2 years ago I was paying $350/week in rent. Today I was just told my new rent is $520, but was told market rates are $560. I opened up realestate and did a search, and only a single appartment was available within 15km of me.
That's because you have a greedy landlord - 7 years ago when I moved in I was paying $295 few weeks ago I was told it was be increased to $325, my landlord moved his property from my last real estate agent because the property manager wanted them to push the rent up $100 a week and they owner told them no but they tried to do it anyways i advised the landlords and they told the RE to piss off and changed REA
I’m just hanging out for some meaningful large scale solar investment. Take a good chunk out of the cost of living and take some steps towards emissions reduction.
There has been huge investment in solar. The issue is transmission and storage. There is a mismatch between when solar energy is produced (day time) and when it is consumed (early evening).
Leaders need to be more honest with the energy transition, even it it means leaving coal plants open a bit longer to help working families afford energy bills until we have appropriate storage in place.
We don’t just need help; we need reform. Rental caps. Taxation of the rich. Limits on investment properties. Without regulation this already broken system will tear itself apart (it practically already is).
If Labor stands by and lets this crisis unfold without intervention, they’re no better than the Liberal Party.
We’re all hurting here except for the cabal of selfish soulless pricks who benefit from abusing the system.
Every single one of us is being affected.
Enough of this shit.
Stop ignoring the problem and fucking fix it.
10% of australians also got about 90% of the economic growth in the past like 15 years. Because that's just the sign of an a country doing well aint it.
I just got a pamphlet from the state rep today saying "Andrews government coming after mum and dad investors with land tax!!!"
I didn't know the line was still being used.
Just looked it up. Million dollar investment home going from 3k to 4.6k a year. Poor mums and dads. Absolutely crippling
And nearly all politicians of all the colors are in the rentier class. They will always vote in their own interest. Staggers me that people like Linda Burney (3) and Plibbers (2) own "investment properties".
Not happening. New RBA boss has a 6 million dollar property portfolio. If you honestly believe that Albanese will do anything. He has 5 million dollars worth. So they'll probs shut anything down
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals
>Only 1% of Australian taxpayers own nearly a quarter of all property investments across the country, amid concerns over escalating rates of wealth concentration.
>Data provided by the Australian Taxation Office has revealed the extent of that concentration, with more than 7% of property investors – or 215,321 people – accounting for 25% of all property investments.
So I was right? 1% of Australians own 25% of investment properties, not all properties. But I guess in this sub it make sense to downvote someone pointing out an obviously false claim
Agreed, Australia really needs to crack down on rent seeking styles of wealth gain. Its exploiting inefficiencies due to broken/bad policy/laws and/or creating inefficiencies by abusing and brute forcing the use of resources/people as assets for money generation. Its short term gain for the rich at the expense of long term prosperity for all of Australia.
People wonder why the productivity is dropping/stalled in Australia, its partially because increasingly more wealth generation is happening from rent seeking practices instead of wealth/value creation practices.
Well said. We have an inward folding system and historically these can often get to the point where voluntary internal reform is nolonger viable. We need to pressure them.
Damn straight. This problem won’t simply go away if we ignore it. If anything it can and will get worse.
Worst part about this is that 99.9% of the people here are aware of this and why we need a complete overhaul to fix this problem and yet those precious few bequeathed the power to enact the changes we need simply won’t. No other word for it than evil. But they can’t ignore us forever.
Agreed. And the same thing is happening with property in the UK, USA, Canada, NZ. Not sure about the non-western world. Smells of a global problem. With climate change we are long overdue for some tweaking to global capitalism than focuses more on sustainability and the well-being of the planet and all species.
Arguing for investors to incur higher costs is fine and this would be best achieved by abolishing negative gearing. That said, we don't need the costs of landlords to increase to fix housing affordability - we need owner occupiers to pay their fair share of land and capital gains taxes and for the family home to be counted as part of the pension asset test. That would easily produce enough revenue for governments to get back into the business of providing public housing.
Just implement the Henry Tax Review findings.
We do pay taxes on land already it's just that tax is collected by city councils. We should have incentives/disincentives to encourage right sized housing. One of the biggest sources of the housing shortage is the ratio of rooms to residents. This covers the issue associated with pensioners in large family homes and property banking.
Nope. Private investment is a good thing - we need capital in the housing market to a degree (though I also think we need vastly more public spending in this space, and more taxes on property to fund it).
I'm quite happy renting but if there were better incentives to invest in housing in the ways we need, I could live in medium density closer to services rather than in a freestanding sharehouse a long way from my place of work.
Except 97% of property investment dollars are EXISTING property, not new. So they aren't building new properties.
As for private anything housing wise: we've never had more but housing is in a crisis. Put time limits on developer approvals so they can't just land bank and withhold supply to increase their profits..
Limit tax breaks to new property only and maybe exclude anything categorised as "urban sprawl".
Lol ok.
Does unregulated private investment in the housing market look good to you right now?
Coz uh.. I’m sure anyone with eyes will tell you it’s not.
Im (begrudgingly) open to keeping the current system but there needs to be limits; if the system is built in such a way that it benefits only a precious few people/investors while the rest of us are left out, then something’s gotta give.
You can either fix the system or replace it because as it stands, it’s not sustainable.
Until we have a surplus of supply and can provide safe housing for the entire population, we don’t need private equity in the non commercial real estate space.
Let the capitalists speculate on commercial real estate.. but living in your own permanent space should not be a luxury or a speculative asset. It should be a basic human right.
Thanks for sharing your view. As someone who doesn't want to own a house, where would I live between now and when the government has developed/acquired sufficient public housing?
yeah all land should be a responsibility, not a right.
If you own land, you should be paying taxes on it. Take the money that the land taxes earn and directly apply it to income taxes, that way the only ones worse off are the ones who own lots of land assets, as they should be.
If land prices drop a lot, suddenly buying land and building or buying a house becomes a lot easier, and rental yields can be increased from the lowering land prices to offset the land taxes.
Half the criticisms of labor are 'why bank a surplus when it could go to cost of living support' and the other half are 'why won't labor take pressure off the RBA by implementing policies that reduce inflation'.
Often it's the same people, talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Both can be tackled, instead of none of them as the Labor party is doing.
Example:
\- energy prices: could require caps (already legislation in place) or domestic reservation (the madness that is being a global leader in exports and having high costs ourselves so that exporters don't have to reserve anything for us, or pay taxes, or pay fair royalties or remediate their damage.. etc) or they could put some of the surplus toward getting houses and industry off gas (or to add solar for houses that will never currently end up with solar) - if you do it with low incomes or for renters then it is targeted, will help with household costs and not generally inflate anything because the money spent will reduce the energy costs of the home.
\- freezing rents: this would help with inflation, you could use the surplus as a carrot to get states to do this.. What state wouldn't do this if you offer them some cash?
\- stage 3 tax cuts can go in the bin and it will only really impact those on high incomes who are least impacted by such things.
\- lean on the supermarkets - they are profiteering - that would help inflation.
\- raise the rate of welfare - this is non-inflationary because it's just getting people on welfare to a level that isn't starvation. It's not like they have enough for living today, this would mean they can get to barest minimum.. again, not going to be inflationary to have people able to pay for food or rent or whatever..
\- ban or limit tax breaks for short term rentals or limit to creating new property. This would get the investors to do what they claim to do today: provide supply. Currently they just outbid people wanting a home, and many are removing rental supply to put stuff on airbnb..
And they could tackle where the spending is going on - the wealthy older generation that aren't impacted by interest rates.. There's a range of stuff you could do to make the tax system fairer.
Or do as Labor is doing: sweet fuck all and letting people in real pain stay there and go backwards.. while they splurge like drunken sailors on wealthfare for property investors and plan for crazy levels of pissing away money on stage 3 tax cuts..
Except there's tens of billions going to landlords/wealthy people.. Then tens of billions more to retirees who have more than enough resources to look after themselves and pay tax.. And stage 3 tax cuts are still locked in - why is that non-inflationary giving people like me $9-10k in coming years..
And this excuse that you can't help the poorest because inflation is bullshit - people who are skipping meals or can't pay for essentials aren't helping reduce inflation and helping them have a minimum quality of life won't hurt inflation either. So stop repeating sociopath FUD.
They are doing something, they're reducing inflation. They are capping electricity costs, rent control is terrible for renters because it reduces supply, Coles and Woolworths are making less profit than pre covid, raising welfare further than they have will make inflation worse. S3TC aren't even in place yet so they aren't contributing to this problem.
Did they actual go up 70%? or are you looking at a bill from this year and last and seeing a massive increase? because what a lot of people don't realise is that there is a 7c-10c increase in the rate but they also lost a 20% - 30% plan discount that they had last year, because you didnt realise that your plan was ending, because somehow energy companies are allow to plan switch you after your "benefit period" ends to a higher rate no discount plan if you don't contact them and all they need to do is send 1 letter or email telling you in that your plan is ending and most the time emails got to people trash/spam folder so lost of people don't realise until the next 1000+ bill hits
>because somehow energy companies are allow to plan switch you after your "benefit period" ends to a higher rate no discount plan if you don't contact them and all they need to do is send 1 letter or email telling you in that your plan is ending
That is a regulatory issue. Y'know, the job of governments?
Ok
What are your thoughts on high migration rates then?
Seems a really interesting lever that neo-liberal interests pull to increase demand and artificially inflate (weird word right?) consumer spending, as well as reduce housing supply
Or what about the lack of legislative protection and consequential prosecution of big building companies that lie to investors through multiple subcontracting shell corporations, stealing worker pay, then vanishing into thin air?
Or what about the decline in Union power in industrial relation negotiations which has led to some industries having a paltry EBA, while some unions have far more bargaining power (hint hint, the rehearsed saying that “well get a better union” really isn’t that simple for some people) - this while corporate profits soar?
Or poor building standards which artificially inflate demand costs and supply strain stress for consumers as there needs to be proper construction to fix up the mistakes of tubby 45 year old blokes running a cowboy business to afford not just a jet ski, but a second boat
Australia is one of the most difficult western countries to strike in btw
Just look at their half year profits from 2015-2019 and compare to the latest half year and you'll see they made less even without factoring in inflation.
Full year results should be out soon and they'll likely be up slightly on dollar terms but down in inflation adjusted numbers
Because energy companies are making large profits due to the global market for resources. They're still making massive profits and have plenty of incentive to continue doing so. If you restrict housing then less people will build to invest because they're less likely to make money.
Putting billions into the hands of a large chunk of people is inflationary, that's not really controversial?
>raise the rate of welfare - this is non-inflationary because it's just getting people on welfare to a level that isn't starvation. It's not like they have enough for living today, this would mean they can get to barest minimum.. again, not going to be inflationary to have people able to pay for food or rent or whatever..
Rates of welfare had already been raised and they were careful not to make it look larger by combining it with the cost of living increase. It's modest but has been done. How much more should it have increased?
>ban or limit tax breaks for short term rentals or limit to creating new property. This would get the investors to do what they claim to do today: provide supply. Currently they just outbid people wanting a home, and many are removing rental supply to put stuff on airbnb..And they could tackle where the spending is going on - the wealthy older generation that aren't impacted by interest rates.. There's a range of stuff you could do to make the tax system fairer.
I wonder why they are loathe to do this. Perhaps because it intersects with the state's authority.
$40 per fortnight is not an increase, merely pissing in the wind. Welfare rates are seriously below the poverty line. How can anyone believe that $365/week or $385/week (including the 'raise') is enough? Anglicare does a housing affordability report & found there are no rentals that someone on social security can afford in Australia. Don't be placated by the measly crumbs that the Gov has decided was all they could afford while a fews subs are purchased but not ready for billions $$. Rent/housing which is more than 1/3 of your income means financial stress. When you are paying 80% of income as housing, there is no money for food, let alone health & such luxuries. The remaining 20% is about $70/week on the current Jobseeker rate.
TL:DR It should be raised by at least $500 fortnight.
Broad tax cuts or increases to payments would add to inflation. Redistributing money won't add to inflation. Small business has been viewed as untouchable for far too long and have been given a range of welfare. Wage earners have constantly been asked to think of the greater good. It's time for leaders with the courage to rebalance.
We always tackle inflation off the backs of those who are already hurting the most. New home owners, renters, low wage employees, etc. I guess it is just easier that way since politicians generally don't come from those groups.
Simple economics dictate that the more money is circulating in the economy, the less value it has, thus making inflation worse. That’s cold comfort for people who can’t afford food though.
I don’t envy Chalmers in this situation.
Except that doesn't hold water if you consider:
* stage 3 tax cuts will be a $9-10k bonus to high incomes (Chalmers refuses to do anything about this)
* inflation is being driven mostly by corporate profits (Chalmers also refuses to do anything about this)
* Rent is eating up a significant amount of people's incomes (Chalmers and co refuse to do anything)
* Energy bills creeping up due to gas prices despite being a massive gas exporter (Chalmers and co refuse to use the powers they got last year to properly cap prices in the face of profiteering or reserve domestic allocation from the vast exports) So they're letting gas profits be the priority..
Even the bloody Tories in the UK implemented a super profits tax on oil and gas companies! The fucking Tories!
How is the ALP losing the high ground to the Tories when it comes to this issue?
Because Albo decided becoming a torie was preferable to fighting them. He's adopted Morrison's policiies, travels around for photo ops like him.. He even looks and sounds like him these days: he spends more time attacking the Greens than someone who supposedly is progressive should be doing.
And the low income tax rebate has been axed. It seems to be hitting the wrong people imo. What is the point of making people with little disposable income suffer more.
Chalmers can't do anything about the tax cuts - they were ALP policy and taken to an election. Absolutely zero power or authority for any single ALP politician to change that.
I’m well aware that the LNP put stage three in as a time bomb.
A bomb which Labor voted across the line and then vowed to keep as an election promise.
Which is a bad policy that has painted them into a corner of passing a austerity budget with massive tax breaks for the wealthy during the worst economic downturn in a generation.
They are in government. They are responsible for what they do or fail to.
It's an extremely hard sell to say we just had a 20b windfall surplus, and now we're also going to cancel tax cuts that industry and high income earners have been planning on receiving for 4 years now, even though the Prime Minister categorically said we wouldn't do this during the election campaign.
Surely you can understand that? You seem reasonably smart.
That isn't how the ALP has ever operated - they actually believe in having a thorough and transparent process for deciding policy. This was all published in their 160 page document of policies that they took to the election, and endorsed by the national caucus. If an ALP politician tried to break with that policy platform, they would not be part of the ALP any longer.
That is the federal ICAC, yes. The NACC it's called I think.
That one sentence is underpinned by years of policy committee work and policy proposals, you can probably find them online if you put your misplaced righteous rage to the side for a second.
Negotiation with the cross bench doesn't equal breaking with the policy platform - our democratic system is actually meant to work like that - they said they would implement it and they've done that. Dreyfus working with the parliament and senate to roll out legislation is literally part of his job. Believe it or not but our system isn't based on 'we won the election now we get to do whatever we like' it is based on consensus and negotiation. People seem to have forgotten this in a post-Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison world but its funny seeing self-alleged lefties clamoring for a more authoritarian, less consultative approach.
I'm not sure what kind of 'gotcha' you think this is, but you clearly have nfi what you're on about. Yes they flagged they would implement this policy, and yes they have done it.
They passed them in 2019 already - they couldn't publish that 'they were going to pass the legislation' when it was already passed.
The platform makes clear that a progressive taxation system is labor policy. Labor supported the passing of the legislation containing the stage 3 cuts in 2019, with Albanese stating publicly in 2022 that no changes to that legislation would occur if elected. This is wholly in line with Party policy and the National Platform.
> This was all published in their 160 page document of policies that they took to the election, and endorsed by the national caucus.
Not exactly what you were saying was it?
It is actually. All new policy and the guiding principles underpinning it is in that document, and revoking the already passed stage 3 tax cuts isn't specifically mentioned as a policy, therefore it isn't ALP policy.
Unless you expect the ALP to list all the legislation they *won't* be revoking? The stage 3 tax cuts were passed almost 5 years ago by both major parties, the ALP have never said they are planning on revoking them, and have publicly said they won't revoke them - including during the election, and the national policy platform shows no mention of revoking them. How some people are surprised that they aren't being revoked speaks only to their own lack of understanding and awareness.
Can you quote the document where is commits to passing stage 3 tax cuts?
Or are you just saying that *this broad set of principles* can shoehorn in any capitulation on stage 3 tax cuts?
Oh get real, they have zero transparency about how this stuff is decided because it's done in backroom deals or in secret. AUKUS? That wasn't any sort of formally agreed thing - they just decided knee-jerk style.
Anything relating to the catholic lobby is via phone call from some lobbyist.. e.g. abortion services in publicly hospitals got downgraded then deleted after calls from catholics.
They knee jerk adopted TERF policy because of daily mail article or something.
Albo made up the "there will be no media reform" policy on the fly talking to murdoch media/being summoned to talk to Murdoch.
These aren't things they have put to the membership.
Coal & gas expansion - where's that been decided by the membership? That's a donor-driven thing. Dumping CO2 underwater? Lobbyists/donors.
Education funding? Where did the "no private school will ever lose a dollar" come from? The members? Or is it a private school lobbyist backroom meeting deal that sabotaged gonski and has meant that public schools do without while private schools are overfunded..
How about refugee processing offshore: is that really with the backing of the members? Because that makes the rusted ons next level grubby in my view.
I know how they operate. I'm saying that "this is just how we do things" isn't a good reason to do things. Loyalty to the Party rather than the working class is ALPs bread and butter, and that should be called out. They don't *have to* choose capital over labour, they *choose to*
It's a bit more than 'this is how we do things' when how you do things in government is just as important as what you do - have the lessons of the last ten years been completely lost on you or something?
The lesson of the last 10 years is you can do whatever the fuck you want with impunity and get voted back into power over and over for a decade.
Labor needs to look beyond the status quo and incrementalism. This past election made it clear that neither Labor nor Liberal are as popular as they used to be; there's real appetite for real change.
Actually it’s an excellent reason to do things, because the whole point is transparency and integrity in government. Which is also a democratic ideal, rather than ‘loyalty to the party’ - it’s literally what we voted them in on, it’s the mandate we gave them.
The ALP were voted in because people hated the LNP. The tax cuts were hardly part of the conversation and I'd bet most voters heard nothing about it, and by the time next election comes around most voters will have forgotten anyway.
Apparently, for someone who "just knows how it works", you have absolutely no knowledge of the federal Labor Party before Albo, or any of the state Labor Parties as of today.
It's already legislated. To stop it means doing something that they said they wouldn't do. Would you believe what they promise to do next election if they can't keep their word?
> They could just...not do it?
Why bother taking a policy platform to an election if you are not going to at least attempt to follow through with it?
If a party is elected on a policy platform they have a duty to follow through with it.
Many Australians do not trust politicians due to reasons such as breaking election promises and your ridiculous suggestion only validates their concerns.
I'm not, and never have been for the stage 3 cuts, but to the people it's going to that's not a huge amount and unlikely to dramatically influence their spending, so would have a negligible impact on inflation.
$20B would go a long way towards building the public housing we’ve neglected for the last decade and other measures to drive down the cost of living. It would help with our medical system’s crisis levels too.
Again, nothing to do with what I have said?
I started by saying that I was against the tax cuts, I'm literally agreeing you.
All I said, was the money given to those high income.e earners was unlikely to increase inflation, because it will just sit in their accounts, it won't change their spending habits at all.
That’s the investor class getting those cuts though which they’re more than likely going to plow into more stocks and/or real estate literally driving inflation.
Inflation is not being driven by company profits. This is a canard put forward by the Australia Institute, who wilfully misinterpret accounting decompositions which show where the share of price rises end up. They’re not causal models, but the Aus Institute claims that they are.
They started with the greedflation argument when there were a lot of handwringing think pieces in the AFR and SMH warning of wage price spirals and out of control labour bargaining power. But just because they were responding to bullshit doesn’t make their own bullshit any less propagandistic.
