Talking Politics

[Baloo]

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.

You do know the government of the day and pass laws to readjust the 3m threshold up? Much like the tax rates and bands. This government has made a decision for what's right today, while they are in power.

Any government of the day has the power shift the brackets to cater for bracket creep. If they wanted to be fair about it, the tax rates should be indexed so inflation driven bracket creep won't happen.

 

[Sintiger]

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.

There will be somewhere between 3 and 10 governments during that time and plenty of opportunity for governments of any persuasion to index that as many things in the super area are indexed.

I hope they don’t because the tax benefits we give for super are unaffordable now and will be even more so by then. We can get rid of the biggest rort of all being cash refunds for franking credits given by Santa Claus Howard and his chief elf Costello.

 

[Sintiger]

You do know the government of the day and pass laws to readjust the 3m threshold up? Much like the tax rates and bands. This government has made a decision for what's right today, while they are in power.

Any government of the day has the power shift the brackets to cater for bracket creep. If they wanted to be fair about it, the tax rates should be indexed so inflation driven bracket creep won't happen.

There are millions struggling to pay their mortgages and TM is worried about taxing people with super >$3 million and whether it will be indexed in 2050
*smile* ing hell !

 

[The_General]

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

I agree a little with your apartment life. We should have a mix though. I remember being in the UK for work and a airport transfer driver was from Uganda. He complained it was hard to live in harmony with a family when you have no space. I don't think we want to become a society where everyone has to live in an apartment. Countries like Holland have lifelong mortgages you just pass on to your kids (or they used to when my ex and I were together). We don't want to replicate that here - I feel.
I feel like we need a mix to give people choice. Not just say for those who earn enough, you can buy a house. For everyone else, you get a flat.
To assist with that, I'd like to see more rural cities, like Ballarat, Shepparton, Traralgon, Bendigo. Places people can live and still have good healthcare, employment, etc.
If places in the EU can make that arrangement work, so can we. We just need to start planning for it.

 

[Baloo]

There are millions struggling to pay their mortgages and TM is worried about taxing people with super >$3 million and whether it will be indexed in 2050
*smile* ing hell !

He's always been a forward thinker

 

[DavidSSS]

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.

What a joke.

You want to see class war, this is class war:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...nimum-wage-employers-say-20240126-p5f0by.html

Any excuse to keep wages down, but, apparently, that ain't class war. When the unions argue for a wage rise for those on minimum income and claim the well off get too high a proportion of income, suddenly it is class war. These are people who earn $46K, and one in 4 workers rely on minimum wage or awards. In the face of rising interest rates, rising cost of living, the business lobby says that those earning a fraction of what they earn should not get a decent wage rise . . . but, of course, that somehow isn't class war.

I could just repeat Warren Buffett's comment but it is just too obvious.

I agree a little with your apartment life. We should have a mix though. I remember being in the UK for work and a airport transfer driver was from Uganda. He complained it was hard to live in harmony with a family when you have no space. I don't think we want to become a society where everyone has to live in an apartment. Countries like Holland have lifelong mortgages you just pass on to your kids (or they used to when my ex and I were together). We don't want to replicate that here - I feel.
I feel like we need a mix to give people choice. Not just say for those who earn enough, you can buy a house. For everyone else, you get a flat.
To assist with that, I'd like to see more rural cities, like Ballarat, Shepparton, Traralgon, Bendigo. Places people can live and still have good healthcare, employment, etc.
If places in the EU can make that arrangement work, so can we. We just need to start planning for it.

I totally agree that not everyone should have to live in an apartment. That isn't what I'm suggesting. The issue at the moment is that what seems to be being proposed, and what is appearing in inner suburbs, is high rise apartment blocks. My argument is that we know we need to stop the cities expanding too far and to do that we need some more population density. In order to achieve this I would argue for some medium density housing, max height 4 storeys in a residential suburb and only along main roads. Trouble is we are getting high density apartment blocks which are not good for existing residents or for those in the apartments.

Personally I prefer people live in houses and get to raise kids in a house, with a back yard and big trees - more trees! But population pressure is such that we need more housing and we can't just keep expanding our cities so we have to do something. At the moment we are building suburbs which are out on the edge of town, have insufficient transport infrastructure, the houses take just about all the land and no room for gardens or trees and I don't think this is a very good option for people. If we had some more medium density housing closer in then hopefully it would reduce pressure on the insane housing prices.

