Jump to content

NZers and Aussies: Switching it up


The Anti-Targ
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

Australian leader of the opposition called it an attack on society.

Lol.

It’s an attack on their history not glorify a man whose ticket to fame was being born from a family of inbreds society pretends are somehow morally good.

You know it reminds me of the backlash people have in the us about putting Harriet Tubman on the 20

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if the leader of the opposition doesn't like it he should have made sure they won the last election by actually caring about society in a meaningful way.

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Landed in Sydney this morning - humid, grey, rainy. 

“Summer” they tell me.

Welcome back! How long are you around for? We need to set up another meet up while you're here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Welcome back! How long are you around for? We need to set up another meet up while you're here

Just a stopover unfortunately - spending most of my time with family in the golden state. 

But will definitely post here if I end up in Syd for any significant time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minimum wage has gone up 7% to $22.70/hr. It went up 7% last year as well and in total over the last 5 years it's gone up over 40% according to an article I read. So that's an extra $60/week (gross). It comes in on 1 April. It's not going to end poverty, but hopefully it will help alleviate the pain of the people on the lowest incomes.

This 5 year period of significant increase in the minimum wage has been associated with falling unemployment. There is an argument that more money in the pockets of low income people stimulates the economy and contributes to growth. I don't know enough about economic to claim that it's linked, but the last 5 years has certainly not given ammunition to any who say increasing minimum wage has significant negative effects on the economy.

Also

Farkin 'ell

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/10/hamilton-paramedics-to-wear-stab-proof-vests-amid-planned-brawl/

Quote

Hamilton paramedics to wear stab-proof vests amid planned brawl

As a precaution, following reports of an organised brawl scheduled to take place at a central Hamilton bus depot today, St John Ambulance are ordering staff to wear stab-proof vests.

"Weapons aloud[sic] stab for stab"

This is crazy, and it seems like all the Police are doing is discouraging people from coming into the city to watch!?! :blink:

Ridiculous savagery.

Edited by The Anti-Targ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

That is effectively how Labor took power - copy nearly all of the Coalition’s policies and pretend to be progressive.

We suck.

It's a common political playbook. 

In Australia, Labor is pretty much the same playbook. Policies and government much the same as the Coalition but they promise to be nicer and more competent about it.

It's a tried and tested line, which I reckon started in the UK with Tony Blair and New Labour. He basically said, "This Conservative government is old and tired, we'll do a better job" and basically ran the most centrist (or right-wing to diehards) Labour government they'd ever seen. Mind you, by all accounts he did invest a lot in education and healthcare. But Blair basically did what the Conservatives should have evolved into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jeor said:

It's a common political playbook. 

In Australia, Labor is pretty much the same playbook. Policies and government much the same as the Coalition but they promise to be nicer and more competent about it.

It's a tried and tested line, which I reckon started in the UK with Tony Blair and New Labour. He basically said, "This Conservative government is old and tired, we'll do a better job" and basically ran the most centrist (or right-wing to diehards) Labour government they'd ever seen. Mind you, by all accounts he did invest a lot in education and healthcare. But Blair basically did what the Conservatives should have evolved into.

Instead they abandoned the centre and shifted further right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strategy is essentially hoping that people won't feel the need to vote liberal and feel bad about it if Labor is "we've got the liberal party at home". But the thing about the "we have x at home" meme is that people don't tend to want the thing that's at home. People that want liberal party policies normally want the people that believe in them and consistently want to implement them, not the party that cynically adopts them chasing the voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Labor planning to close a superannuation tax loophole and cap the 15% concessional tax rate to balances under $3M. It won't be retrospective apparently, so it will just affect future balances over $3M which will be taxed at 30%.

This is a good reform as the super tax concessions are a budget giveaway that predominantly benefits the very wealthy, and it reportedly won't affect 99.5% of the population. Strange comment coming from a centre-right voter like me but something does need to be done about the budget and this seems a fair enough move.

I just hope the $3M mark is indexed so that people won't gradually creep into that bracket over time. I suspect in 20-30 years, $3M won't be as luxurious as it is today for a couple in good health wanting to retire early and live off it for 30 years.

It won't come into play until after the next election so Labor has effectively set itself a bit of a time bomb. Still, John Howard campaigned on a GST (after saying he'd never introduce one) and took it to an election, so maybe they can emulate that. It would be nice if they added more things like eliminating franking credits and limiting negative gearing and CGT concession to only a couple of extra properties, but that might be a bridge too far. Labor can also point to letting the Stage 3 tax reforms go ahead as an example that they aren't completely punishing the wealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2023 at 9:12 AM, Jeor said:

It won't come into play until after the next election so Labor has effectively set itself a bit of a time bomb. Still, John Howard campaigned on a GST (after saying he'd never introduce one) and took it to an election, so maybe they can emulate that. It would be nice if they added more things like eliminating franking credits and limiting negative gearing and CGT concession to only a couple of extra properties, but that might be a bridge too far. Labor can also point to letting the Stage 3 tax reforms go ahead as an example that they aren't completely punishing the wealthy.

Touching NG and CGT concession and anything to do with property is practically taboo in Aus. Only if the ALP become multi-term and remain popular and millenials/genZ become the clear voting majority will we then, maybe, possibly see these huge money sinks looked at again. But that's a long way away.

These Super concession changes are low hanging fruit and is an easy one for the electorate to swallow as it only impacts less than 1% of the richest people. It won't be indexed according to Chalmers however which has some spooked, but of course that doesn't mean it can't and won't be adjusted down the track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Skyrazer said:

Touching NG and CGT concession and anything to do with property is practically taboo in Aus. Only if the ALP become multi-term and remain popular and millenials/genZ become the clear voting majority will we then, maybe, possibly see these huge money sinks looked at again. But that's a long way away.

To be honest, I'm quite surprised that there hasn't been more intergenerational warfare in Australian politics. Younger voters are clearly losing out with the deck stacked against them, with crazy rents and sky-high property prices that inordinately benefit boomers. On top of this, you have CGT concessions, negative gearing, franking credits.

It also annoys me when old people say they lived with 17% interest rates and imply that meant they had it tougher than people today. That was when property prices were about 3 times the average income.

I remember my Dad saying he bought our childhood home in the early 1980s for $110,000 and his income then was about $35,000 (which was good for a white collar worker then, probably about twice the median salary). So in that instance, a well-to-do professional was buying a house for just over 3 times annual income.

That same property today is supposedly (according to web searches) valued at $2.2 million. And twice the median salary would be around $180,000 I think. So that house is now over 12 times annual income.

I know I'd much rather 17% interest rates on those price/income ratios than the current situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty much - our tax system has massively distorted the market and has been in dire need of an overhaul for years now (I remember being bitterly disappointed that Rudd basically all but ignored the Henry tax review). But while GenX and boomers still make up a major voting bloc, govts of all stripes will be too scared to shoot their golden goose. Albanese has already emphatically ruled out changes to CGT with a "full stop, exclamation" :rolleyes:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Paxter said:

As we’ve said before, on many matters of substance, this ALP government is hardly distinguishable from its supposed foes.

Still, I secretly hope that they do manage to pass some of these tax reform measures. There's more chance of them doing that than the Coalition.

And I say this as a generally Liberal voter who is likely to benefit from policies that suit the wealthy down the track. (To be sure, I don't have millions in super - about 220K which is okay for a 37 year-old).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...