The Politics Thread 2018

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5920
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear » November 7, 2018, 8:33 am

gangrenous wrote:
November 7, 2018, 6:46 am
Except people don’t live in educational expenses or shares!!

Honestly I expect that kind of over-simplistic mindset from papabear, not you greeneyed!

Governments shouldn’t interfere in any markets? What garbage. There are numerous industries/services where replication of infrastructure is not practical and so true free market competition isn’t going to happen.

It’s impressive to hold to free markets providing optimal outcomes as we are starting to see real cracks in that facade and the general populace rebelling against the over application of the ideology.

Ridiculous over-simplification of life.
To be honest, if we ever meet face to face I am happy to have an ideological discussion re free markets and government intervention with you, but in here it aint worth it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/W%201:COM

I presume your argument is that necessities should be taxed differently to non necessities ( the sort of stuff that lead the Democrats to making the GST a mess it is today) and not if you live in it, it should be taxed differently.

Because rent is treated the same whether you are an investor or not, commercial is a tax deduction residential not so much, unless you run a home office.

Going to what I believe is your argument, that necessities should be protected from investors, the two current issues you have to get through is:-

1 - IMO it is a stretch to say that it is a necessity for EVERYONE (say over the age of 18) to own their own home, rent is better for different people in different situations. I say this from personal experience, as I dare say others on here have rented through choice and not force at times.

The govt does assist with public housing and shelters to do their best to try and get a roof over everyones head.

2 - Going back to my original point that making interest non tax deductible in a business enterprise such as an investment property (please note that I do not own an investment property) you are favouring other necessities such as wheat (see link above) and other commodities where you can buy and sell food, if you want to borrow to increase your buy that interest is tax deductable.

Oddly enough, it is generally argued that investors make commodities cheaper buy providing consistent demand. I am not sure that is one hundred percent the case but they do make for a more consistent price, which inevitably is always good for business.

Thus, what you are arguing for is legitimate business expense to be non deductable whilst other similar ones become deductable, so investors might start moving in that direction skewing the economy on the basis of tax treatment as opposed to returns. Which is the exact opposite of good economic policy.

The counter argument to this is people are investing in property for tax reasons, is incorrect, you can go get a business loan and get the tax deduction for anything business related (again from personal experience I have one of these, from a business I was in) If all you want is a tax deduction. People borrow money to put invest into wheat, housing, shares whatever because they believe there return will exceed the cost.

It is the exact same reason people borrowed money to put into shares, housing and shares have historically been good investments.

Now something I carefully considered before responding too, in the days of sticking up against bullies I think its fair to say your first sentence was condescending and belittling, when you are in your own echo chamber you shouldn't need to resort to playing the man to atleast give a good go of your argument but you did and in such a disappointing manner. I am going to leave it at that, but if it keeps going down the path of GEM then sooner or later I will throw some of that right back at you and I dare say it won't make you feel .... happy.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 7, 2018, 9:19 am

papabear wrote:
November 7, 2018, 8:33 am
To be honest, if we ever meet face to face I am happy to have an ideological discussion re free markets and government intervention with you
There's a huge night out waiting to happen
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16172
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Schifty » November 7, 2018, 9:29 am

T_R wrote:
November 7, 2018, 9:19 am
papabear wrote:
November 7, 2018, 8:33 am
To be honest, if we ever meet face to face I am happy to have an ideological discussion re free markets and government intervention with you
There's a huge night out waiting to happen
That would certainly be something :shock:

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5920
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear » November 7, 2018, 12:17 pm

everyone is invited~!

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 7, 2018, 5:15 pm

papabear wrote: I presume your argument is that necessities should be taxed differently to non necessities ( the sort of stuff that lead the Democrats to making the GST a mess it is today) and not if you live in it, it should be taxed differently.
My argument is that government should step in and regulate or legislate to affect desired outcomes that are not achieved by the market. A market is clearly going to undervalue social benefits.
papabear wrote: 1 - IMO it is a stretch to say that it is a necessity for EVERYONE (say over the age of 18) to own their own home, rent is better for different people in different situations. I say this from personal experience, as I dare say others on here have rented through choice and not force at times.
That’s a straw man. There is certainly a place for government housing and renting. However it seems to me that we underwent a massive gift of wealth to older generations, with societal issues for younger generations that will struggle to own homes and creating less mobility in wealth as those assets are passed to offspring. In my opinion the government should have intervened to limit those negatives.
papabear wrote: Thus, what you are arguing for is legitimate business expense to be non deductable whilst other similar ones become deductable, so investors might start moving in that direction skewing the economy on the basis of tax treatment as opposed to returns. Which is the exact opposite of good economic policy.
I disagree. I think it’s good economic policy to incentivise investment in areas of benefit to the country as a whole.
papabear wrote: Now something I carefully considered before responding too, in the days of sticking up against bullies I think its fair to say your first sentence was condescending and belittling, when you are in your own echo chamber you shouldn't need to resort to playing the man to atleast give a good go of your argument but you did and in such a disappointing manner. I am going to leave it at that, but if it keeps going down the path of GEM then sooner or later I will throw some of that right back at you and I dare say it won't make you feel .... happy.
I should have said that I expected that kind of over-simplification in a market/tax discussion from you. That’s based on our previous debates and wasn’t intended as an attack on you, but on your views in this area where we’re rarely going to agree since we clearly have strongly opposed views in this area.