Not an easy problem to fix.

DS

 

[DavidSSS]

Just as an aside - anyone else watch Nemesis tonight?

Geez, Scott Morrison - slippery and just lies through his teeth.

They are all ruthless bastards and out for power.

Politics is a blood sport, if anyone doubted it.

DS

 

[The_General]

What a joke.

You want to see class war, this is class war:

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...nimum-wage-employers-say-20240126-p5f0by.html

Any excuse to keep wages down, but, apparently, that ain't class war. When the unions argue for a wage rise for those on minimum income and claim the well off get too high a proportion of income, suddenly it is class war. These are people who earn $46K, and one in 4 workers rely on minimum wage or awards. In the face of rising interest rates, rising cost of living, the business lobby says that those earning a fraction of what they earn should not get a decent wage rise . . . but, of course, that somehow isn't class war.

I could just repeat Warren Buffett's comment but it is just too obvious.



I totally agree that not everyone should have to live in an apartment. That isn't what I'm suggesting. The issue at the moment is that what seems to be being proposed, and what is appearing in inner suburbs, is high rise apartment blocks. My argument is that we know we need to stop the cities expanding too far and to do that we need some more population density. In order to achieve this I would argue for some medium density housing, max height 4 storeys in a residential suburb and only along main roads. Trouble is we are getting high density apartment blocks which are not good for existing residents or for those in the apartments.

Personally I prefer people live in houses and get to raise kids in a house, with a back yard and big trees - more trees! But population pressure is such that we need more housing and we can't just keep expanding our cities so we have to do something. At the moment we are building suburbs which are out on the edge of town, have insufficient transport infrastructure, the houses take just about all the land and no room for gardens or trees and I don't think this is a very good option for people. If we had some more medium density housing closer in then hopefully it would reduce pressure on the insane housing prices.

Not an easy problem to fix.

DS

Yup, I'm aware of what we're doing now - hence why I'm suggesting something different. Mega cities aren't the way of the future in my eyes, unless we want to really push climate change etc along at a rapid rate of knots...alas, I won't continue unless someone else wants to take that point and go off on a tangent about another left/right divide :-D

Build jobs outside of Melbourne. Give those cities in the infrastructure to make it attractive, and have transport that can get people back to the centre quickly if they need it. Quite a big task, but doable if we can get out political leaders to have more than a 3yr/4yr vision.

 

[Baloo]

What a joke.

You want to see class war, this is class war:

I was talking about the discussion on this thread, but you knew that.

On the internet, you can find whatever it is you want to find. You really think I was talking about reading anything on the interwebz?

 

[TT33]

That was start

Yup, I'm aware of what we're doing now - hence why I'm suggesting something different. Mega cities aren't the way of the future in my eyes, unless we want to really push climate change etc along at a rapid rate of knots...alas, I won't continue unless someone else wants to take that point and go off on a tangent about another left/right divide :-D

Build jobs outside of Melbourne. Give those cities in the infrastructure to make it attractive, and have transport that can get people back to the centre quickly if they need it. Quite a big task, but doable if we can get out political leaders to have more than a 3yr/4yr vision.

A scheme like that was started in the early 80s. A lot of companies took advantage of it & were happy with the way it was going.
Subsequent governments slowly dismantled it & the rest is history.

 

[Baloo]

Quite a big task, but doable if we can get out political leaders to have more than a 3yr/4yr vision.

A scheme like that was started in the early 80s. A lot of companies took advantage of it & were happy with the way it was going.
Subsequent governments slowly dismantled it & the rest is history.

These days governments do *smile* that they think will get them elected at the next election. That's as far as their thinking is.

 

[DavidSSS]

I was talking about the discussion on this thread, but you knew that.

On the internet, you can find whatever it is you want to find. You really think I was talking about reading anything on the interwebz?

I posted an article I saw in the newspaper this morning and it quoted the head of the Australian Industry Group. Hardly trawling the internet, it was on the front page of The Age.

