Auspol April - Long Live the Glorious State of North Queensland

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol April - Long Live the Glorious State of North Queensland

«‹›82 »

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

It's like every election the LNP releases the winged monkey astroturfers.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 13:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 01:02

Snod.: Oct 3, 2014

Julie Bishop is only up 82.4% she must be being more frugal.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 13:29

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

For a party of fiscal responsibility they sure like buying fake friends

# ? Apr 26, 2016 13:33

MysticalMachineGun: Apr 5, 2005

Whose vote would possibly be swayed by how many likes a pollie has?

Or is this more about gaming the FB news system so they come up as suggested posts and the like more often?

# ? Apr 26, 2016 13:38

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Whose vote would possibly be swayed by how many likes a pollie has?

Or is this more about gaming the FB news system so they come up as suggested posts and the like more often?

It could be that, but I think it's more blocking off a weakness. It's really easy to say 'X politician is unpopular' when they're very clearly, by discrete figures, unpopular on social media.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 13:43

Senor Tron: May 26, 2006

Sticko posted:

Housing market to drop 30% during June, handing LNP a massive election loss.

Pity it would only put prices back to 2013 levels, and the LNP would still get back in since they're the only strong economic managers in tough times (lol).

Actually yeah, if things are going to dip then the best bet would be before the election.

Incredibly unlikely it will though. As satisfying as a drop in prices would be, I think the overall best long term situation would be a slow drop in growth that leads to long term stagnation in prices, giving inflation a little time to catch up.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 14:13

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Wouldn't headlines about pollies buying facebook likes be way more damaging than one using loving facebook likes as evidence of unpopularity?

# ? Apr 26, 2016 14:15

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

It's hard to believe how lovely Malcolm Turnbull is at coming up with a clear message

Like say what you want about Abbott but he mastered the three word slogan

Except that time his brain broke

# ? Apr 26, 2016 14:30

Starshark: Dec 22, 2005; Doctor Rope

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Wouldn't headlines about pollies buying facebook likes be way more damaging than one using loving facebook likes as evidence of unpopularity?

I think the LNP have the corporate mentality where they just do whatever a PR consultant tells them, and the PR consultant is largely making poo poo up on the spot without having to think it through because the paycheck is the same whether they're right or not.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 14:45

Cleretic: Feb 3, 2010; Ignore my posts!
I'm aggressively wrong about everything!

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Wouldn't headlines about pollies buying facebook likes be way more damaging than one using loving facebook likes as evidence of unpopularity?

You're assuming two things there.

A: That most Australian politicians, in particular the LNP, are capable of thinking more than one turn ahead.

And B: That any outlets they'll pay any attention to would even run that story.

I don't think either of them are true.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 15:04

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Cleretic posted:

You're assuming two things there.

A: That most Australian politicians, in particular the LNP, are capable of thinking more than one turn ahead.

And B: That any outlets they'll pay any attention to would even run that story.

I don't think either of them are true.

I remember last election or the one before it Abbott got caught out buying twitter followers when someone noticed he got a huge spike in them from Iceland or somewhere ridiculous. So B's a definite possibility.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 15:24

Pickled Tink: Apr 28, 2012; Have you heard about First Dog? It's a very good comic I just love.

Also, wear your bike helmets kids. I copped several blows to the head but my helmet left me totally unscathed.

Finally you should check out First Dog as it's a good comic I like it very much.; Fun Shoe

Recoome posted:

https://www.facebook.com/unitedpatriotsfront/videos/274752342859225/

???

I have to ask.

Can people who post facebook links either quote the content or screencap it for those of us who refuse to touch facebook. Quoting or screencapping also hedges against the comments being deleted (This bit also applies to twitter stuff).

# ? Apr 26, 2016 15:33

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Pickled Tink posted:

I have to ask.

Can people who post facebook links either quote the content or screencap it for those of us who refuse to touch facebook.

how do you do anything in your life without facebook

# ? Apr 26, 2016 15:40

LibertyCat: Mar 5, 2016; by WE B Bourgeois

So, how many election cycles until the "we can't afford a house because of your idiotic tax policies" demographic outweighs the "haha, you should have bought a house in 2001 like we did, gently caress you" crowd?

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:26

Les Affaires: Nov 15, 2004

LibertyCat posted:

So, how many election cycles until the "we can't afford a house because of your idiotic tax policies" demographic outweighs the "haha, you should have bought a house in 2001 like we did, gently caress you" crowd?