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 7, 2018, 5:16 pm

papabear wrote:everyone is invited~!
That would be an interesting event indeed Image

User avatar
Dr Zaius
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19026
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Dr Zaius » November 7, 2018, 8:14 pm

Papabear is right on this.

It's an ill conceived policy with an underlying assumption that the majority of investment properties are owned by real estate moguls, when the majority are ma and pa investors. It assumes that investors drive the market, when in reality it is owner occupier demand that drives it.

Negative gearing was canned in the 80s and it was a disaster. This will do nothing to increase housing affordability because it is not the investors who determine the price, its the owner occupier. What it will do is discourage people from investing, which will result in a proportionate reduction in rental stock, driving up that market, leaving people who can't afford to buy a property no where to live.
RIP Greenbits: 2007-2014

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 7, 2018, 9:22 pm

But on existing housing stock it’s a zero sum game. If an investor didn’t buy the house, then an owner-occupier did and the number of renters and rentals remains the same?

This is a problem on new stock, which is exempt from the proposed rule change.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 7, 2018, 9:27 pm

Gangrenous, it sounds like you're suggesting that real estate is the only investment people can make.

Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 7, 2018, 9:45 pm

No, but let’s be pragmatic here. What percentage do you believe of renters are ensuring that every penny saved on not paying a mortgage is being invested in assets to accumulate sufficient wealth for retirement? What percentage are finically savvy enough to do it even if they had the discipline? When they cease work will they live rent free in those assets?

Also ignoring the social benefit and stability of owning your own home.

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5920
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear » November 7, 2018, 10:07 pm

People Can do and should diversify their investment portfolio outside of just housing especially if you plan on living in ur home in retirement and not selling up.

Same with people who rent, all people tend to invest where they think they will get the best outcome.

To be honest though our difference of opinion on this is also I think best left for when we go on a man date.

What I can’t get my head around is how in the current climate of falling house prices, with home owners concerned about those falls and ancillary businesses also concerned how it is good policy. The fundamental reason for the policy is gone, it was a dicey one to begin with and now it is just a **** **** sell.

But hey try to convince me that that policy is actually popular and is going to help labor win.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 8, 2018, 12:42 am

gangrenous wrote:No, but let’s be pragmatic here. What percentage do you believe of renters are ensuring that every penny saved on not paying a mortgage is being invested in assets to accumulate sufficient wealth for retirement? What percentage are finically savvy enough to do it even if they had the discipline? When they cease work will they live rent free in those assets?

Also ignoring the social benefit and stability of owning your own home.
Dunno, but I do certainly know very wealthy people who have never owned a home, but who I suspect will retire very comfortably.

But Im just being argumentative.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 8, 2018, 6:40 am

papabear wrote:People Can do and should diversify their investment portfolio outside of just housing especially if you plan on living in ur home in retirement and not selling up.
Absolutely. But we’re talking about having greatly reduced the number of people who are investing in their house which is limiting their investment and diversity and making living in a home you own absolutely not an option, since you don’t own it.
papabear wrote: What I can’t get my head around is how in the current climate of falling house prices, with home owners concerned about those falls and ancillary businesses also concerned how it is good policy. The fundamental reason for the policy is gone, it was a dicey one to begin with and now it is just a **** **** sell.
Yeah, I’m not going to go all out and say now is a great time for the policy. It certainly was at the last election.

I’ve heard reasonable arguments both ways on the impact it would have if introduced now, difficult to say I think.

