G-Spot Run posted:

I guess it's good that that they maintain their own little language then as it is apparently very effective fuckwit signalling.

Anidav posted:

Yeah people have started calling me a soy boy and a race traitor and stuff on the internal newscorp chat.

MysticalMachineGun posted:

UBI would absolutely remove the pension, so you could theoretically say super is no longer needed as well. People can just save for retirement under their own steam.

JBP posted:

I don't think so. Why would you scrap mandatory, "self funded" retirement for work? It's just asking for a UBI retirement class and a non ubi class (rich fatsos).

Periphery posted:

That's kinda what I figured.


Isn't that's pretty much what we have now anyway? Anyone that works in high paying jobs gets a super that can actually support them while everyone else is hosed.

I would assume that any UBI would be high enough to live off through retirement and that anyone who manages to save enough during their working life would have a savings/investment income that would mean that they aren't getting the full UBI anyway. So that could help even out.

But I do see your point, even with a UBI, if you aren't in a position to save money while you are working you get comparatively screwed when you retire. Maybe the UBI should have a built in super component (but this feels like it kinda defeats the whole simplicity of a UBI)? Or you just keep super but scrap all the tax concessions it gets? I just kinda figured that being able to scrap super would be a pretty big selling point to win over businesses (while also really pissing off the super industry )

JBP posted:

Without even thinking about the billions of dollars in super and the kind of nightmare creature that industry could become if pushed, I reckon UBI just wouldn't give people much bigger incomes to save anyway. It would stop people being on the bones of their arse you'd hope, but you're still working to top up you income. I suppose taking the guess work out of retirees claiming the pension or being self funded might do it, but I don't think taking away people's ability to earn super is a good thing since companies pay for it. You'd imagine UBI would relieve that super burden somewhat.

My grand mental plan for super would be that the company contributes 20% for workers earning under 50k and it slides back to nothing mandatory as you reach a "worker" on idk say $500k

Periphery posted:

Yeah, it's probably not worth picking the fight with the super industry and pensioners when business seems to have mostly accepted it and pays for it.

I do like your idea of super. One thing I've always thought about super is that a large % of it should just go into a government infrastructure fund that is used to fund nation building projects and pays out a pretty much guaranteed return like a government bond would. Essentially force it into generating assets for the whole community at the same time as paying for peoples retirement. Of course I haven't thought about the complexities and implications of that too much - beyond the obvious risk that all our politicians are giant idiots and will spend it on the worst possible poo poo.

Anidav posted:

The Before Times posted:

so soy boy is the new 'cuck'?

The Before Times posted:

so soy boy is the new 'cuck'?

Knobb Manwich posted:

yes

it stems from the well-researched and peer reviewed scientific studies such as that surmise eating soy products increases estrogen in men leading to feminine traits and behaviour due to lack of manly testosterone

drunkill posted:

https://twitter.com/MitchellToy/status/983570589444009984?s=19

TheMightyHandful posted:

this is fine.jpg

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Want an idea of how popular Dutton is?
https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/983605439236489216

Okay sure, but that includes a bunch of left-wing voters who obviously prefer Turnbull over the others. What if you remove them?
https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/983605722704314369

People tend to support the current leader because they're the leader. What if you take out Turnbull as an option, surely some of those Turnbull supporters would have Dutton as a second choice.
https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/983606172572835840

Anidav posted:

Those 1% of greens who picked Dutton...

Malcolm Turnbeug posted:

I can’t believe only 1% of greens voters are accelerationists with a death wish

quote:

What JAAACK might not know, or care to know, is that two Australian attempts to build coal power stations already failed this decade.

After blowing through $188m in grants, cost estimates for a small carbon capture and storage coal power station in Queensland ballooned to $6.9bn. In 2011 the project, aptly named ZeroGen, was mercifully taken out the back and shot.

A proposed Latrobe Valley power station was allocated 1bn tonnes of coal in 2002, and despite securing grants of $150m, muddled along before the project, HRL Dual Gas, finally fell over in 2015.

A new coal power project would hang as an albatross around the neck of the commissioning party. For at least three protest-filled terms of government, the project would become a focal point for a “next-level” Adani-style protest movement – all before the plant generated its first, expensive, polluting kilowatt-hour. Not going to happen.

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Periphery posted:

(but this feels like it kinda defeats the whole simplicity of a UBI)

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

That's an evil twist and then to brag about it like it isnt evil

quote:

EXCLUSIVE: Proposal to cut migration rate discussed in 2016


8min

Where did the Immigration policy idea come from? If It wasn’t taken to Cabinet, ERC, NSC or even a budget subcommittee, then where?

Sources have told Sky News that a proposal to cut Australia’s migration intake was discussed at a number of “policy development meetings” in late 2016 and early 2017 at the behest of Peter Dutton.

The proposal to cut migration didn’t make it to Cabinet but was “analysed” by the Immigration Department and “was debated and discussed by relevant ministers including the Treasurer and Social Services Minister”.

Advice was provided to Minister Dutton during several meetings in late 2016 and early 2017. There was an inaugural meeting in Brisbane in 2016 where the “policy seed was planted”.

Throughout 2016 that policy was developed by the Department of Immigration and refined as discussions with Minister Dutton took place at various times and locations.

One source says “this wasn’t a quick fire idea, discussion and rejection”.

Another said “it wasn’t a fleeting idea that disappeared the next day”.

“In 2016 a spectrum of policy issues were canvassed. This reduction (20,000) of the migration program was one of them”.

“Various policies were canvassed. Some policies we continued with, some died off due to either lack of interest or being too difficult, but the reduction of the program stayed the course and was around for a long time before it was axed due cost and intrapartisan politics”

“The proposal was knocked back ultimately because it would have negatively affected the budget”.

Sky News was also told there was “a menu of policy options discussed with Minister Dutton” in what could be termed ‘policy development meetings’.

The issues discussed in these meetings and later implemented included the welfare entitlement reduction for temporary protection visa holders, tightened Citizenship eligibility criteria, and other operational strategies.

Sources say the Prime Minister was not present in these ‘policy development meetings.’

Knobb Manwich posted:

Huh, I thought Morrison would've been more popular with the LNP.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Sussan Ley good????

https://twitter.com/sussanley/status/983597484973875200