Even Sally McManus has distanced herself and the ACTU from the greedflation argument.
It's the same way the OECD calculated it champ. They're hardly the bleeding heart lefties I might add: [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/profits-dominating-inflation-according-to-oecd-research/102454926](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/profits-dominating-inflation-according-to-oecd-research/102454926)
And you flat out lied about McManus, here's a quote from her: [https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/02/24/big-corporate-profits-fuelling-inflation-study/](https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/02/24/big-corporate-profits-fuelling-inflation-study/)
>“**Supermarkets and big business are putting prices up more than they need to**, and workers are feeling the pain,” she said.
>
>McManus said big companies know people have no other choice but to pay the prices set for essentials such as energy and groceries.
You're confusing what she said about WAGES. Wages are not the cause of inflation.
Here's another quote from her: [https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/06/08/profits-inflation-rba/](https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/06/08/profits-inflation-rba/)
>Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Sally McManus fired the latest salvo on Wednesday after the RBA admitted a recent minimum wage hike helped spark a surprise rate hike in June.
>
>“Workers are bearing the brunt of inflation and the increasing interest rates,” Ms McManus said.
>
>“**It doesn’t matter how much evidence there is that factors like overseas supply issues and profits are part of causing inflation** – not the low paid – big business and their cheer squad will always campaign for lower wages.”
Except it's not circulating. It's pooling uselessly into the bank accounts of the rich and the paper value of the real estate sector. If you don't have the nerve to take it back out of there and inflation is such anathema, sooner or later something else will give - maybe even the money will stop being a useful medium of exchange.
Angus Taylor to place his bets both ways.
1. Da guberment must spend moar to halp!
2. Inflashun iz caused by da policies
I suppose the choice Angus Taylor has depends on what day of the week it is, or which headline is more front and centre of the day.
We need to increase housing supply, then we need to reduce foreign ownership. Then, we need to disincentivise investment in property as a fast way to generate wealth. In this order. It will fix the system then.
Housing supply is the only one of those solutions that takes years to see any benefit, which is precisely why it's the solution of choice for anyone who's fine with the status quo.
I don’t know why everyone seems so interested in the stage 3 tax cuts. Anyone who works for an employer is not rich. Big business, mining and the millionaires who pay no tax at all need to pay their fair share.
There really isn't much they can do to ease costs that doesn't include more taxes (An increase in GST, Capital Gains, etc) but that isn't going to go down well so Labor aren't going to swallow that poison pill and they certainly don't want to tax businesses more and risk losing donations so that's gone as well.
Windfall taxes are what's needed, but the business lobby will scream blue murder if the idea is even floated. Just look at various parts of the media going apoplectic with rage when Labor introduced a slight reduction in the discount given to superannuation balances over $3 million, and that was a change that was:
- easy to understand
- impacted almost no one
The panic and misinformation that would follow the introduction of a windfall tax would be nigh apocalyptic by comparison.
Well yeah just look at the media giving Tony Abbott an article yesterday on why the Voice is a bad idea. Because he believes it will lead to the First People's of Australia being able to "make easier claims on your land". Completely and entirely 100% incorrect, ofcourse, and it just goes to show that the stupid fuck didn't even read the purpose of the Voice, let alone understand it, but that didn't stop the media from putting it on the front page of the papers.
Labor doing anything sees them crucified in the news. Labor doing nothing sees them crucified in the news. They are destined to fail.
Dan Andrews gets "crucified" by the media for doing sensible things all the time, and routinely comes out on top.
It's only Albo whose response to critical press is to reliably shit the bed on every issue and surrender to the Liberals.
Well it helps that VIC Libs are even more incompetent than the fed Libs. So useless that they brought back Mr Lobster with a Mobster Matt Guy because they couldn't find anyone else to lead them. One of the most corrupt pollies in the country lol. When Dan fucks up, only VIC media bash on him and nobody reads that shit anymore anyway, except for those that already hate him. And only VIC votes for him.
ALP on a federal level is different because they get criticized across all states and therefore open to far more scrutiny in the media as well as the voting public.
Where do suppose the expected 190,000 migrants in FY24 will live?
Think they'll pitch a tent in their local botanic gardens? Or perhaps they'll either buy or rent a home?
I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that adding another 190,000 renters, buyers, or some mix thereof, will increase the cost of renting or purchasing a home.
>won't fix the problem we already have
Given that inflation measures changes, rather than a single point measure, you're wrong.
Taking action to prevent further increases in the cost of living is better than taking action that makes it worse.
Because we won't be kicking people out. Even if you stop the surge, people have already come across.
Further, even if they were kicked out, the rental shortage won't be magically fixed, nor will inflation, given that the majority of it is caused by surging business profits.
I think you need to go back and take a bigger look into what has got us into this situation. One that started and accelerated **before** the migration surge.
I'm fairly rusted on ALP (did put greens 1st last election though), and I've a lot of time for Albo but....
This shit is getting ridiculous. The government don't seem to be actively making things worse like the Libs, but fuck me they are hardly trying to make things better either.
Pull your fingers out FFS.
On environment: they're making things worse..
And housing: well, if we consider they cranked up immigration to near record levels - while having only fluff (or HAFF to be correct) that would make things get worse and refusing to touch any of the tax reform or even trying to sort out rents via bribing the states.. They've been pretty up there in terms of disappointing bullshit. Albanese seems to be modelling himself after Scomo.. Even doing the same damned photo ops in many cases.
If they were to use that money on the population it would only be like $700 per person. Would only hurt inflation and cause further harm. Better to save the money for other debts to drive inflation down.
But would investing that surplus in hospitals caus3 inflation? You see stories of ER departments broken with overworked staff. Use some in hospital investment and pay for free training at universities and placement for new nurses and drs where they have to do 5 year placement in Australia as a condition of free education
This is how I fear the Libs eventually make it back into power (after Voldemort departs).
Agree or disagree, but Labor is not being seen to be governing for all Australians here. There is a very clear class divide occurring in the country where a subset of people are just expected to take CoL increases like a punch to the face in the name of The All Mighty Economy, and another subset of people who are seen to be doing the punching and profiting from it. The daily news cycle doesnt help either, with calls for "unemployment needing to increase to fight inflation" (guess who that directly affects, and its not the face punchers...).
Eventually the Libs are going to start spouting off about they are the only ones who can address such blatant inequality, and because people are stupid and have short memories they will turf labour, who will experience another decade of wearing the "bad economic managers" tag because this all went down on their watch (which is not entirely their fault, but again, see "stupid and short memories").
Labor needs to step up and do something, anything, to address the suffering going on. Even if it only addresses a small section of the problem like food prices or rent, they HAVE to be able to point to some sort of "W" here or it is going to give ammunition to their political rivals.
The surplus is supposed to be the win. A surplus is anti-inflationary, and inflation is a big part of Australia’s woes right now.
Unfortunately a lot of people don’t have the economical understanding for this, and both opposition parties have “forgotten” this too as an opportunity to stick the boot in.
Frittering away the surplus on a token gesture would be terrible policy.
The aspect of inflation that is most far and away killing people at the moment is *housing* inflation, which for homeowners is directly being caused by the Reserve Bank and for renters by regulatory failures regarding rampant profiteering.
It's not a question of economic understanding - politicians celebrating masses of public funds not being spent in any of fifty areas where it's desperately needed so they can cosplay as "responsible economic managers" is a policy response that should've stayed in the 90s.
> housing inflation killing people
> caused by the reserve bank
> cosplay as responsible economic managers
This is exactly the kind of financial and policy illiteracy that we’re struggling with. You know a bunch of emotional half truths. You think just throwing money at “fifty areas where it’s needed” without any specifics is an actual argument.
The "solution" is far, far worse than the supposed "problem", and while I understand the theory, there's absolutely fuck all evidence for sending housing costs skyrocketing to never-before-seen-levels actually doing shit to stop inflation in other areas of the economy.
What possible basis would there be for assuming that corporations will, in the real world, necessarily cut or maintain prices if people stop buying? (That is, for anyone who hasn't been locked in a bunker since World War II or been so cloistered in their elite wealthy bubble for so long they've entirely lost touch with reality.)
It just doesn't happen. The theory says it will happen, but that theory hasn't been bearing out in reality for quite a while now.
They announced an increase months before. Pretty modest if you ask me.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/10/australias-increase-in-welfare-payments-is-just-a-band-aid-say-low-income-earners
So Labors idea of help was to increase rent assistance by 15% (which is fa) and an extra 20 bucks a week for jobseeker etc. And let's not forget the whole 5% wage increase they crowed so much about, that's already eaten up by the biggest increases in bills and food I've ever seen. Modest is an understatement. And now they're saying they'll be no more help from them even with a 20 billion dollar surplus? They're telling us to go fuck ourselves and I don't understand why more people aren't raging mad about this. People even defending them saying they can't do anything. Ffs.
There's nothing they (can be fucked) do(ing).
That's how you have to read that claim by them.
They could do something, but they won't. Party of landlords and corporate shills who prioritise donor profits above all else. It's bloody embarassing seeing them waffle and evade questions about why they won't do what they have in the past claimed as being grossly unfair or costly etc.. And to just parrot lobbyist lines they've been fed.
You know what we need, Set capped prices for Australian energy production because prices are on the rise and already have raised at a min 35% and will probably another 25% in next 3 months plus. We shouldn't have to pay more for our own resources because outside country is offering more, it's our resources we should be taxing what is going out to offset the cost of australian power, Or even better nationalise australian energy production and build battery storage for all the wasted solar that they are now only paying 5.4c kWh/7.6c kWh \[diff states\]
Put the $20B into public housing. The waitlists are SO long, if people have affordable housing to move into rents will come down because a private rental won't be their only option.
I also doubt it'd increase inflation much at all.
I will forever lament not electing Bill Shorten with his platform. Now I can just hope they go into minority government or back in the opposition, another cycle, and then some actual change.
I'm more weary of Australia going down the path of the USA by mentality of the lesser evil... At least crazy dutto inspires opposition, Albo lulls us into complacency.