I’d disagree the fundamental reason is entirely gone. We saw house prices rise by what? 50% in the last 5 years (from a point where affordability was already challenging)? In a time when wages have been stagnating. We’ve seen 5-10% come off, there’s still some way to go in deflating the balloon.
papabear wrote: But hey try to convince me that that policy is actually popular and is going to help labor win.
I’m not going to try and convince you, I think you’re probably right in this regard. Maybe it’s about time parties had more policy that they believed was good for the long term and not short term vote buying?
Last edited by gangrenous on November 8, 2018, 6:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 8, 2018, 6:40 am

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote:No, but let’s be pragmatic here. What percentage do you believe of renters are ensuring that every penny saved on not paying a mortgage is being invested in assets to accumulate sufficient wealth for retirement? What percentage are finically savvy enough to do it even if they had the discipline? When they cease work will they live rent free in those assets?

Also ignoring the social benefit and stability of owning your own home.
Dunno, but I do certainly know very wealthy people who have never owned a home, but who I suspect will retire very comfortably.

But Im just being argumentative.
The strawpig himself would be proud of that one ImageImage

gergreg
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5203
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gergreg » November 8, 2018, 7:06 am

If Labor gets in and introduces the policy, and the market keeps dropping how can you prove the cause of the drop is the policy or just a continuation of the correction?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5920
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear » November 8, 2018, 7:52 am

gangrenous wrote:
November 8, 2018, 6:40 am
papabear wrote:People Can do and should diversify their investment portfolio outside of just housing especially if you plan on living in ur home in retirement and not selling up.
Absolutely. But we’re talking about having greatly reduced the number of people who are investing in their house which is limiting their investment and diversity and making living in a home you own absolutely not an option, since you don’t own it.
papabear wrote: What I can’t get my head around is how in the current climate of falling house prices, with home owners concerned about those falls and ancillary businesses also concerned how it is good policy. The fundamental reason for the policy is gone, it was a dicey one to begin with and now it is just a **** **** sell.
Yeah, I’m not going to go all out and say now is a great time for the policy. It certainly was at the last election.

I’ve heard reasonable arguments both ways on the impact it would have if introduced now, difficult to say I think.

I’d disagree the fundamental reason is entirely gone. We saw house prices rise by what? 50% in the last 5 years (from a point where affordability was already challenging)? In a time when wages have been stagnating. We’ve seen 5-10% come off, there’s still some way to go in deflating the balloon.
papabear wrote: But hey try to convince me that that policy is actually popular and is going to help labor win.
I’m not going to try and convince you, I think you’re probably right in this regard. Maybe it’s about time parties had more policy that they believed was good for the long term and not short term vote buying?
Short term vote buying is how politics is these days.

It is always going to be hard for us to agree on good policy long term when
Fundamentally we come from different places. I believe in equality everyone should be treated equally and from there life is what you make it. I.e the rules should be the same for everyone.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you are more of an equity of outcomes type of fellow. Whereby we should build a world where the rules to work to make everyone end up in a similar spot.

User avatar
papabear
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5920
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by papabear » November 8, 2018, 8:38 am

gergreg wrote:
November 8, 2018, 7:06 am
If Labor gets in and introduces the policy, and the market keeps dropping how can you prove the cause of the drop is the policy or just a continuation of the correction?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
I am not trying to prove anything, just saying its a bad political move.

That said, if you can't see that making something tax disadvantages will have a negative effect on its price then I do not know what to say.

The general property market will always prevail but it is made up of a lot of little things and some big things, like stamp duty immigration, birth rates, infrastructure, proximity to amenities, aspects and taxation (**** even global warming, you don't want to be right on the beach if sea levels go up two metres and your land is underwater :P).

The tax deductability of loans on investment properties is not the sole reason property and other asset markets increased and it wont be the sole reason they decrease, if that is what you are trying to say then I entirely agree with you. However, that doesn't make it sound policy nor does it make it popular policy.

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 8, 2018, 7:16 pm

papabear wrote: It is always going to be hard for us to agree on good policy long term when
Fundamentally we come from different places. I believe in equality everyone should be treated equally and from there life is what you make it. I.e the rules should be the same for everyone.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you are more of an equity of outcomes type of fellow. Whereby we should build a world where the rules to work to make everyone end up in a similar spot.
I don’t see how those viewpoints conflict here. The law would apply equally to all people...

I don’t really try to put my general life economic/life/social philosophy into words. Or often think about what it is exactly... Image

I guess a belief that people should be able to accumulate more wealth based on their work and contributions, but I believe in reducing the spread so that the bell curve of wealth is narrower. I don’t believe in people having wealth in extreme multiples of other people when it ultimately boils down to luck of their birth and circumstances. I’m also more in favour of personally earned wealth rather than inherited wealth.

I’d be interested in seeing what was out there in research around balancing reward for innovation and risk versus equality measures in a society.


User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 120373
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by greeneyed » November 8, 2018, 7:23 pm

Inheritance taxes would be a better way of dealing with that, rather than distorting the other tax laws so as to disallow deductions for earning income from one asset class or another. But really, taxes should be broad based and as non distortionary as possible... and as a result, kept as low as possible. Equity is best achieved through the welfare system and directed at those who are really in need... not middle income people. We have huge churn in the tax/welfare system with assistance going to people who aren't really in need.
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 8, 2018, 8:04 pm

Inheritance taxes addresses the long term symptom, but not the shorter term problem of the generation locked out of the market.

I agree on middle class welfare being a waste of time and effort.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 120373
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by greeneyed » November 8, 2018, 8:07 pm

Tax policy shouldn't fix that. That's not the role of tax policy.
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 8, 2018, 8:20 pm

How would you fix it?

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 120373
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by greeneyed » November 8, 2018, 8:22 pm

gangrenous wrote:
November 8, 2018, 8:20 pm
How would you fix it?
What are we trying to "fix" specifically? What is the actual problem?

There are many, many "solutions" to "problems" that are advocated that involve tax breaks and incentives... but they're generally not the best way to deal with the issue, once you ask... is there an actual problem... is there a market failure that warrants government intervention... if so, what is the arm of policy that is best suited to correct the market failure? Is there a genuine equity issue? Is there a simpler way to do what you're aiming for?
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 9, 2018, 6:54 am

The issue was an overinflated property market that has limited the ability for the younger generation to own their own home.

More generally the stability of the economy with high household debt and limiting consumer spending with housing costs limiting discretionary income. Plus significant growth in wealth for those who already had wealth, without actually contributing anything of value to society.

User avatar
greeneyed
Don Furner
Posts: 120373
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by greeneyed » November 9, 2018, 8:25 am

The best way to deal with those problems are, first, to ensure your macroeconomic settings are right... in particular monetary policy settings. We need to recognise housing markets have a significant local characteristic, however, with Sydney and Melbourne the markets which are most expensive. The best way to deal with that is look at supply - ensuring that planning laws permit high density housing options and open new areas for housing development and that infrastructure supports that. In the longer term, the housing price signals work... so people move to rural areas and other cities... and that's probably why we're seeing house prices in Sydney and Melbourne fall.
Image

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 9, 2018, 5:01 pm

I think both of those solutions are nice if you started planning for them 10 years ago.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 9, 2018, 5:38 pm

greeneyed wrote:
November 8, 2018, 7:23 pm
Inheritance taxes would be a better way of dealing with that, rather than distorting the other tax laws so as to disallow deductions for earning income from one asset class or another. But really, taxes should be broad based and as non distortionary as possible... and as a result, kept as low as possible. Equity is best achieved through the welfare system and directed at those who are really in need... not middle income people. We have huge churn in the tax/welfare system with assistance going to people who aren't really in need.

Inheritance taxes also have a very negative social outcome. The inability to pass on a family home in countries like Japan does more to break up extended families than just about anything else you can do.

(Source: I'm currently selling off the ancestral home in Japan due to a several million dollar tax bill).
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 9, 2018, 5:40 pm

The bottom line is that any Australian working in a full time position can afford a home to live in. They may not be able to afford it precisely where they would like to live, but home ownership is achievable for everyone willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

I honestly don't understand the anguish.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Pigman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 22324
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Pigman » November 9, 2018, 7:49 pm

gangrenous wrote:
November 6, 2018, 5:05 pm
Labor have bipartisan support for the immigration policy do they not? They’re jumping up and down being clowns saying “you’re putting kids in detention” at the moment. But their policy is to do exactly the same except maybe send an extra half a dozen to be kiwis. I think that’s probably digging themselves a nice hole for if they become government.
This is what drives me mental a bit about some lefties
They are (rightly) very upset over this off shore detention policy and are outraged constantly at what the LNP gov are doing and trumpet the ALP as some saviour, but the immigration policy is basically bipartisan haha
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers & Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Prepare the cannon!

