2025 Federal Election: A Pox o' Both Your Houses

[Sphynx]

"populism" is now a counter-culture.

They celebrate themselves the more the "Mainstream elites" dislike them.

They feel the same about policies too. The stupider and more disliked a policy, the more some of these morons latch onto them.

It's why dog-whistling racism still works. It's "popular" with a good number of people. The other policies and beliefs are equally stupid (immigrants are the problem, poor people are stealing our hard-earned through tax/welfare), but sound slightly less outright racist.

Sounds similar to the "Why should millionaires get tax breaks for owning five houses while nurses can’t afford one" - i.e middle class is killing our welfare schemes through negative gearing and property hoarding from the other side of the line.

Not understanding that things like property investment and negative gearing is a mechanism that actually SAVES the government a relative fortune in pension liability every year and we still rank in the top handful in the world for retirees standard of living and purchasing power relative to cost of living.

 

[Saint]

Sounds similar to the "middle class is killing our welfare schemes through negative gearing and property hoarding" from the other side of the line.

Not understanding that things like property investment and negative gearing is a mechanism that actually SAVES the government a relative fortune in pension liability every year and we still rank in the top handful in the world for retirees standard of living and purchasing power relative to cost of living.

I don't have a problem with individuals taking advantage of tax loop-holes. But be serious, people who are negative gearing and accumulating property portfolios are not saving the Government any money in any meaningful sense.

They still all get their seniors cards, cheap medicine and doctors, no matter how many properties they own. And it's only a small minority of well-off high-earning people who make money through negative gearing (despite some of their partners being in low-paid professions). If Negative gearing disappeared, the change in welfare would be so low as to be non-existent.

 

[faible]

things like property investment and negative gearing is a mechanism that actually SAVES the government a relative fortune in pension liability every year

I'd be interested to read the numbers of this if you have them

 

[kranky al]

‘A female Donald Trump’: how Gina Rinehart is pushing the Maga message in Australia

Australia’s richest person has close ties with the US president’s ‘Trumpettes’ and has even styled her company headquarters with Maga-inspired designs

www.theguardian.com

A vote for Dutton is a vote for Fat Gina.

Ca va gina

 

[big_e]

Not understanding that things like property investment and negative gearing is a mechanism that actually SAVES the government a relative fortune in pension liability every year and we still rank in the top handful in the world for retirees standard of living and purchasing power relative to cost of living.

None of these people were ever going to be on the pension.



Source: https://www.theage.com.au/national/...tively-geared-properties-20240927-p5kdz7.html

 

[Skeppersap]

Might be worth you acquainting yourself with the elevated rates of domestic violence among returned service personnel too.

Yes it was a cheap shot but it’s grounded in a sad reality.

Cheers, thanks for clarifying, and noted.

So I assume it is ok to insinuate that any Aboriginal male is likely to have committed domestic violence, based on statistics?

 

[campbell]

Cheers, thanks for clarifying, and noted.

So I assume it is ok to insinuate that any Aboriginal male is likely to have committed domestic violence, based on statistics?

oh my.....

 

[Skeppersap]

oh my.....

I don't agree with the statement.

Just trying to understand when it is ok to stereotype based on statistics.......

 

[Rotayjay]

The big problem with this story is this:

- In the 70s a kid with a single mum growing up in housing commission also grew up in a country with enough social mobility and opportunity to get a really good job and succeed.

- In the 20s a kid with two well-off working parents, who goes to a good school and university and works hard won't be able to buy a house, or probably even rent in a nice area for a few years to enjoy their youth. All the while dealing with a more precarious workplace environment (lower rates of full time jobs) and a large student debt.

Gone are the days of dad working in a factory, supporting three kids, while Mum stays home or works a few hours a week at a shop, with the quarter-acre block that cost only twice dad's annual wage. Eventually the politicians who had this growing up will be retired or dead.

 

[paullions]

What it says to me as that 6 weeks ago Labor was $15 to form majority government and the LNP was $3…. But yes, it’s too early predict that this trend will continue.

Or it could be that Gamblers chase high odds and have brought the price down with alot of $$$$ going on $15 Labor majority.

 

[nut]

I A

Or it could be that Gamblers chase high odds and have brought the price down with alot of $$$$ going on $15 Labor majority.

And no one is prepared to back the LNP @$3 so the odds have now drifted to $7.20 on Betfair.

 

[Sphynx]

Gone are the days of dad working in a factory, supporting three kids, while Mum stays home or works a few hours a week at a shop, with the quarter-acre block that cost only twice dad's annual wage. Eventually the politicians who had this growing up will be retired or dead.

Do you long for the days when it was illegal for a nurse or a female school teacher to work once they had children like 1970 Victoria until the marriage bar was repelled? This law was active for federal public servants until Holt abolished it in 1966.

How about when the gender gap was 3 x what it currently is?

Or if you are a girl in Australia in 1970 vs one in 2025 you are 2,037% more likely to attend university?

You make it sound like a Utopia. A lot of women didn’t stay home by choice.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Cheers, thanks for clarifying, and noted.

So I assume it is ok to insinuate that any Aboriginal male is likely to have committed domestic violence, based on statistics?

No it’s not OK.

I already said it was a cheap shot and I didn’t approve, but you’re trying to draw an equivalence between, on the one hand, someone lampooning a person standing for public office who is boasting about something a lot of Australians would understand is actually not an unalloyed good at all, and on the other hand, someone putting shit on an entire race of people who have suffered phenomenal oppression and continuing, structural disadvantage, presumably for no other reason than the tawdry feeling of superiority they get from that act.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Amazing article in the latest The Monthly by Richard Denniss where he just tears strips off the major parties and their appallingly lazy assumptions about what Australians want.