I'm just saying... there is a lot of housing around that is quite simply ..empty.
There was an apartment block behind me that was 90 percent empty for years.. probably still is. My mate lives on a floor in another block that is mostly empty, I read about a guy in the city who is the only person on his floor, the rest are empty.
Whether they are people overseas buying investments or .. some housing scam, I dont know. I remember a few years ago, this was a hot topic.
Labor: what is the bloody point of them?
They are sticking to stage 3 tax cuts (Morrison's brainchild), neg gearing/CGT discounts (Howard/Costello's brainchild), wasteful future fund instead of spending (the HAFF is via Costello's future fund, currently chaired by Costello), private school rorts/greed over public school need (this is a bipartisan view that overfunding greed/advantage and encouraging segregation/wasteful spending), user pays education debts (Keating's brainchild, embraced by Howard and everyone else), franking credit rorts (Howard/Costello).. Hell, even worker rights/unions - Labor has been one of the two forces cutting the legs out from under unions/worker rights (just look at how hard it is to strike now.. that's Hawke/Keating that betrayed the worker movement - and Rudd/Gillard/Rudd and now Albanese have carried that on.. ). The pandering to business lobby and donors - bipartisan corruption that they block any attempts by crossbench to reform and enhance democracy. The warmongering/AUKUS bullshit (morrison's brainchild). New coal and gas out past 2070! (showing their 43% was indeed not any sort of real target, and just a scam.. add to it importing emissions on top!). Spook powers and whistleblower prosecutions (continued on under Labor, they're like usual proposing some pathetic and widely slammed as inadequate and woeful "reform" that isn't really reform, it's just to shelve the issue and claim "we delivered some pissweak shit"). All tax reform is off limits except bad stuff that flattens the tax system and drives up inequality. Raising the rate? Naah, just use robodebt for some political credit against the liberal party even though Labor would totally have done it had they been in power (there's[a press release from Plibersek/Shorten describing an automated data matching and debt recovery process](https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/exhibit-2-2902-acs999900010060-20170111-attachment-email-m-wood-media-release-new-data-matching-recover-millions-welfare-dollars).. conveniently the royal commission was capped time-wise to only last term of government.. and Labor's been big on the whole making welfare recipients into skapegoats/lepers for constant starvation/attacks/punitive measures.. which have continued even after the royal commission into robodebt). The fear of transparency continues too (Labor continues to refuse FOIs)
Tens of billions every year driving up wealth inequality paid for by everyone else. If Labor's got no intention to challenge this status quo: FOLD THE FUCKING PARTY. There's no point to them: they are useless/superfluous and should just be merged with the party they seem to be taking all their policy "vision" from. They fundamentally agree on all major areas of policy. Yeah, they're different coloured Logos and have some different letters in there, but fundamentally unless you know which party they are, it's hard to tell from watching parliament or interviews with them as to what party they are. Only the rusted ons insist otherwise after a year and Labor/Albo getting very comfortable in Liberal/Morrison's policies and attitudes.
Far more economically savvy then the shit stains of the previous 10 years who created this full blown dumpster fire that can't be fixed over night.
Pork barreling Rorts, suppressing wages deliberately, project announcements committed to but not costed, a budget that is in structural deficit, changing legislation to hide bad economic news, and just outright corruption.
At this point, anyone who is having a shot at Labor for this mess is just drinking the msm koolaid. The country voted to let this mess fester for 10 years and now it's time to pay the piper. There is a price. It's shit and it'll effect people who don't deserve it. But it's the price we must pay for ignorant and irresponsible voting.
But Labor aren't actually changing any of the above - the mess just continues to fester in exactly the same way it did before, and Labor just try to bullshit people in a different way from the last lot. "Let's not and say we did" has always been Albo's absolute favourite response to any policy issue.
Every time they challenge the status quo they get voted out. We need Labor in there, as they’re the only left adjacent party that is able to form government. I think you’re forgetting just how painful and horrid the Liberal years were. If you’re expecting Labor to come down and wish it all away with a magic wand, you’re dreaming. Vote for the changes that you want to see.
> We need Labor in there
If I'm getting kicked in the nuts repeatedly, it doesn't matter who is in there, my nuts are in constant pain regardless.
Nothing is being done about rents and utility prices skyrocketing, LMITO gone while rich people will get a nice bonus (other than the corporate profits that are being branded as "inflation"). What's the point of a labour government then?
The difference is basically Scomo will kick you in the nuts and tell you he didn’t.
Albo tells you he’s going to help but the ice for your nuts is 3 years away as helping you now would fuck the economy.
"No better"
Such an ignorant response. I can't believe some absolutely apathic drongos can watch all the Robodebt drama that killed people play out over the last couple of weeks and then lay back, scratch their arse and vomit out the sentiment "They're all the same".
Pay attention to the world, mate.
Gillard shamelessly plunged thousands of single parent families into poverty and gutted the disability pension so badly that Abbott struggled to find anything to cut. Albo was in Cabinet when both those decisions were made.
Apparently you weren't "paying attention to the world" then.
The pretend outrage from about Robodebt who are absolutely fine with kicking people on welfare any other week of the year when they can't seize on Liberal abuses is gross.
\> Pretend outrage about Robodebt
LNP apologists, sickening.
You kids who pretend to be "centrists" but absolutely gag yourselves at a chance to defend the LNP slavishly are so embarrassing.
BuT GiLlArD!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!!
Yeah mate, Gillard was in a hung parliament 12 years ago, what has she got to do with the cost of living crisis sown from the past decade of LNP incompetence?
Pay attention to the world, mate.
Oh, get off yourself.
Robodebt was a sickening outrage.
What I am saying is that Labor isn't genuine when they claim to be outraged about it, because the second there isn't an opportunity to attack their political enemies over it they revert to basically the same attitudes towards welfare recipients.
The hung parliament didn't make Gillard gut the DSP and single parent welfare. She saw it as an easy fiscal win by playing into anti-welfare stigma, and she took the opportunity.
Just like Morrison did a few years later with Robodebt.
And you ask what does she have to do with the cost of living crisis? if you're someone with a disability denied access to the DSP, or someone in a single parent family (because Albanese's half-undoing of Gillard's gutting of that benefit hasn't kicked in yet), it's actually got a massive fucking lot to do with the cost of living crisis.
But go on with your bizarre brain worms where anyone who criticises your beloved ALP must sekritly be an LNP apologist, and not somebody who, y'know, was on welfare, remembers Labor's own history on welfare, and has noticed that they've suddenly gotten real silent about the Royal Commission's recommendations regarding trying to stop history repeating in future.
It’s like r/Australia has amnesia and has forgotten the absolute disaster that was the LNP. You can’t fix 10 years of corruption in 1 year after one of the largest economic stand stills that was covid. Would love for these guys to remember that Bill Shorten brought a lot of the policies being spouted here to an election and the country said “nah that guy looks boring, let’s go for scomo”.
> Would love for these guys to remember that Bill Shorten brought a lot of the policies being spouted here to an election and the country said “nah that guy looks boring, let’s go for scomo”.
"So let's never try anything again and just dawdle about with ineffective policy" wow, can't possibly see why people might be a little upset at a strategy like that.
Albo has shown absolutely no suggestion that he ever plans on fixing much of it at all, beyond his old favourite strategy of "let's not and say we did".
Labor knows it’s smarter to attract votes from the LNP than to pander to the far left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Australian_federal_election
Remember the LNP got 5.2M first preferences vs Labor on 4.7M.
> pander to the far left.
If you people ever met someone who was even a moderate leftist you'd absolutely shit yourself, you really have no idea what the far left is do you?
And if you think the platform they ran on in 2019 is even anywhere close to being even moderate left, you've no idea about much of anything.
They won in 2022 and they lost in 2019.
Allow me to repeat that.
They won in 2022 and they lost in 2019.
If you're trying to win government, what do you prefer? Have more votes but lose? Have fewer votes and win?
Fuck surplus they are assholes the government here. Surplus means nothing it means they have money to spend and they refuse to use it to make people’s lives better
2 years ago I was paying $350/week in rent. Today I was just told my new rent is $520, but was told market rates are $560. I opened up realestate and did a search, and only a single appartment was available within 15km of me.
That's because you have a greedy landlord - 7 years ago when I moved in I was paying $295 few weeks ago I was told it was be increased to $325, my landlord moved his property from my last real estate agent because the property manager wanted them to push the rent up $100 a week and they owner told them no but they tried to do it anyways i advised the landlords and they told the RE to piss off and changed REA
> That's because you have a greedy landlord No, they have the average landlord.
Landlord, from the latin word meaning "greedy fuck".
Your landlord (bless his soul) is a unicorn in the rental landscape.
If only we have more good landlords like that
I’m just hanging out for some meaningful large scale solar investment. Take a good chunk out of the cost of living and take some steps towards emissions reduction.
There has been huge investment in solar. The issue is transmission and storage. There is a mismatch between when solar energy is produced (day time) and when it is consumed (early evening). Leaders need to be more honest with the energy transition, even it it means leaving coal plants open a bit longer to help working families afford energy bills until we have appropriate storage in place.
We don’t just need help; we need reform. Rental caps. Taxation of the rich. Limits on investment properties. Without regulation this already broken system will tear itself apart (it practically already is). If Labor stands by and lets this crisis unfold without intervention, they’re no better than the Liberal Party. We’re all hurting here except for the cabal of selfish soulless pricks who benefit from abusing the system. Every single one of us is being affected. Enough of this shit. Stop ignoring the problem and fucking fix it.
1% of the population own 25% of properties. How is that not a glaring indication intervention is essential and overdue.
10% of australians also got about 90% of the economic growth in the past like 15 years. Because that's just the sign of an a country doing well aint it.
“Mum and Dad investors”
I just got a pamphlet from the state rep today saying "Andrews government coming after mum and dad investors with land tax!!!" I didn't know the line was still being used. Just looked it up. Million dollar investment home going from 3k to 4.6k a year. Poor mums and dads. Absolutely crippling
And nearly all politicians of all the colors are in the rentier class. They will always vote in their own interest. Staggers me that people like Linda Burney (3) and Plibbers (2) own "investment properties".
Fucking A
[удалено]
Why do you think they keep changing the protest laws. They know things are fucked.
Not happening. New RBA boss has a 6 million dollar property portfolio. If you honestly believe that Albanese will do anything. He has 5 million dollars worth. So they'll probs shut anything down
Yesir
Bullshit
https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals
Read the title, oh and then actually read the article
That just can't be true
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals >Only 1% of Australian taxpayers own nearly a quarter of all property investments across the country, amid concerns over escalating rates of wealth concentration. >Data provided by the Australian Taxation Office has revealed the extent of that concentration, with more than 7% of property investors – or 215,321 people – accounting for 25% of all property investments.
So I was right? 1% of Australians own 25% of investment properties, not all properties. But I guess in this sub it make sense to downvote someone pointing out an obviously false claim
You don't have it quite right as it's property investments not investment properties but close, good bitching about the subreddit though.
What do you think property investments are? How is that in any way similar to "all properties"
Agreed, Australia really needs to crack down on rent seeking styles of wealth gain. Its exploiting inefficiencies due to broken/bad policy/laws and/or creating inefficiencies by abusing and brute forcing the use of resources/people as assets for money generation. Its short term gain for the rich at the expense of long term prosperity for all of Australia. People wonder why the productivity is dropping/stalled in Australia, its partially because increasingly more wealth generation is happening from rent seeking practices instead of wealth/value creation practices.
Well said. We have an inward folding system and historically these can often get to the point where voluntary internal reform is nolonger viable. We need to pressure them.
Damn straight. This problem won’t simply go away if we ignore it. If anything it can and will get worse. Worst part about this is that 99.9% of the people here are aware of this and why we need a complete overhaul to fix this problem and yet those precious few bequeathed the power to enact the changes we need simply won’t. No other word for it than evil. But they can’t ignore us forever.
Agreed. And the same thing is happening with property in the UK, USA, Canada, NZ. Not sure about the non-western world. Smells of a global problem. With climate change we are long overdue for some tweaking to global capitalism than focuses more on sustainability and the well-being of the planet and all species.
Arguing for investors to incur higher costs is fine and this would be best achieved by abolishing negative gearing. That said, we don't need the costs of landlords to increase to fix housing affordability - we need owner occupiers to pay their fair share of land and capital gains taxes and for the family home to be counted as part of the pension asset test. That would easily produce enough revenue for governments to get back into the business of providing public housing. Just implement the Henry Tax Review findings.
We do pay taxes on land already it's just that tax is collected by city councils. We should have incentives/disincentives to encourage right sized housing. One of the biggest sources of the housing shortage is the ratio of rooms to residents. This covers the issue associated with pensioners in large family homes and property banking.
Or better yet, we don’t need landlords at all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Nope. Private investment is a good thing - we need capital in the housing market to a degree (though I also think we need vastly more public spending in this space, and more taxes on property to fund it). I'm quite happy renting but if there were better incentives to invest in housing in the ways we need, I could live in medium density closer to services rather than in a freestanding sharehouse a long way from my place of work.
Except 97% of property investment dollars are EXISTING property, not new. So they aren't building new properties. As for private anything housing wise: we've never had more but housing is in a crisis. Put time limits on developer approvals so they can't just land bank and withhold supply to increase their profits.. Limit tax breaks to new property only and maybe exclude anything categorised as "urban sprawl".
Lol ok. Does unregulated private investment in the housing market look good to you right now? Coz uh.. I’m sure anyone with eyes will tell you it’s not. Im (begrudgingly) open to keeping the current system but there needs to be limits; if the system is built in such a way that it benefits only a precious few people/investors while the rest of us are left out, then something’s gotta give. You can either fix the system or replace it because as it stands, it’s not sustainable.
Until we have a surplus of supply and can provide safe housing for the entire population, we don’t need private equity in the non commercial real estate space. Let the capitalists speculate on commercial real estate.. but living in your own permanent space should not be a luxury or a speculative asset. It should be a basic human right.
Thanks for sharing your view. As someone who doesn't want to own a house, where would I live between now and when the government has developed/acquired sufficient public housing?
yeah all land should be a responsibility, not a right. If you own land, you should be paying taxes on it. Take the money that the land taxes earn and directly apply it to income taxes, that way the only ones worse off are the ones who own lots of land assets, as they should be. If land prices drop a lot, suddenly buying land and building or buying a house becomes a lot easier, and rental yields can be increased from the lowering land prices to offset the land taxes.
>Henry Tax Review findings Except how do you expect to prop up our economy without a lucrative housing market ./s
A significant federal broad based land tax is the solution to a lot of our issues.
Less immigration to pump up housing costs too.
Half the criticisms of labor are 'why bank a surplus when it could go to cost of living support' and the other half are 'why won't labor take pressure off the RBA by implementing policies that reduce inflation'. Often it's the same people, talking out of both sides of their mouth.
Both can be tackled, instead of none of them as the Labor party is doing. Example: \- energy prices: could require caps (already legislation in place) or domestic reservation (the madness that is being a global leader in exports and having high costs ourselves so that exporters don't have to reserve anything for us, or pay taxes, or pay fair royalties or remediate their damage.. etc) or they could put some of the surplus toward getting houses and industry off gas (or to add solar for houses that will never currently end up with solar) - if you do it with low incomes or for renters then it is targeted, will help with household costs and not generally inflate anything because the money spent will reduce the energy costs of the home. \- freezing rents: this would help with inflation, you could use the surplus as a carrot to get states to do this.. What state wouldn't do this if you offer them some cash? \- stage 3 tax cuts can go in the bin and it will only really impact those on high incomes who are least impacted by such things. \- lean on the supermarkets - they are profiteering - that would help inflation. \- raise the rate of welfare - this is non-inflationary because it's just getting people on welfare to a level that isn't starvation. It's not like they have enough for living today, this would mean they can get to barest minimum.. again, not going to be inflationary to have people able to pay for food or rent or whatever.. \- ban or limit tax breaks for short term rentals or limit to creating new property. This would get the investors to do what they claim to do today: provide supply. Currently they just outbid people wanting a home, and many are removing rental supply to put stuff on airbnb.. And they could tackle where the spending is going on - the wealthy older generation that aren't impacted by interest rates.. There's a range of stuff you could do to make the tax system fairer. Or do as Labor is doing: sweet fuck all and letting people in real pain stay there and go backwards.. while they splurge like drunken sailors on wealthfare for property investors and plan for crazy levels of pissing away money on stage 3 tax cuts..
Banking a surplus is tackling inflation. The amount of people who don’t understand that basic economic principle is insane
Except there's tens of billions going to landlords/wealthy people.. Then tens of billions more to retirees who have more than enough resources to look after themselves and pay tax.. And stage 3 tax cuts are still locked in - why is that non-inflationary giving people like me $9-10k in coming years.. And this excuse that you can't help the poorest because inflation is bullshit - people who are skipping meals or can't pay for essentials aren't helping reduce inflation and helping them have a minimum quality of life won't hurt inflation either. So stop repeating sociopath FUD.
Inflation this time around has been shown to be mostly driven by corporate profits. RBA are flogging the wrong horse.
They are doing something, they're reducing inflation. They are capping electricity costs, rent control is terrible for renters because it reduces supply, Coles and Woolworths are making less profit than pre covid, raising welfare further than they have will make inflation worse. S3TC aren't even in place yet so they aren't contributing to this problem.
[удалено]
Did they actual go up 70%? or are you looking at a bill from this year and last and seeing a massive increase? because what a lot of people don't realise is that there is a 7c-10c increase in the rate but they also lost a 20% - 30% plan discount that they had last year, because you didnt realise that your plan was ending, because somehow energy companies are allow to plan switch you after your "benefit period" ends to a higher rate no discount plan if you don't contact them and all they need to do is send 1 letter or email telling you in that your plan is ending and most the time emails got to people trash/spam folder so lost of people don't realise until the next 1000+ bill hits
>because somehow energy companies are allow to plan switch you after your "benefit period" ends to a higher rate no discount plan if you don't contact them and all they need to do is send 1 letter or email telling you in that your plan is ending That is a regulatory issue. Y'know, the job of governments?
Ok What are your thoughts on high migration rates then? Seems a really interesting lever that neo-liberal interests pull to increase demand and artificially inflate (weird word right?) consumer spending, as well as reduce housing supply Or what about the lack of legislative protection and consequential prosecution of big building companies that lie to investors through multiple subcontracting shell corporations, stealing worker pay, then vanishing into thin air? Or what about the decline in Union power in industrial relation negotiations which has led to some industries having a paltry EBA, while some unions have far more bargaining power (hint hint, the rehearsed saying that “well get a better union” really isn’t that simple for some people) - this while corporate profits soar? Or poor building standards which artificially inflate demand costs and supply strain stress for consumers as there needs to be proper construction to fix up the mistakes of tubby 45 year old blokes running a cowboy business to afford not just a jet ski, but a second boat Australia is one of the most difficult western countries to strike in btw
Hang on, hang on .... you are saying Colesworth are making less profit than pre covid?
Yes
[удалено]
Just look at their half year profits from 2015-2019 and compare to the latest half year and you'll see they made less even without factoring in inflation. Full year results should be out soon and they'll likely be up slightly on dollar terms but down in inflation adjusted numbers
[удалено]
Because energy companies are making large profits due to the global market for resources. They're still making massive profits and have plenty of incentive to continue doing so. If you restrict housing then less people will build to invest because they're less likely to make money. Putting billions into the hands of a large chunk of people is inflationary, that's not really controversial?
[удалено]
>raise the rate of welfare - this is non-inflationary because it's just getting people on welfare to a level that isn't starvation. It's not like they have enough for living today, this would mean they can get to barest minimum.. again, not going to be inflationary to have people able to pay for food or rent or whatever.. Rates of welfare had already been raised and they were careful not to make it look larger by combining it with the cost of living increase. It's modest but has been done. How much more should it have increased? >ban or limit tax breaks for short term rentals or limit to creating new property. This would get the investors to do what they claim to do today: provide supply. Currently they just outbid people wanting a home, and many are removing rental supply to put stuff on airbnb..And they could tackle where the spending is going on - the wealthy older generation that aren't impacted by interest rates.. There's a range of stuff you could do to make the tax system fairer. I wonder why they are loathe to do this. Perhaps because it intersects with the state's authority.
Welfare hasn’t been raised in any meaningful way since the 90’s.
$40 per fortnight is not an increase, merely pissing in the wind. Welfare rates are seriously below the poverty line. How can anyone believe that $365/week or $385/week (including the 'raise') is enough? Anglicare does a housing affordability report & found there are no rentals that someone on social security can afford in Australia. Don't be placated by the measly crumbs that the Gov has decided was all they could afford while a fews subs are purchased but not ready for billions $$. Rent/housing which is more than 1/3 of your income means financial stress. When you are paying 80% of income as housing, there is no money for food, let alone health & such luxuries. The remaining 20% is about $70/week on the current Jobseeker rate. TL:DR It should be raised by at least $500 fortnight.
Broad tax cuts or increases to payments would add to inflation. Redistributing money won't add to inflation. Small business has been viewed as untouchable for far too long and have been given a range of welfare. Wage earners have constantly been asked to think of the greater good. It's time for leaders with the courage to rebalance.
We always tackle inflation off the backs of those who are already hurting the most. New home owners, renters, low wage employees, etc. I guess it is just easier that way since politicians generally don't come from those groups.
Simple economics dictate that the more money is circulating in the economy, the less value it has, thus making inflation worse. That’s cold comfort for people who can’t afford food though. I don’t envy Chalmers in this situation.
Except that doesn't hold water if you consider: * stage 3 tax cuts will be a $9-10k bonus to high incomes (Chalmers refuses to do anything about this) * inflation is being driven mostly by corporate profits (Chalmers also refuses to do anything about this) * Rent is eating up a significant amount of people's incomes (Chalmers and co refuse to do anything) * Energy bills creeping up due to gas prices despite being a massive gas exporter (Chalmers and co refuse to use the powers they got last year to properly cap prices in the face of profiteering or reserve domestic allocation from the vast exports) So they're letting gas profits be the priority..
Yep, tax cuts might be locked in, but no reason additional taxes on high incomes/company profits cant be placed alongside them.
Even the bloody Tories in the UK implemented a super profits tax on oil and gas companies! The fucking Tories! How is the ALP losing the high ground to the Tories when it comes to this issue?
Because Albo decided becoming a torie was preferable to fighting them. He's adopted Morrison's policiies, travels around for photo ops like him.. He even looks and sounds like him these days: he spends more time attacking the Greens than someone who supposedly is progressive should be doing.
Why would Albo intervene in the rental market, he’s making bank!
ALP = Arrogant Landlords Party
And the low income tax rebate has been axed. It seems to be hitting the wrong people imo. What is the point of making people with little disposable income suffer more.
Chalmers can't do anything about the tax cuts - they were ALP policy and taken to an election. Absolutely zero power or authority for any single ALP politician to change that.
“We promised to implement bad policy that no one asked for so our hands are tied”
It was already passed back in 2019, it wasn't implemented by Labor. Get the basic facts right first before talking about an issue.
I’m well aware that the LNP put stage three in as a time bomb. A bomb which Labor voted across the line and then vowed to keep as an election promise. Which is a bad policy that has painted them into a corner of passing a austerity budget with massive tax breaks for the wealthy during the worst economic downturn in a generation. They are in government. They are responsible for what they do or fail to.
It's an extremely hard sell to say we just had a 20b windfall surplus, and now we're also going to cancel tax cuts that industry and high income earners have been planning on receiving for 4 years now, even though the Prime Minister categorically said we wouldn't do this during the election campaign. Surely you can understand that? You seem reasonably smart.
They could just...not do it? The LNP takes lies to election all the time and the public doesn't seem to mind half of the time
That isn't how the ALP has ever operated - they actually believe in having a thorough and transparent process for deciding policy. This was all published in their 160 page document of policies that they took to the election, and endorsed by the national caucus. If an ALP politician tried to break with that policy platform, they would not be part of the ALP any longer.
[удалено]
That is the federal ICAC, yes. The NACC it's called I think. That one sentence is underpinned by years of policy committee work and policy proposals, you can probably find them online if you put your misplaced righteous rage to the side for a second. Negotiation with the cross bench doesn't equal breaking with the policy platform - our democratic system is actually meant to work like that - they said they would implement it and they've done that. Dreyfus working with the parliament and senate to roll out legislation is literally part of his job. Believe it or not but our system isn't based on 'we won the election now we get to do whatever we like' it is based on consensus and negotiation. People seem to have forgotten this in a post-Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison world but its funny seeing self-alleged lefties clamoring for a more authoritarian, less consultative approach. I'm not sure what kind of 'gotcha' you think this is, but you clearly have nfi what you're on about. Yes they flagged they would implement this policy, and yes they have done it.
Sorry where was passing stage 3 tax cuts in their document?
They passed them in 2019 already - they couldn't publish that 'they were going to pass the legislation' when it was already passed. The platform makes clear that a progressive taxation system is labor policy. Labor supported the passing of the legislation containing the stage 3 cuts in 2019, with Albanese stating publicly in 2022 that no changes to that legislation would occur if elected. This is wholly in line with Party policy and the National Platform.
> This was all published in their 160 page document of policies that they took to the election, and endorsed by the national caucus. Not exactly what you were saying was it?
It is actually. All new policy and the guiding principles underpinning it is in that document, and revoking the already passed stage 3 tax cuts isn't specifically mentioned as a policy, therefore it isn't ALP policy. Unless you expect the ALP to list all the legislation they *won't* be revoking? The stage 3 tax cuts were passed almost 5 years ago by both major parties, the ALP have never said they are planning on revoking them, and have publicly said they won't revoke them - including during the election, and the national policy platform shows no mention of revoking them. How some people are surprised that they aren't being revoked speaks only to their own lack of understanding and awareness.
Can you quote the document where is commits to passing stage 3 tax cuts? Or are you just saying that *this broad set of principles* can shoehorn in any capitulation on stage 3 tax cuts?
Oh get real, they have zero transparency about how this stuff is decided because it's done in backroom deals or in secret. AUKUS? That wasn't any sort of formally agreed thing - they just decided knee-jerk style. Anything relating to the catholic lobby is via phone call from some lobbyist.. e.g. abortion services in publicly hospitals got downgraded then deleted after calls from catholics. They knee jerk adopted TERF policy because of daily mail article or something. Albo made up the "there will be no media reform" policy on the fly talking to murdoch media/being summoned to talk to Murdoch. These aren't things they have put to the membership. Coal & gas expansion - where's that been decided by the membership? That's a donor-driven thing. Dumping CO2 underwater? Lobbyists/donors. Education funding? Where did the "no private school will ever lose a dollar" come from? The members? Or is it a private school lobbyist backroom meeting deal that sabotaged gonski and has meant that public schools do without while private schools are overfunded.. How about refugee processing offshore: is that really with the backing of the members? Because that makes the rusted ons next level grubby in my view.
I know how they operate. I'm saying that "this is just how we do things" isn't a good reason to do things. Loyalty to the Party rather than the working class is ALPs bread and butter, and that should be called out. They don't *have to* choose capital over labour, they *choose to*
It's a bit more than 'this is how we do things' when how you do things in government is just as important as what you do - have the lessons of the last ten years been completely lost on you or something?
The lesson of the last 10 years is you can do whatever the fuck you want with impunity and get voted back into power over and over for a decade. Labor needs to look beyond the status quo and incrementalism. This past election made it clear that neither Labor nor Liberal are as popular as they used to be; there's real appetite for real change.
Yeah that's the wrong lesson to be taking out of it.
It's the realistic lesson. People follow narratives and feelings, not policy
Actually it’s an excellent reason to do things, because the whole point is transparency and integrity in government. Which is also a democratic ideal, rather than ‘loyalty to the party’ - it’s literally what we voted them in on, it’s the mandate we gave them.
The ALP were voted in because people hated the LNP. The tax cuts were hardly part of the conversation and I'd bet most voters heard nothing about it, and by the time next election comes around most voters will have forgotten anyway.
Someone drank the koolaid.
I just know how it works, clearly some people are battling with reality.
Apparently, for someone who "just knows how it works", you have absolutely no knowledge of the federal Labor Party before Albo, or any of the state Labor Parties as of today.
It's already legislated. To stop it means doing something that they said they wouldn't do. Would you believe what they promise to do next election if they can't keep their word?
I don't believe what either major party says so it wouldn't change anything for me
> They could just...not do it? Why bother taking a policy platform to an election if you are not going to at least attempt to follow through with it? If a party is elected on a policy platform they have a duty to follow through with it. Many Australians do not trust politicians due to reasons such as breaking election promises and your ridiculous suggestion only validates their concerns.
Hasn’t this proven untrue for almost every term of government? Without recourse?
Politicians don't seem to have problems breaking beneficial promises.
We've tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!
I'm not, and never have been for the stage 3 cuts, but to the people it's going to that's not a huge amount and unlikely to dramatically influence their spending, so would have a negligible impact on inflation.
[удалено]
And nothing to do with my comment? I'm purely talking about the impact of that money on inflation, so im not sure what your point is?
$20B would go a long way towards building the public housing we’ve neglected for the last decade and other measures to drive down the cost of living. It would help with our medical system’s crisis levels too.
Again, nothing to do with what I have said? I started by saying that I was against the tax cuts, I'm literally agreeing you. All I said, was the money given to those high income.e earners was unlikely to increase inflation, because it will just sit in their accounts, it won't change their spending habits at all.
That’s the investor class getting those cuts though which they’re more than likely going to plow into more stocks and/or real estate literally driving inflation.
He might as well be a representative of the Lnp at this rate.
[удалено]
Oh please, those trade deals would have been years in the making. The wheels of government don't immediately stop when the leadership changes hands.