User avatar
Dr Zaius
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19026
Joined: April 15, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Queensland somewhere

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by Dr Zaius » November 9, 2018, 8:39 pm

The problem is that there is roughly the same number of dwellings in desirable areas as there were 20 years ago, with significantly more people wanting them. Supply and demand. Penalising investors won't change that. Canning negative gearing doesn't mean some millennial can waltz in and pick up a deal in Mosmon. Sydney and Melbourne are global cities now, housing in the inner city will always be desirable and expensive.
RIP Greenbits: 2007-2014

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 9, 2018, 9:07 pm

Dr Zaius wrote:The problem is that there is roughly the same number of dwellings in desirable areas as there were 20 years ago, with significantly more people wanting them. Supply and demand. Penalising investors won't change that. Canning negative gearing doesn't mean some millennial can waltz in and pick up a deal in Mosmon. Sydney and Melbourne are global cities now, housing in the inner city will always be desirable and expensive.
Yup. Welcome to 2018.

And all the tax policy in the world won't change it.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 9, 2018, 9:17 pm

You’re both right on the basics.

Except you know what doesn’t help? Having investors in the mix too.

Characterising it as people being upset they can’t buy in Mosman is lazy and offensive.

No comments on the plot hole in your previous narrative either Zaius?

User avatar
gangrenous
Bradley Clyde
Posts: 8410
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by gangrenous » November 9, 2018, 9:19 pm

Pigman wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
November 6, 2018, 5:05 pm
Labor have bipartisan support for the immigration policy do they not? They’re jumping up and down being clowns saying “you’re putting kids in detention” at the moment. But their policy is to do exactly the same except maybe send an extra half a dozen to be kiwis. I think that’s probably digging themselves a nice hole for if they become government.
This is what drives me mental a bit about some lefties
They are (rightly) very upset over this off shore detention policy and are outraged constantly at what the LNP gov are doing and trumpet the ALP as some saviour, but the immigration policy is basically bipartisan haha
Yep, it seems whenever people yelling loudly about offshore detention are asked for a practical answer there’s typically just silence.

It’s awful what’s going on there, but let’s hear the viable alternatives.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 9, 2018, 10:07 pm

gangrenous wrote:
November 9, 2018, 9:17 pm
You’re both right on the basics.

Except you know what doesn’t help? Having investors in the mix too.

Characterising it as people being upset they can’t buy in Mosman is lazy and offensive.

No comments on the plot hole in your previous narrative either Zaius?
I guess it's offensive if you try really, really hard to be offended. Which I think you are a little prone to doing.

The fact is, there's a constant dialogue about how house prices are 'impossible' and 'out of reach' of young people. What we're forgetting is that young families have ALWAYS had to move out to the suburbs to build a house. In the 40's, my grandparents were laughed at for building 'out in the country' in Bankstown. My parents built the first house in the middle of a paddock in Rivett 30 years later, and 30 years after that my brother bought his first place in some windswept floodplain just north of Tharwa. Welcome to young adulthood.

The inner city is expensive, and tax changes will make no difference to that. Why focus on investors? As GE said, whack on an inheritance tax, or if you prefer stop exempting the family home from capital gains. Either will kick the housing market into the gutter, and your shiftless Arts students friends can all buy a falling down terrace in Newtown again.

As an aside, I don't really get that worked up on the negative gearing conversation. I own a few houses here and there, and the one thing they have in common is that they are all positively geared. I invest to make money, not lose it. If Shorten makes his changes, I 100% assure you that rents will go up on the spot....frankly, I expect to do well out of it.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 14982
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2018

Post by T_R » November 9, 2018, 10:10 pm

gangrenous wrote:
November 9, 2018, 9:19 pm
Pigman wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
November 6, 2018, 5:05 pm
Labor have bipartisan support for the immigration policy do they not? They’re jumping up and down being clowns saying “you’re putting kids in detention” at the moment. But their policy is to do exactly the same except maybe send an extra half a dozen to be kiwis. I think that’s probably digging themselves a nice hole for if they become government.
This is what drives me mental a bit about some lefties
They are (rightly) very upset over this off shore detention policy and are outraged constantly at what the LNP gov are doing and trumpet the ALP as some saviour, but the immigration policy is basically bipartisan haha
Yep, it seems whenever people yelling loudly about offshore detention are asked for a practical answer there’s typically just silence.

It’s awful what’s going on there, but let’s hear the viable alternatives.
GEMs solution was to put ferries on, and bring in people directly from Indonesia.

What he would never answer was;

1. Why Australia should be prioritising its refugee places to people who can afford to fly to Indonesia, and
2. Of the 20 million odd refugees in the world, when would he say 'stop'? And then what, if they keep coming?

It's an impossibly hard area of policy, and to pretend any side of politics has an answer is ridiculous.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Post Reply