So, let's pose a question: do you think the head of the Australian Industry Group arguing that those on minimum wage and awards should have a lower pay rise as a result of the tax cut changes is class war?

If you think the comments in this thread are class war then I would expect you to answer yes.

DS

 

[Baloo]

My comment about class warfare is wrapped in what I said in the earlier post. No one on this forum has been advocating that the Stage 3 cuts are bad or that the 200k bracket deserve their 9k discount more than extra savings for the lower brackets and still a 4k for the 200k. No one. But there's been a *smile* load of trash talking the 200k bracket. All the angst and resentment is flowing in one direction in this thread. That's where my class warfare comment comes from. This thread and the posts in it.

So, let's pose a question: do you think the head of the Australian Industry Group arguing that those on minimum wage and awards should have a lower pay rise as a result of the tax cut changes is class war?

It's not often that I read something in the media and think to myself "What a *smile* *smile*", but I did when I read that.

 

[DavidSSS]

But you still refuse to call it class war when the employers want to make sure the less well off don't get a decent pay rise?

DS

 

[The_General]

But you still refuse to call it class war when the employers want to make sure the less well off don't get a decent pay rise?

DS

You're distorting what Baloo's saying (and earlier - myself).

 

[RoarEmotion]

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

This is why less people is a better structural answer. This answer has no end. The curse of the commons is unsolvable with infinite growth.

Less people will bring more than its own share of issues too I realise.

 

[Baloo]

But you still refuse to call it class war when the employers want to make sure the less well off don't get a decent pay rise?

DS

I'm not refusing to do anything and I thought my reply clearly spelled out my thoughts on it.

But you've now ignored the central premise of my post despite the fact I've repeated it three times. Instead you seem to be fixated on the term "class warfare" and want to steer the debate there. Why? I can edit out "class warfare" and replace it with "anger, resentment, lack of empathy, jealousy, etc" if that makes you feel better.

 

[Sintiger]

Just as an aside - anyone else watch Nemesis tonight?

Geez, Scott Morrison - slippery and just lies through his teeth.

They are all ruthless bastards and out for power.

Politics is a blood sport, if anyone doubted it.

DS

I watched it David. Apart from anything else it reinforces what so many think which is that our political class is more worried about playing power games than running the country. I also felt the same when i saw the documentary on the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd era as well btw. ( whatever happened to that guy Paul Howse who was the backroom operator for the ALP back then?)
I posted when SCOMO resigned that it was goodbye to arguably Australia's worst ever PM. Maybe I had forgotten how bad the Abbott era was . The 2014 Abbott/Hockey budget disaster, the knighthood of Prince Phillip, shirtfronting Putin ....the list goes on.
The comments by Ken Wyatt on Abbott's attitude to indigenous affairs were very interesting. He called it a missionary view, doing something for them rather than with them. Sums up the LNP attitude to indigenous affairs even now

 

[RoarEmotion]

(Reasonable) Equality of opportunity I think is the beacon we should strive for. Not equality of outcomes. Balancing this pendulum is difficult and depending where you sit on that left/right scale will color your view of this.

I don’t think we want to pay a (good) doctor the same as we pay someone to be a (good) cleaner in a school. Both jobs have their importance but one requires a fair bit more sacrifice to develop yourself to do the job and clearly is valued in a capitalistic world much more highly. However it’s pretty obvious someone who has a cleaner for a parent and someone who has a doctor for a parent is going to have a different chance of obtaining a high paying profession (but maybe one will have more drive to improve their lot)

The following an interesting take on providing equality of educational opportunity.

Why Australia should ban private schools

The Finnish education system offers a model by which to fix Australia’s broken school system, but first we need to ban private schools.

www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au

Land of capitalism means no surprises to me here

Wealth Inequality And Higher Education: How Billionaires Could Make A Difference

Wealth inequality is on the rise and those with wealth could make a difference. Investing in higher education would be a great step to level the playing field.

www.forbes.com

 

[MD Jazz]

The comments by Ken Wyatt on Abbott's attitude to indigenous affairs were very interesting. He called it a missionary view, doing something for them rather than with them. Sums up the LNP attitude to indigenous affairs even now

This is true. A paternalistic Abbott bringing religion and culture to the natives.