Bahaha, nice.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
Bahaha, nice.
I think it could be somewhat quick if negative gearing was grandfathered. Then we'd observe a rapid drop in people buying houses they can't afford as investments (taking away from actual owner/occupiers) and hopefully with a smaller market, prices will fall and people will be able to afford their own homes.
Shame that woman couldn't have attended. Would've been fantastic to have a female presence there, the GGers probably would've ejaculated at the mere sight of her.
It's just amazing that a party that is ostensibly sex positive could have attended a meeting for a movement started by sex shaming.
D.Lo
Member
Fuck grandfathering, it should just be abolished for all but new properties. Bad luck if you bought one to negative gear, other tax and policy changes don't get grandfathered.
And tighten the rules on what constitutes 'new' property for foreign buyers - developers are knocking down 10 year old houses to build new ones so they are 'new' and foreign money is on the table.
Stop immigration just to prop up the economy. We've got no room for 2000 refugees but apparently room for 200,000 others a year, nice one Howard.
And most of all, remove the capital gains discount on investment properties. It is the biggest, stupidest distortion all all. What the fuck, why is there a discount for one particular type of completely non-productive investment, fucking stupid.
I really really hope there's an apocalypse on property in this country.
You know anti marriage equality movements are hard up in the PR battle when they can't openly say "it'll lead to bestiality and polygamy" anymore and have to use vague and veiled codes. Not gonna win you the message war with undecideds if you can't communicate simply and effectively.
Also love the unintentional Tony Abbott above a ship heading into an iceberg. Probably not the imagery you want floating around at the moment.
Also love the unintentional Tony Abbott above a ship heading into an iceberg. Probably not the imagery you want floating around at the moment.
There's a capital gains discount on investment properties?!? Jesus fucking christ. This whole "build build build" ethos is just jacking up prices and saturating the market.
Agree with you on every other point though. I just think grandfathering it is the most likely way it'll pass.
D.Lo
Member
Fifty fucking percent.
We have a degenerate tax system that penalises labour more than property.
We just scored 7th in the world in the Cato Institute's 2015 Human Freedom Index.
Top ten were:
1. Hong Kong
2. Switzerland
3. Finland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. Ireland
9. United Kingdom
10. Sweden
What I find amazing is that the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank and they rank us in the top ten, yet if you went to a left-wing think thank or another right-wing think tank or even the UN or any such body and asked them for their desirability indices, the same countries will typically fill the lists.
Tl;dr: Straya is a left-wing and right-wing paradise. #Rekt
Top ten were:
1. Hong Kong
2. Switzerland
3. Finland
4. Denmark
5. New Zealand
6. Canada
7. Australia
8. Ireland
9. United Kingdom
10. Sweden
What I find amazing is that the Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank and they rank us in the top ten, yet if you went to a left-wing think thank or another right-wing think tank or even the UN or any such body and asked them for their desirability indices, the same countries will typically fill the lists.
Tl;dr: Straya is a left-wing and right-wing paradise. #Rekt
It's a human flaw that we react more strongly to negativity than to positivity. This is why we're ultimately fucked and the robots will win. Wait, I did it again didn't I.
There was nothing vague and veiled about how they were portraying Labor in that picture. Not in the slightest.
Seriously? Jesus fucking christ. When you mentioned cutting the capital gains discount I thought you meant on first home buyers (and how there's no way that'd make sense). But they discount it for investment properties? Fuck this fucking country.
Do we know how long that's gone on for?
... And that's why we should destroy carthage
Howard introduced it in the late 90s, and it's for everything, not just properties. As long as you've owned it for a year.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Funny that the Libs got in on stuff like "Julia said there wouldn't be a carbon tax under her government but then they introduced one" (as they bloody well should have because why the fuck wouldn't it be a reasonable idea) but have now hit their bingo on "shit we promised not to do but have gone ahead with anyway."
Not surprising at all of course, and far from the worst thing they've done given the literal torture camps we're running at the moment, but still funny.
Not surprising at all of course, and far from the worst thing they've done given the literal torture camps we're running at the moment, but still funny.
Candescence
Member
Howard and Costello introduced a lot of dumb economic policies that they got away with because the mining boom, which they utterly squandered for politics' sake, and now we're paying for it in the form of a rapidly rising deficit.
Save during a boom, spend during a bust. That's what governments should be doing.
Federal Labor will oppose it but likely keep it in place if they form government. Edit: On second thoughts maybe not. I don't know but it won't be scrapped that's for certain.
I assume State Labor governments support this.
But really though why should domestic goods have a tax on them that imported goods don't have?
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Not to apply it to foreign sales or not to increase it? I don't have an issue with evening the playing field for domestic sellers, but I'd rather see the whole thing scrapped. At the very least I think Labor can be relied upon to not want to increase it of their own accord.
Exactly this. Would rather not have a GST, but if you gotta have one, I don't have a problem with a GST on imports. Although I do think there should be a limit higher than $0, they've done fat nothing about improving the cost of compliance, so on some things it's going to cost more than it's going to bring in. It's also going to have a chilling effect on smaller shops selling stuff here, as they can't be stuffed with the headache of sorting out compliance.