3-4 federally. If the inability to purchase housing doesn't turn around for the current and future people of working age then eventually house prices end up stagnating for a long period of time as purchasing power catches up, or even worse they all start to be bought by people or companies that can afford it.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:33

MaliciousOnion: Sep 23, 2009; Ignorance, the root of all evil

dr_rat posted:

If you read Atlas shrugged upside down and back to front, does it suddenly turn into a good book?

Guess its still probably just a load of old poo poo.

Well it would no longer make any sense if you read it upside down and back to front, so that's an improvement.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:36

The Peccadillo: Mar 4, 2013; We Have Important Work To Do

Les Affaires posted:

Lionhjelm wrote a piece in the AFR today proposing an alternative budget.

There is no such way this picture can be real, you are jerkin' my chain

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:37

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

It looks really lame if a politician only has like 500 friends. And these people buy friends anyway, how do you think they got people to talk to them at school.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:50

MaliciousOnion: Sep 23, 2009; Ignorance, the root of all evil

Pickled Tink posted:

I have to ask.

Can people who post facebook links either quote the content or screencap it for those of us who refuse to touch facebook. Quoting or screencapping also hedges against the comments being deleted (This bit also applies to twitter stuff).

Can you watch youtube? I certainly hope so

https://youtu.be/R47G-v8akG0

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:51

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

I mean bill shorten somehow got Nicola roxon to sleep with him and it probably wasn't his good looks that did the trick

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:54

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

It was his big caucus

# ? Apr 26, 2016 16:54

The Peccadillo: Mar 4, 2013; We Have Important Work To Do

Pickled Tink posted:

I have to ask.

Can people who post facebook links either quote the content or screencap it for those of us who refuse to touch facebook. Quoting or screencapping also hedges against the comments being deleted (This bit also applies to twitter stuff).

It's a Facebook video, so I don't think that's possible.

Gist of it is, real dashing and gorgeous white supremacist Blair Cotrell does not like when women with colourful hair get photographed, because that's a Jewish thing or whatever

# ? Apr 26, 2016 17:02

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

Idiot political journalism corner:

This column by Sarah Ferguson demonstrates how useless the media are around politics now. In the very first paragraph she uses a practically medieval term the body politic as a reason why parties who change PMs are BAD. Ferguson is a noteworthy investigative journalist, but this article is a load of guff seemingly angled to push a book (coyly pictured in a sidebar). Oh yes, how dumb the ALP were but it's too early to tell for the Libs. Give me a break. Maybe there's a problem when the media insist on treating PMs like American Presidents when they are just the chosen representative of their party. Which, not coincidentally, is why they aren't even mentioned in the loving Constitution. Her conclusion is that the electorate don't like backstabbers, but even she has to admit that the real issue might be meaningless power:

quote:

Most in the ALP believe the leaks against Julia Gillard cost Labor the 2010 election, but former UK Labour MP and Gillard adviser Alan Milburn said there was another, more potent reason why voters rejected a political party that had triumphed three years earlier:

The principal problem was that you had a sense that Labor was a party that was in power but without any real purpose not just because of what happened in the Rudd government, but what had happened in state governments as well. My advice to Julia in the campaign in 2010 was you�ve got to prove that there is a purpose to what we are doing, other than simply winning elections and being in power.

Note she takes care to have someone else quoted as saying that. "Balance", you see or perhaps it's "fear of canberra press gallery opinion". The elephant in the room is government achievements, the ability despite upheaval to govern. Simply not mentioned in the case of the ALP and "too early to say" for the Libs. I hope it wasn't her CPG entrance exam, oh wait they'll love it, she's just like them.

Idiot politician corner:

Assclown Turnbull on abc24 this morning: "Defence is at the leading edge of innovation and technology". Cool, so we're building our own subs then...oh. No. We're paying someone else to do the innovative technology of killing people.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 22:39

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

I remember last election or the one before it Abbott got caught out buying twitter followers when someone noticed he got a huge spike in them from Iceland or somewhere ridiculous. So B's a definite possibility.

Pretty sure we made B happen and a bunch of LNP trolls flocked to some goons blog to call his statistics biased.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 22:57

tithin: Nov 14, 2003; [Grandmaster Tactician]

Was Murodese wasn't it?

# ? Apr 26, 2016 23:06

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

I think so...? He ran some algorithm on Tony's Facebook page in 2013 and found that he was gaining a consistent and clearly computer run number of likes per second and each day had a extremely similar ramp up and ramp down time.

This election they seem to be doing it for the entire front bench except Joyce who is down 87.2%. Lol

# ? Apr 26, 2016 23:15

You Am I: May 20, 2001; Me @ your poasting

Negligent posted:

It's hard to believe how lovely Malcolm Turnbull is at coming up with a clear message

Like say what you want about Abbott but he mastered the three word slogan

Except that time his brain broke

Turnbull was hesitant and unsure of his message last night on 730, especially when Leigh asked him what the other 20 odd million are supposed to do when he's trying to convince the 1-2 million investors that he isn't going to do something about negative gearing. You could see part of Turnbull's brain wanted to go to slogan territory, but he kept on screwing that up

# ? Apr 26, 2016 23:32

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

That perception that Turnbull isn't connected to the general electorate is incredibly damaging: if they turn off on him, the others are doomed. That shot of a sad little Pyne riding hopefully on Turnbull's coattails as he announced the French deal says it all. Yes subs are being built in Adelaide, and the bulk of the money is flying off overseas, again. A fact not lost on his constituents.

# ? Apr 26, 2016 23:43

Freudian Slip: Mar 10, 2007; "I'm an archivist. I'm archiving."

Labor would introduce carbon market, pledge deeper carbon cuts if elected

SMH posted:

A Shorten Labor government would slash carbon emissions by significantly more than the Turnbull-led Coalition by 2030, introduce a broad-based emissions trading scheme, and block states like NSW and Queensland from expanding land clearing.

Signalling that the ALP is prepared to make climate change a central point of difference from the incumbents, leader Bill Shorten said "the consequences of refusing to take meaningful action on climate change will be devastating for Australia and our economy".

"While senior ministers in the Liberal government are still disputing whether the 'science is settled' on climate change, Labor knows it is," Mr Shorten said.

Labor's plan contains six key elements, including a target of reducing Australia's 2005 levels of emissions by 45 per cent by 2030, compared with 26-28 per cent committed by the Turnbull government at the Paris climate summit.

Although relatively ambitious, the 2030 target would still leave Australia worst among rich nations for emissions on a per capita basis assuming Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lifts his nation's targets as expected.

The 2030 goal is based on work done by the Climate Change Authority. Environment Minister Greg Hunt said last November that modelling by Treasury of the target pointed to a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices.

As part of its plans, a Shorten government would re-introduce carbon pricing through an emissions trading scheme. The Abbott government scrapped the previous carbon tax, then at $24.15 a tonne, in July 2014.

The level of emissions making an enterprise liable for a cap on emissions would be lowered from 100,000 tonnes a year of carbon-dioxide equivalent under the Turnbull government back to the 25,000 tonnes annual level of the previous Labor governments.

With Australia on course to meet its 2020 targets � largely thanks to surplus credits earned during the Kyoto Treaty period � the cost to households and companies "would be minimal" over the next few years, said Mark Butler, Labor's spokesman on the Environment, Climate Change and Water.

The aim would be curb emissions - which have started to rise again in the key power sector - and tighten the cap further to to bend Australia's trajectory to reach net-zero level by 2050.

Until 2020, trade-exposed businesses such as steel and aluminium would be permitted to buy overseas carbon abatement credits, now selling at less than a dollar per tonne, for all offset requirements.

Other companies would be permitted to buy some foreign credits � with the ratio of domestic versus overseas to be determined.

The cost up until 2020 would be about 3 cents per tonne of carbon for those industries exposed to foreign competition. For other firms, that cost will be about 30 cents a tonne, Mr Butler said.

Labor is hazier on the post-2020 plans, however. It would create a "strategic industries taskforce" in its first term to determine how deeper cuts will be implemented.

"In the longer term, we're going to need to develop much more sophisticated policies to allow those industries [affected] to continue to thrive in Australia," Mr Butler told Fairfax Media.

Other elements, including using federal laws to prevent states like NSW from relaxing land-clearing laws that have generated most of Australia's emission cuts, put Labor on a collision course with the Baird government, which will soon ease clearing rules.

Labor also pledged to lift the share of renewable energy to 50 per cent by 2030, or roughly triple the current level, reiterating an earlier pledge.

Some $2.5 trillion dollars would be invested in renewable energy in the Asia-Pacific by 2030, a "mega market" that Australia runs the risk of missing out on, Labor said.

To that end, it will restore $300 million of the $1.3 billion proposed to be cut from the grant budget of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency by the Coalition.

Most of that money would be targeted at the solar thermal industry which has the potential to generate and store electricity from the sun.

"Malcolm Turnbull wants to duck a debate about renewable energy and climate change," Mr Butler said.
"This is [a plan] that we've reflected on deeply, it's one we've consulted industry and all other stakeholders closely over the last several months," he told Fairfax Media.

Labor would also scrap the "wasteful, failed Direct Action policies" that are budgeted to direct $2.55 billion to pay emitters to cut pollution or reward efforts to store carbon such as re-afforestation.

Other policies would include increasing social access to energy saving measures, so that people's electricity bills could be moderated even if per-unit costs rise.

The government would also look at adopting elements of the plan developed by Frank Jotzo, a climate expert at the Australian University, to allow high-emitting power plants to bid for payments to exit the over-supplied market.
The policy intervention would overcome the current problem that power plants had no incentive to exit the market since their departure raises the price for competitors which remain.

Labor would also introduce tighter standards for new vehicle emissions, aiming to reach levels in the US. Higher car costs would be offset by lower fuel use according to modelling used by the Climate Change Authority.

I am glad to see Labor bring another policy out that I could get behind. I am still going to be holding my nose when I preference them over the Liberals, but the fact that they are bringing out some solid policies will make it much easier.

As far as I can see those targets seem fine, especially if they were the ones proposed by the CCA.

Have we heard anything else about Sunday penalty rates?

# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:26

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

ABC24 ticker "Malcolm Turnbull says income of those negative-gearing is irrelevant" you loving wish Mal.

# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:33

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

How does the libertarian wing reconcile their libertarianism with negative gearing? :angel:

# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:45

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Turnbull appears confused as gently caress. What happens when he goes into debates and goes off about negative gearing?

# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:54

Skellybones: May 31, 2011; Fun Shoe

El Scotch posted:

How does the libertarian wing reconcile their libertarianism with negative gearing?

They profit from it therefore it is good

# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:55

Anidav: Feb 25, 2010; ahhh fuck its the rats again

Shorten is standing on a good policy platform while Turnbull is standing on Abbott's shoulders

# ? Apr 27, 2016 00:55

Synthbuttrange: May 6, 2007

Standing on the shoulders of midgets.

# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:03

Zenithe: Feb 25, 2013; _{Ask not to whom the Anidavatar belongs; it belongs to thee.}

ewe2 posted:

ABC24 ticker "Malcolm Turnbull says income of those negative-gearing is irrelevant" you loving wish Mal.

Pretty ironic if you replace negative gearing with any other kind of government handout.

El Scotch posted:

How does the libertarian wing reconcile their libertarianism with negative gearing?

fygm

# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:41

ewe2: Jul 1, 2009

John Daley comprehensively smacks Turnbull down on his criticism of their report:

quote:

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, yesterday wrote a detailed blogpost in reply to our report, Hot property: negative gearing and capital gains tax reform. It's good that a Prime Minister engages with the detail of policy argument rather than responding with slogans. But none of his criticisms stick.

GENERALLY ACCEPTED PRINCIPLES

First, he argues that negative gearing is part of generally accepted principles for offsetting losses against gains. Negative gearing has indeed been permitted in Australia for over a century. But this "generally accepted principle" is not accepted in most developed countries, and it is far from being universally applied in our own tax and welfare system.

As our report documents, we could find no developed country save for New Zealand that allows taxpayers to deduct the interest costs of investment from their wage and salary income. And Australia imposes tight limits on claiming the losses from a business against labour income, as the Prime Minister notes. Losses from investment are also not counted when assessing income to determine eligibility for welfare payments.

HOUSING MARKET DISTORTIONS

Second, the Prime Minister argued that Grattan's report contradicts itself in claiming that tax arrangements significantly distort the housing market, while calculating that changes will only reduce housing prices by about 2 per cent. The explanation is simple: a new tax regime will significantly affect on the mix of investment, but have less impact on the total.

Tax changes would lead to more home ownership, more investment in assets other than property, less investor leverage, and increased tax collections of about $5 billion a year. By themselves, tax changes cannot solve Australia's problems of housing affordability, high private sector borrowing, and Commonwealth budget deficit. But they would all be steps in the right direction.

FAIRNESS

Third, the Prime Minister is concerned that changes will not be "fair" because they will lead to fewer middle-and-low-income earners borrowing to invest. This might well be true. But tax reform should proceed anyway. Although investors with only one asset will not be able to offset their losses against gains on other assets, overall the reforms will affect high incomes earners far more. The top 10 per cent of taxpayers before rental deductions get half of the benefits of negative gearing. By definition, they make losses on their collective investments. Reform cannot help but create a fairer system. And there will remain plenty of ways for low-income earners to invest without negatively gearing property.

CAPITAL GAINS DISCOUNT

Fourth, the Prime Minister is concerned that reducing the capital gains tax discount to 25 per cent would give Australia a high capital gains tax rate relative to comparable countries. He claims this would have "harmful impacts". We don't know what evidence he has in mind. But a substantial body of literature, including an OECD report, finds that tax rates have little impact on how much people on high incomes invest.

Even the government's own Re:think paper on tax reform says that while "low-income individuals may respond to tax incentives with new saving, high-income individuals are more likely to divert savings to more tax-preferred savings". It concludes that, "although taxes may affect the allocation of savings, they are unlikely to affect significantly the overall level of investment in the economy".

CHOOSING ASSUMPTIONS

Fifth, the Prime Minister is concerned that with a reduced discount, the effective tax rate on real capital gains would be close to 70 per cent. This is an issue that our report works through in detail, and it all depends on what assumptions you make, bearing in mind that tax is not paid on capital gains until the asset is sold.

Under a capital gains discount of 25 per cent, as we propose, and with inflation at 2.5 per cent, an asset held for fifteen years with a 3 per cent nominal income return and 4 per cent capital return would pay a real effective tax rate of about 55 per cent if the taxpayer is one of the 3 per cent of Australians on the top marginal rate.

The effective tax rate would be much lower if capital growth is higher than 4 per cent � and capital growth on Australian property has averaged 7 per cent over the last 15 years (a table at the back of our report enables readers to mix and match assumptions).

INCREASED TAXES?

Finally, the Prime Minister is concerned that removing negative gearing would increase the effective income tax rate for wage and salary earners, reducing the incentives to work. But using negative gearing seems a strange way to solve this problem. Why would we try to reduce marginal income tax rates, but only for the minority of workers who happen to invest? What's more, income tax rates need to be higher across the board to pay for the tax break we provide to one in 10 taxpayers.

The Prime Minister then uses our calculations to argue that removing negative gearing would reduce gross rental income by about 10 per cent. But he is looking at gross rental returns, which is the wrong number. Investors worry about their return after tax, including their capital gain. This return will fall by less.

Having made this error, the Prime Minister then simply asserts that this change in returns will increase rents. No study of the real world has ever found tax changes with this impact. Instead, in markets where property development is limited by planning permissions, changes in returns typically reduce property prices. Again, this is an issue that our report works through in detail. Nor is it plausible to claim, as the Prime Minister does, that the removal of negative gearing caused rental crises in the UK and US. Any number of countries that do not allow negative gearing have functional rental markets.

Engaging in detailed argument ultimately leads to better policy. We look forward to the Prime Minister arguing back � and maybe even changing his mind.

John Daley is CEO of the Grattan Institute

That's the ballgame.

# ? Apr 27, 2016 01:53

Laserface: Dec 24, 2004

WRT rents going up, is the argument that without negative gearing, becoming a landlord is therefore less profitable, and a higher rental price is required because there is simply less incentive to be a landlord?

Thats the only argument I can see making any sense.

I mean even if prices dropped, my partner and I probably still couldnt afford to buy, so we would (and I imagine a lot of others) still be renters seeking a place. So to say that renters would then be able to afford a home and therefore stop renting (and further, reducing rental demand) doesnt add up.

I suppose maybe in the long term once all us renters have saved up deposits you would see the shift, but short term it feels like prices would go up as the benefit to having cheap (lol) rent to negatively gear the property is now gone.

# ? Apr 27, 2016 02:55

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

Laserface posted:

WRT rents going up, is the argument that without negative gearing, becoming a landlord is therefore less profitable, and a higher rental price is required because there is simply less incentive to be a landlord?

If the landlord has no desire to be a landlord anymore, then they will sell and the buyer will be an owner-occupier (meaning there is one less renter in the market) or another landlord, meaning that the property will still be for rent.

In any case, have a nice video of Miranda Devine going off at Andrew Bolt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-4Xlgpj6Qg

# ? Apr 27, 2016 03:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 01:02

Freudian Slip: Mar 10, 2007; "I'm an archivist. I'm archiving."

If prices drop, as MT suggests, then rent only has to stay where it is for rental yields to increase for new investors.

# ? Apr 27, 2016 03:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol April - Long Live the Glorious State of North Queensland

«‹›82 »