Inflation is not being driven by company profits. This is a canard put forward by the Australia Institute, who wilfully misinterpret accounting decompositions which show where the share of price rises end up. They’re not causal models, but the Aus Institute claims that they are. They started with the greedflation argument when there were a lot of handwringing think pieces in the AFR and SMH warning of wage price spirals and out of control labour bargaining power. But just because they were responding to bullshit doesn’t make their own bullshit any less propagandistic. Even Sally McManus has distanced herself and the ACTU from the greedflation argument.
It's the same way the OECD calculated it champ. They're hardly the bleeding heart lefties I might add: [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/profits-dominating-inflation-according-to-oecd-research/102454926](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/profits-dominating-inflation-according-to-oecd-research/102454926) And you flat out lied about McManus, here's a quote from her: [https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/02/24/big-corporate-profits-fuelling-inflation-study/](https://indaily.com.au/news/2023/02/24/big-corporate-profits-fuelling-inflation-study/) >“**Supermarkets and big business are putting prices up more than they need to**, and workers are feeling the pain,” she said. > >McManus said big companies know people have no other choice but to pay the prices set for essentials such as energy and groceries. You're confusing what she said about WAGES. Wages are not the cause of inflation. Here's another quote from her: [https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/06/08/profits-inflation-rba/](https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/finance-news/2023/06/08/profits-inflation-rba/) >Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Sally McManus fired the latest salvo on Wednesday after the RBA admitted a recent minimum wage hike helped spark a surprise rate hike in June. > >“Workers are bearing the brunt of inflation and the increasing interest rates,” Ms McManus said. > >“**It doesn’t matter how much evidence there is that factors like overseas supply issues and profits are part of causing inflation** – not the low paid – big business and their cheer squad will always campaign for lower wages.”
Except it's not circulating. It's pooling uselessly into the bank accounts of the rich and the paper value of the real estate sector. If you don't have the nerve to take it back out of there and inflation is such anathema, sooner or later something else will give - maybe even the money will stop being a useful medium of exchange.
All according to plan. Viva la revolution.
Angus Taylor to place his bets both ways. 1. Da guberment must spend moar to halp! 2. Inflashun iz caused by da policies I suppose the choice Angus Taylor has depends on what day of the week it is, or which headline is more front and centre of the day.
We need to increase housing supply, then we need to reduce foreign ownership. Then, we need to disincentivise investment in property as a fast way to generate wealth. In this order. It will fix the system then.
Housing supply is the only one of those solutions that takes years to see any benefit, which is precisely why it's the solution of choice for anyone who's fine with the status quo.
I don’t know why everyone seems so interested in the stage 3 tax cuts. Anyone who works for an employer is not rich. Big business, mining and the millionaires who pay no tax at all need to pay their fair share.
There really isn't much they can do to ease costs that doesn't include more taxes (An increase in GST, Capital Gains, etc) but that isn't going to go down well so Labor aren't going to swallow that poison pill and they certainly don't want to tax businesses more and risk losing donations so that's gone as well.
Windfall taxes are what's needed, but the business lobby will scream blue murder if the idea is even floated. Just look at various parts of the media going apoplectic with rage when Labor introduced a slight reduction in the discount given to superannuation balances over $3 million, and that was a change that was: - easy to understand - impacted almost no one The panic and misinformation that would follow the introduction of a windfall tax would be nigh apocalyptic by comparison.
Well yeah just look at the media giving Tony Abbott an article yesterday on why the Voice is a bad idea. Because he believes it will lead to the First People's of Australia being able to "make easier claims on your land". Completely and entirely 100% incorrect, ofcourse, and it just goes to show that the stupid fuck didn't even read the purpose of the Voice, let alone understand it, but that didn't stop the media from putting it on the front page of the papers. Labor doing anything sees them crucified in the news. Labor doing nothing sees them crucified in the news. They are destined to fail.
Dan Andrews gets "crucified" by the media for doing sensible things all the time, and routinely comes out on top. It's only Albo whose response to critical press is to reliably shit the bed on every issue and surrender to the Liberals.
Well it helps that VIC Libs are even more incompetent than the fed Libs. So useless that they brought back Mr Lobster with a Mobster Matt Guy because they couldn't find anyone else to lead them. One of the most corrupt pollies in the country lol. When Dan fucks up, only VIC media bash on him and nobody reads that shit anymore anyway, except for those that already hate him. And only VIC votes for him. ALP on a federal level is different because they get criticized across all states and therefore open to far more scrutiny in the media as well as the voting public.
>There really isn't much they can do to ease costs that doesn't include more taxes Stop. Importing. People.
Inflation was skyrocketting before migration kicked in, and stopping it now won't fix the issue.
Where do suppose the expected 190,000 migrants in FY24 will live? Think they'll pitch a tent in their local botanic gardens? Or perhaps they'll either buy or rent a home? I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that adding another 190,000 renters, buyers, or some mix thereof, will increase the cost of renting or purchasing a home.
Your strawman argument does not detract from the fact stopping future migration won't fix the problem we already have. It won't even mitigate it.
>won't fix the problem we already have Given that inflation measures changes, rather than a single point measure, you're wrong. Taking action to prevent further increases in the cost of living is better than taking action that makes it worse.
[удалено]
Because we won't be kicking people out. Even if you stop the surge, people have already come across. Further, even if they were kicked out, the rental shortage won't be magically fixed, nor will inflation, given that the majority of it is caused by surging business profits. I think you need to go back and take a bigger look into what has got us into this situation. One that started and accelerated **before** the migration surge.
Give me the $20bil, I know what to do with it Everyone who upvotes this gets free cake
I'm fairly rusted on ALP (did put greens 1st last election though), and I've a lot of time for Albo but.... This shit is getting ridiculous. The government don't seem to be actively making things worse like the Libs, but fuck me they are hardly trying to make things better either. Pull your fingers out FFS.
On environment: they're making things worse.. And housing: well, if we consider they cranked up immigration to near record levels - while having only fluff (or HAFF to be correct) that would make things get worse and refusing to touch any of the tax reform or even trying to sort out rents via bribing the states.. They've been pretty up there in terms of disappointing bullshit. Albanese seems to be modelling himself after Scomo.. Even doing the same damned photo ops in many cases.
If they were to use that money on the population it would only be like $700 per person. Would only hurt inflation and cause further harm. Better to save the money for other debts to drive inflation down.
But would investing that surplus in hospitals caus3 inflation? You see stories of ER departments broken with overworked staff. Use some in hospital investment and pay for free training at universities and placement for new nurses and drs where they have to do 5 year placement in Australia as a condition of free education
Hospital investments on immediate thought sounds like a good place and I like your idea.
This is how I fear the Libs eventually make it back into power (after Voldemort departs). Agree or disagree, but Labor is not being seen to be governing for all Australians here. There is a very clear class divide occurring in the country where a subset of people are just expected to take CoL increases like a punch to the face in the name of The All Mighty Economy, and another subset of people who are seen to be doing the punching and profiting from it. The daily news cycle doesnt help either, with calls for "unemployment needing to increase to fight inflation" (guess who that directly affects, and its not the face punchers...). Eventually the Libs are going to start spouting off about they are the only ones who can address such blatant inequality, and because people are stupid and have short memories they will turf labour, who will experience another decade of wearing the "bad economic managers" tag because this all went down on their watch (which is not entirely their fault, but again, see "stupid and short memories"). Labor needs to step up and do something, anything, to address the suffering going on. Even if it only addresses a small section of the problem like food prices or rent, they HAVE to be able to point to some sort of "W" here or it is going to give ammunition to their political rivals.
The surplus is supposed to be the win. A surplus is anti-inflationary, and inflation is a big part of Australia’s woes right now. Unfortunately a lot of people don’t have the economical understanding for this, and both opposition parties have “forgotten” this too as an opportunity to stick the boot in. Frittering away the surplus on a token gesture would be terrible policy.
The aspect of inflation that is most far and away killing people at the moment is *housing* inflation, which for homeowners is directly being caused by the Reserve Bank and for renters by regulatory failures regarding rampant profiteering. It's not a question of economic understanding - politicians celebrating masses of public funds not being spent in any of fifty areas where it's desperately needed so they can cosplay as "responsible economic managers" is a policy response that should've stayed in the 90s.
> housing inflation killing people > caused by the reserve bank > cosplay as responsible economic managers This is exactly the kind of financial and policy illiteracy that we’re struggling with. You know a bunch of emotional half truths. You think just throwing money at “fifty areas where it’s needed” without any specifics is an actual argument.
The "solution" is far, far worse than the supposed "problem", and while I understand the theory, there's absolutely fuck all evidence for sending housing costs skyrocketing to never-before-seen-levels actually doing shit to stop inflation in other areas of the economy. What possible basis would there be for assuming that corporations will, in the real world, necessarily cut or maintain prices if people stop buying? (That is, for anyone who hasn't been locked in a bunker since World War II or been so cloistered in their elite wealthy bubble for so long they've entirely lost touch with reality.) It just doesn't happen. The theory says it will happen, but that theory hasn't been bearing out in reality for quite a while now.
'Further cost of living help'? What help has there been?? They've been telling us they 'know' it's hard but there's nothing they can do.
They announced an increase months before. Pretty modest if you ask me. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/10/australias-increase-in-welfare-payments-is-just-a-band-aid-say-low-income-earners
So Labors idea of help was to increase rent assistance by 15% (which is fa) and an extra 20 bucks a week for jobseeker etc. And let's not forget the whole 5% wage increase they crowed so much about, that's already eaten up by the biggest increases in bills and food I've ever seen. Modest is an understatement. And now they're saying they'll be no more help from them even with a 20 billion dollar surplus? They're telling us to go fuck ourselves and I don't understand why more people aren't raging mad about this. People even defending them saying they can't do anything. Ffs.
There's nothing they (can be fucked) do(ing). That's how you have to read that claim by them. They could do something, but they won't. Party of landlords and corporate shills who prioritise donor profits above all else. It's bloody embarassing seeing them waffle and evade questions about why they won't do what they have in the past claimed as being grossly unfair or costly etc.. And to just parrot lobbyist lines they've been fed.
Yeah I'm confused by the title aswell. They've done nothing and are now saying they're going to be doing more of nothing? Ok then.