I also agree that Labor would never increase the headline rate of the GST, though I'm sure they would tinker around the edges.
I feel like a consumption tax is an inevitability of any developed country. It should definitely stay at 10% - and no higher, preferably lower and apply to less things but unfortunately since it's the only money the states yet (it's pitiful at that), they keep lobbying for more and more.
Nah, it would be prohibitively expensive to set up a distribution center for such a small dispersed population. Remember there's 500 million people in Europe and 330 million in the U.S.
Nah, it would be prohibitively expensive to set up a distribution center for such a small dispersed population. Remember there's 500 million people in Europe and 330 million in the U.S.
I kind of welcome it, one less excuse for gouging Australian distributors to hide behind. I do worry about implementation though, if I have to go pick up every single international parcel from the PO I am going to be pissed off.
I wonder. There's been rumours for a couple of years now about Amazon investigating stuff in terms of distribution.
It's expected to cost more in the first 1-2 years but will make a gain after that.
I kind of expect the big players who sign on will collect it at checkout. Everyone else though will I guess do it like they do now for things above $1000. Which would seem like it will kill Australian sales for those retailers if Choices example based on UK collection costs are accurate (a $16 collection fee + $2 GST on a 20$ item).
Wait, what? Is the collection fee for the package or the tax?
Ah, either way, it's absurd.
Its a processing fee for the tax collection by the courier/post office/customs broker.
The tax is only going to be collected at sale point by the top 1000 retailers (or at least, those that we can convince - companies like Amazon are historically pretty amazing at dodging taxes). Others will most likely be collected at the post office at collection time. The UK, for example, charges an £8 (AUD$16+) processing fee unless you've prepaid the VAT for items over £15. Abbott's proposal is for the threshold (currently at $1000) to be reduced to $0 though, not (UK equivalent) $30.
Elaugaufein
Member
I'm not even sure how you justify a processing cost in this context. You're charging people money for them to give you money. That's a tariff of the sort that their free marketeers hate dressed up with a fake mustache and plastic glasses.
Agreed it seems absurd and I hope it doesn't come to that here.
bobnowhere
Member
So when is this coming in, Mid 2017? Like I said in another thread, that could be 2 different PM's away and Hockey sure as hell won't be treasurer by then. All the treasurers may have agreed, but the nuts and bolts have a long way to go.
All true but I doubt any treasurer would be stupid enough to charge administration.
Canning by-election just got even more interesting.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/andrew-hastie-liberal-byelection-candidate-led-troop-probed-for-chopping-hands-off-taliban-20150821-gj52lj.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/andrew-hastie-liberal-byelection-candidate-led-troop-probed-for-chopping-hands-off-taliban-20150821-gj52lj.html
Elaugaufein
Member
Is it sad that I can't decide if someone didn't do due diligence or if they did and thought this might be a plus ?
Mark Latham's wounded ego strikes again:
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ade-at-melbourne-writers-festival?CMP=soc_567
http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ade-at-melbourne-writers-festival?CMP=soc_567
Elaugaufein
Member
I have to ask how reporting what someone else factually said could lead to legal action against the reporter. That seems insane ?
That seems on the face if it insane
/edit I can't remember my defamation law exactly but I think repeating defamation could still be considered defamation... Maybe it comes down to the framing of it
Apparently so:
"To defame someone, you do not have to make up false things yourself. You might defame a person by repeating or replaying words spoken by someone else, for example an interviewee. It is no defence to claim that you were only quoting someone else. If you print or broadcast something defamatory, you could be taken to court, along with your producer, your editor or station manager and the person who said the words in the first place."
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html
You remember well.
Merely repeating or hosting defamatory content is enough. Even Google has lost cases for hosting defamatory content.
Elaugaufein
Member
Yes, suing for defamation for private speech would also be nuts.
If you're person Y and you publish that Person X has sex with [Unprintable] in [CENSORED] manner and thats now true, that's definitely defamation.
What I don't get is how Person Z stating that Person Y said something is defamation by Person Z. Person Z isn't making statements about X merely reporting what Y did. It seems like there are substantial public interest and speech issues with this definition of defamation.
If you're person Y and you publish that Person X has sex with [Unprintable] in [CENSORED] manner and thats now true, that's definitely defamation.
What I don't get is how Person Z stating that Person Y said something is defamation by Person Z. Person Z isn't making statements about X merely reporting what Y did. It seems like there are substantial public interest and speech issues with this definition of defamation.
Well the damage comes from people hearing the remarks. You have to disregard the medium by which people hear it. If they hear it they hear it. It still has the potential to do damage to reputation.
Elaugaufein
Member
Sure but in that case its still Person Y that should be liable (Person Z merely reprinted their remarks).
Unless there's some weird edge case where Person Z republishes without Person Ys permission or in conspiracy with Person Y but that's why we have courts in the first place.
Unless there's some weird edge case where Person Z republishes without Person Ys permission or in conspiracy with Person Y but that's why we have courts in the first place.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked