mother, they've been working on them from before the last election.

There is hyperbole in this TM but there is no doubt that there are people in the government who have not been in favour of the stage 3 cuts and of course many outside the government as well. However if the economy was in a different space and so many were not suffering cost of living issues I suspect they would have gone ahead anyway. The circumstances that have created the need for this policy change have largely occurred since the election, the extent of economic stress on lower and middle income Australians is not something that was predicted.
I agree that in a perfect world we would have political parties declare that they may consider certain policies and legislation to be changed or looked at in the future but the reality is that our politics and media is so toxic now that it becomes almost impossible. Can you imagine what would happen if the ALP said 2 years ago that they may reconsider stage 3 if the economy and individual finances of people warranted that? It would become a fait accomplis and be all over the media. To be fair we could look at the other side and see what happened when the LNP looked at Medicare years ago and it "became" a full scale attack on Medicare, which was largely nonsense. We just aren't mature enough for it, which is a great pity.
Not sure what you mean by super changes. The only one I am aware of relates to funds with more than $3 million in them? Is there some “doing over” of super that I am not aware of?

 

[Baloo]

Libs trying to assert it's the younger generation that will be most impacted by the changed Stage 3. The youngest Gen Xer will be 44 this year. I don't see how Millennials or Gen Zers will be more impacted than the older generation.

 

[TigerMasochist]

Not sure what you mean by super changes. The only one I am aware of relates to funds with more than $3 million in them? Is there some “doing over” of super that I am not aware of?

Wonder what % of society will have 3 mil in their super in 10 - 20 - 30 years time? There's no growth capacity allowed by Elbowskneesy for inflation over the time period so it will still be an extra tax laid onto anyone's super that breaks the rich fat cat barrier in 30 years time when the value of the super will probably be equivalent to 1 mill of today's money. Works on the same principal as the tax bracket creep has done ever since income tax was invented.

 

[Tigaman]

Elbow booed at AO. No need to ask why ?.

 

[Tigaman]

Yep

Niece built a house step out back door two paces hit fence. Asked where do the kids play & what about a pool . Just terrace housing like in the good old Uk days. Called slums.