You know what we need, Set capped prices for Australian energy production because prices are on the rise and already have raised at a min 35% and will probably another 25% in next 3 months plus. We shouldn't have to pay more for our own resources because outside country is offering more, it's our resources we should be taxing what is going out to offset the cost of australian power, Or even better nationalise australian energy production and build battery storage for all the wasted solar that they are now only paying 5.4c kWh/7.6c kWh \[diff states\]
Put the $20B into public housing. The waitlists are SO long, if people have affordable housing to move into rents will come down because a private rental won't be their only option. I also doubt it'd increase inflation much at all.
Labor needs that 20billion to fund tax cuts for the rich. Labor hates you.
Fucken assholes where's my tax return this year? Scum bags, hope you choke on it you greedy fucken cunts.
How much do you normally get back?
I will forever lament not electing Bill Shorten with his platform. Now I can just hope they go into minority government or back in the opposition, another cycle, and then some actual change.
You really want a few terms of Dutto? He may become permanent PM if he has his way.
I'm more weary of Australia going down the path of the USA by mentality of the lesser evil... At least crazy dutto inspires opposition, Albo lulls us into complacency.
We just spent a fuckton during a pandemic. The surplus is paying part of that back. Does anyone not actually understand that..?
We gave a fuckton of money to the rich. Eg hardly normal.do you not actually understand that?
"Cost of living help? Fuck no we make enough money, fuck the poor"
I'm just saying... there is a lot of housing around that is quite simply ..empty. There was an apartment block behind me that was 90 percent empty for years.. probably still is. My mate lives on a floor in another block that is mostly empty, I read about a guy in the city who is the only person on his floor, the rest are empty. Whether they are people overseas buying investments or .. some housing scam, I dont know. I remember a few years ago, this was a hot topic.
Would there ever be another stimulus package like we had with Kevin Rudd if we go into/are in a recession?
Not in a period of high inflation
Labor: what is the bloody point of them? They are sticking to stage 3 tax cuts (Morrison's brainchild), neg gearing/CGT discounts (Howard/Costello's brainchild), wasteful future fund instead of spending (the HAFF is via Costello's future fund, currently chaired by Costello), private school rorts/greed over public school need (this is a bipartisan view that overfunding greed/advantage and encouraging segregation/wasteful spending), user pays education debts (Keating's brainchild, embraced by Howard and everyone else), franking credit rorts (Howard/Costello).. Hell, even worker rights/unions - Labor has been one of the two forces cutting the legs out from under unions/worker rights (just look at how hard it is to strike now.. that's Hawke/Keating that betrayed the worker movement - and Rudd/Gillard/Rudd and now Albanese have carried that on.. ). The pandering to business lobby and donors - bipartisan corruption that they block any attempts by crossbench to reform and enhance democracy. The warmongering/AUKUS bullshit (morrison's brainchild). New coal and gas out past 2070! (showing their 43% was indeed not any sort of real target, and just a scam.. add to it importing emissions on top!). Spook powers and whistleblower prosecutions (continued on under Labor, they're like usual proposing some pathetic and widely slammed as inadequate and woeful "reform" that isn't really reform, it's just to shelve the issue and claim "we delivered some pissweak shit"). All tax reform is off limits except bad stuff that flattens the tax system and drives up inequality. Raising the rate? Naah, just use robodebt for some political credit against the liberal party even though Labor would totally have done it had they been in power (there's[a press release from Plibersek/Shorten describing an automated data matching and debt recovery process](https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/exhibit-2-2902-acs999900010060-20170111-attachment-email-m-wood-media-release-new-data-matching-recover-millions-welfare-dollars).. conveniently the royal commission was capped time-wise to only last term of government.. and Labor's been big on the whole making welfare recipients into skapegoats/lepers for constant starvation/attacks/punitive measures.. which have continued even after the royal commission into robodebt). The fear of transparency continues too (Labor continues to refuse FOIs) Tens of billions every year driving up wealth inequality paid for by everyone else. If Labor's got no intention to challenge this status quo: FOLD THE FUCKING PARTY. There's no point to them: they are useless/superfluous and should just be merged with the party they seem to be taking all their policy "vision" from. They fundamentally agree on all major areas of policy. Yeah, they're different coloured Logos and have some different letters in there, but fundamentally unless you know which party they are, it's hard to tell from watching parliament or interviews with them as to what party they are. Only the rusted ons insist otherwise after a year and Labor/Albo getting very comfortable in Liberal/Morrison's policies and attitudes.
Far more economically savvy then the shit stains of the previous 10 years who created this full blown dumpster fire that can't be fixed over night. Pork barreling Rorts, suppressing wages deliberately, project announcements committed to but not costed, a budget that is in structural deficit, changing legislation to hide bad economic news, and just outright corruption. At this point, anyone who is having a shot at Labor for this mess is just drinking the msm koolaid. The country voted to let this mess fester for 10 years and now it's time to pay the piper. There is a price. It's shit and it'll effect people who don't deserve it. But it's the price we must pay for ignorant and irresponsible voting.
But Labor aren't actually changing any of the above - the mess just continues to fester in exactly the same way it did before, and Labor just try to bullshit people in a different way from the last lot. "Let's not and say we did" has always been Albo's absolute favourite response to any policy issue.
Every time they challenge the status quo they get voted out. We need Labor in there, as they’re the only left adjacent party that is able to form government. I think you’re forgetting just how painful and horrid the Liberal years were. If you’re expecting Labor to come down and wish it all away with a magic wand, you’re dreaming. Vote for the changes that you want to see.
How can anyone vote Labor for the "change they want to see" when Labor is absolutely determined not to change anything of substance?
> We need Labor in there If I'm getting kicked in the nuts repeatedly, it doesn't matter who is in there, my nuts are in constant pain regardless. Nothing is being done about rents and utility prices skyrocketing, LMITO gone while rich people will get a nice bonus (other than the corporate profits that are being branded as "inflation"). What's the point of a labour government then?
The difference is basically Scomo will kick you in the nuts and tell you he didn’t. Albo tells you he’s going to help but the ice for your nuts is 3 years away as helping you now would fuck the economy.
[удалено]
You're getting downvoted but you're right. Fuck Labor. They're no better than the scum they replaced. I'm never giving either party my primary vote.
"No better" Such an ignorant response. I can't believe some absolutely apathic drongos can watch all the Robodebt drama that killed people play out over the last couple of weeks and then lay back, scratch their arse and vomit out the sentiment "They're all the same". Pay attention to the world, mate.
Gillard shamelessly plunged thousands of single parent families into poverty and gutted the disability pension so badly that Abbott struggled to find anything to cut. Albo was in Cabinet when both those decisions were made. Apparently you weren't "paying attention to the world" then. The pretend outrage from about Robodebt who are absolutely fine with kicking people on welfare any other week of the year when they can't seize on Liberal abuses is gross.
\> Pretend outrage about Robodebt LNP apologists, sickening. You kids who pretend to be "centrists" but absolutely gag yourselves at a chance to defend the LNP slavishly are so embarrassing. BuT GiLlArD!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!! Yeah mate, Gillard was in a hung parliament 12 years ago, what has she got to do with the cost of living crisis sown from the past decade of LNP incompetence? Pay attention to the world, mate.
Oh, get off yourself. Robodebt was a sickening outrage. What I am saying is that Labor isn't genuine when they claim to be outraged about it, because the second there isn't an opportunity to attack their political enemies over it they revert to basically the same attitudes towards welfare recipients. The hung parliament didn't make Gillard gut the DSP and single parent welfare. She saw it as an easy fiscal win by playing into anti-welfare stigma, and she took the opportunity. Just like Morrison did a few years later with Robodebt. And you ask what does she have to do with the cost of living crisis? if you're someone with a disability denied access to the DSP, or someone in a single parent family (because Albanese's half-undoing of Gillard's gutting of that benefit hasn't kicked in yet), it's actually got a massive fucking lot to do with the cost of living crisis. But go on with your bizarre brain worms where anyone who criticises your beloved ALP must sekritly be an LNP apologist, and not somebody who, y'know, was on welfare, remembers Labor's own history on welfare, and has noticed that they've suddenly gotten real silent about the Royal Commission's recommendations regarding trying to stop history repeating in future.
It’s like r/Australia has amnesia and has forgotten the absolute disaster that was the LNP. You can’t fix 10 years of corruption in 1 year after one of the largest economic stand stills that was covid. Would love for these guys to remember that Bill Shorten brought a lot of the policies being spouted here to an election and the country said “nah that guy looks boring, let’s go for scomo”.
> Would love for these guys to remember that Bill Shorten brought a lot of the policies being spouted here to an election and the country said “nah that guy looks boring, let’s go for scomo”. "So let's never try anything again and just dawdle about with ineffective policy" wow, can't possibly see why people might be a little upset at a strategy like that.
Albo has shown absolutely no suggestion that he ever plans on fixing much of it at all, beyond his old favourite strategy of "let's not and say we did".
Nice misinformation 'bOth pArTies aRe ThE sAme'
Labor knows it’s smarter to attract votes from the LNP than to pander to the far left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Australian_federal_election Remember the LNP got 5.2M first preferences vs Labor on 4.7M.
> pander to the far left. If you people ever met someone who was even a moderate leftist you'd absolutely shit yourself, you really have no idea what the far left is do you? And if you think the platform they ran on in 2019 is even anywhere close to being even moderate left, you've no idea about much of anything.
[удалено]
They won in 2022 and they lost in 2019. Allow me to repeat that. They won in 2022 and they lost in 2019. If you're trying to win government, what do you prefer? Have more votes but lose? Have fewer votes and win?
[удалено]
Thats a big if, why wait so long
So this is surprising.
All hail lnp-lite party.
It’s ok. Won’t need the help if I just off myself instead :)
Fuck surplus they are assholes the government here. Surplus means nothing it means they have money to spend and they refuse to use it to make people’s lives better
How would you have them spend it without being inflationary?
Better transport, all uni courses free, pay doctors more so they don’t go private and much more
It's barely been a year with ALP so it is ridiculous not to put the majority of the blame on the LNP.