Behind a paywall unfortunately but get hold of a copy and read it; it's superb. Excellent clarifying read to digest at the start of this election campaign and keep in mind over the next few weeks, when Labor and the Coalition trot out their pathetic, redundant excuses for why this country can't actually be much, much better than it is.

Major/minor

With a minority government more than likely, why are the major parties abandoning the issues that voters care about?

www.themonthly.com.au

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

One taste of what the article contains:

Not all countries are as afraid to tax the fossil fuel industry as Australia, or indeed to tax property owners, retirement savings or billionaires. But if those elected to our parliament were brave enough to simply collect the average amount of tax, as a share of gross domestic product, collected by OECD countries, then the result would be an extra $135 billion per year in revenue. If we wanted to tax in the manner of Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland, we would collect an extra $330 billion per year. To be clear, if we did nothing more radical than copy the Nordic tax system we could afford to pay for the entire AUKUS program with one year’s worth of extra revenue. Just imagine the real problems we could solve.

 

[Rotayjay]

Do you long for the days when it was illegal for a nurse or a female school teacher to work once they had children like 1970 Victoria until the marriage bar was repelled? This law was active for federal public servants until Holt abolished it in 1966.

How about when the gender gap was 3 x what it currently is?

Or if you are a girl in Australia in 1970 vs one in 2025 you are 2,037% more likely to attend university?

You make it sound like a Utopia. A lot of women didn’t stay home by choice.

We have made great progress when it comes to gender and racial equality. But the fact remains that one income used to be enough to support a family and buy a normal house, and it no longer is. Are we really happier now that we have internet, smartphones and holidays to Bali, but a middle-class family can't afford a house anymore?

It's not women entering the work force that has pushed house prices to unaffordable levels, it's grossly mismatched supply and demand. In those old days, government built a lot of the housing stock. It no longer does, and the result is disastrous.

 

[CM86]

Cheers, thanks for clarifying, and noted.

So I assume it is ok to insinuate that any Aboriginal male is likely to have committed domestic violence, based on statistics?

I don't agree with the statement.

Just trying to understand when it is ok to stereotype based on statistics.......

The problem is within the reasoning behind your statement, and your reason for creating the comparison.
You think it was purely a hateful statement of a group. So you replied with a statement about a group you hate.

You cannot explain why you don't agree with the statement "any Aboriginal male is likely to have committed domestic violence". Please explain why you don't agree with it... You can't...

The underlying position is:

It's only 'racism' if it's direct criticism of a specific person for specific reasons. Eg, Price.​

It's 'not' prejudice when it literally discriminates against an entire group of people based on immutable characteristics.​

 

[Skeppersap]

The problem is within the reasoning behind your statement, and your reason for creating the comparison.
You think it was purely a hateful statement of a group. So you replied with a statement about a group you hate.

You cannot explain why you don't agree with the statement "any Aboriginal male is likely to have committed domestic violence". Please explain why you don't agree with it... You can't...

The underlying position is:

It's only 'racism' if it's direct criticism of a specific person for specific reasons. Eg, Price.​

It's 'not' prejudice when it literally discriminates against an entire group of people based on immutable characteristics.​

Incorrect....i do not hate a group of people carte blanche. I do abhor the fact that indigenous women are between 30-80 times more likely to be the recipient of domestic violence. I also dislike the fact that there are many who choose to blame the past rather than address the current.

But.... The reason for the comparison, is that it is a valid comparison. The insinuation that the white male veteran partakes in domestic violence because he is a white male veteran is disgusting. Regardless of what statistics say, and whether it is more likely or not....

I also note that there was only 1 person on this thread who cared enough to call it out.

 

[Skeppersap]

I also note that you spend a lot of time CM86 telling other people what they think, what they can and can't do and what their opinions mean.

Typical left wing activist think!

 

[Gough]

Stripping it back the problem is men. We're responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime.

 

[Rotayjay]

Stripping it back the problem is men. We're responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime.

And that ain't going to change. You can reduce violent crime (and we have), but the lion's share will always be committed by men. Unfortunately the goal (held by both major parties) of ending male violence against women is about as realistic as curing cancer. We've made great strides in mitigating cancer, and we can make great strides in addressing domestic violence.

 

[Carn The Berries]

We have made great progress when it comes to gender and racial equality. But the fact remains that one income used to be enough to support a family and buy a normal house, and it no longer is. Are we really happier now that we have internet, smartphones and holidays to Bali, but a middle-class family can't afford a house anymore?

It's not women entering the work force that has pushed house prices to unaffordable levels, it's grossly mismatched supply and demand. In those old days, government built a lot of the housing stock. It no longer does, and the result is disastrous.

This is the part that so many people seem to be missing in the housing debate. It's pure supply vs demand that is leading to the prices rising so quickly. There was an excellent interview about this on ABC over the weekend (I can't remember the bloke's name, he was a property industry Professor/Researcher). He made this exact point and mentioned that changing negative gearing rules was likely to drop prices by 1-3% depending on the specific policies implemented.

It's a drop in the ocean. The main issue is the government used to build houses, and now they don't.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Stripping it back the problem is men. We're responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime.

Which we can trace the root cause back to things like mental health

 

[Rotayjay]

Of the last 10 polls, 6 have Labor ahead, 3 are tied and 1 has the Coalition ahead. The trend continues.

 

[DaRick]

Stripping it back the problem is men. We're responsible for the overwhelming majority of violent crime.

Much of that's directed against other men, though. Not that it makes it any better.

You have to properly socialise boys to reduce such.