Auspol March - C U Next Trollday, Auspol - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol March - C U Next Trollday, Auspol

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

hooman posted:

Opening your FB must be pretty akin to opening the ark of the covenant.

A list of insane ramblings from a racist, sexist, violent shithead then your face melts off.

Well what was I expected to do once soag left

# ¿ Mar 5, 2015 02:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 20, 2024 13:49

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

leftist media in australia is basically green left weekly, red flag and mike carlton's twitter account

# ¿ Mar 5, 2015 04:18

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

The no reappointment rule is just more proof that labor offering positions to conservatives is loving idiotic because it never results in reciprocity when the other side wins power.

# ¿ Mar 6, 2015 01:09

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

norp posted:

If the coalition is going to be spiteful to the point of cutting off their own nose just appoint enough coalition directors just to poison their best people with possiblity of "left wing bias"

Worked with noted communist Mark Scott

# ¿ Mar 6, 2015 01:23

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

No rights but property rights

# ¿ Mar 6, 2015 03:03

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

So Joe Hockey farted from his mouth the idea of allowing people to draw from their superannuation to use as a deposit on a first home.

Much like the treasurer of australia, my only economics qualifications come through relation, but off the top of my head I can think of a number of problems with this.

- Like the first home owners grant it serves mainly to continue inflating the price of houses thus not making anything more affordable.
- People are at the best of times really bad at assessing future benefit vs immediate benefit, and will value a $50k deposit now far more highly than $50k when they retire
- People will think of a $50k deposit now as actually only being worth $50k, rather than $50k + 40 years of compounding interest.
- It decreases the value of your super, your second most valuable asset, to put into your house, your most valuable asset, leaving your total wealth less diversified and more at risk to market failure
- It encourages people to take out more ambitious mortgages to take advantage of "FREE MONEYS", with less consideration to whether the loan is appropriate to them in terms of income, job security etc
- You wind up with people retiring at ~~65 70 75~~ 120 with less money to fund their own retirement and thus having to ~~go on the pension~~ starve in the streets

Like jesus gently caress, this is probably the dumbest policy Joe Hockey has ever thought of and it is sure not for lack of competition.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2015 01:21

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

GAR-
BAGE
DICK

# ¿ Mar 7, 2015 01:26

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

You Am I posted:

Dunno, I know it is a horrible idea to use super as a deposit, but then again who the gently caress wants to keep on living after retirement. Superannuation is wasted on the old

I plan on using a house deposit merely as a means of funneling money from my super into buying anime games for tithin.

# ¿ Mar 7, 2015 02:00

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

The League of Nations has no place in dictating the deminingtarization of the rinehartland

# ¿ Mar 9, 2015 05:14

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

If anything can gently caress up the NSW election for the libs it's probably Hockey forcing all of the North Sydney Forums dirty laundry out in a court case because he had his feels hurt

# ¿ Mar 9, 2015 06:44

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Anidav posted:

So which is more likely: A Pyne staffer looking at this thread, Pyne himself looking at this thread or some security guys looking at this thread and informing Pyne of it?

D) Anidav being naive and stupid

# ¿ Mar 9, 2015 08:06

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Those On My Left posted:

Let's go back to that article for a second

If you read this and immediately go looking for a "just world" explanation along the lines of "they brought this on themselves by rioting against these very conditions" then you're a loving sociopath and should see a ~~therapist~~ shotgun barrel

# ¿ Mar 9, 2015 13:00

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Look, I don't think we can address the trivial matter of children being systematically tortured until we first address the far more important issue of some people saying mean words to me on the internet :shrug:

# ¿ Mar 9, 2015 14:23

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Endman posted:

You'd probably have a way better time using RFID cards instead of biometrics.

Fingerprint reading technology isn't perfect and is often unreliable. My last laptop had a fingerprint reader that a friend of mine could open because it wasn't accurate enough to distinguish the subtle differenced between our fingerprints.

Implant the RFID in your fingers, problem solved

# ¿ Mar 13, 2015 05:02

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Lid posted:

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/news/opin...tors_picks=true

Prepare to spit.

I was writing to say I am impressed that Bolt managed to write a whole article attacking what indigenous people have said about Abbott without quoting any actual indigenous people but then I discovered that Ray Martin is in fact indigenous, the more you know.

Gough Suppressant fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Mar 15, 2015

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 13:08

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Mithranderp posted:

IDK if this has been posted already, but it's worth reading again anyway.

Turning back the boats is a moral and legal failure, say academics:

I am sure Abbott will respond to this study maturely and by addressing the issues it brings up, rather than combining rabid australian racism with dumb as dogshit anti-academia.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 14:56

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

bowmore posted:

We used to have anyway

He didn't die as far as I know?

# ¿ Mar 15, 2015 23:07

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Graic Gabtar posted:

With respect to people posting about this but if there was an article that was going to change my views on this topic - that ain't it.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 00:45

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

I, Butthole posted:

More likely Pyne doesn't want a soundbite of him saying "wang" out there on the internet. He knows what we do.

There's no way in hell Pyne is that self aware

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 05:38

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

If I was a judge I'd throw hockey in jail for being a stupid fat poo poo and that's probably why I'm not a judge

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 08:05

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Tony has always had an inquisitive mind. Now he finally knows where the S-Bend leads.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 10:23

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

The Age's economics editor is apparently an innumerate buffoon.

quote:

Dipping into super for a house is a good idea

Peter Martin

Denying Australians access to their money to stop them entering the housing market is a cruel way to keep a lid on prices.

Can we give Joe Hockey a break? He says he is prepared to consider allowing us to dip into our super to buy houses. What on earth could be wrong with that? A house is far more useful in retirement than superannuation. Just ask anyone who has tried to survive without one.

Yep, having a large single indivisible and potentially hard to move asset sure is categorically better than an income stream. Run out of money, most of your wealth in your house, but you happened to retire during a downturn in the property market? Tough fuckin luck.

quote:

When the Harmer pension review examined the question some years ago it found only 3 per cent of home-owning single pensioners were in severe poverty compared up to one quarter of those who rented.

Huh, people wealthy enough to have bought a house at some point are less likely to be in poverty than those who weren't? :monocle:

TV ownership rates also correlate negatively with poverty, so we should probably let people take their super fund down to gerry harvey to buy five flat screens each

quote:

Rent eats income. It's why houses are important in retirement. They relieve us of the need to pay rent.

Houses eat income too dufus, rates, utilities, upkeep etc.

quote:

When renters attempt to earn that income they lose half of it in cuts to whatever pension they are on.Home owners don't need to earn that income.

If only there was some form of scheme by which retirees could have an income taxed at a lower rate, say by mandatory regular contributions throughout their working life?

quote:

Labor is saying silly things about home ownership now. Its deputy Tanya Plibersek says "you can't eat your family home, you can't pay your electricity bill with it".

But you can feed yourself and pay your bills by saving on rent and by taking advantage of services that allow you to borrow against your home. Centrelink offers such a service. You can get up to the full pension fortnightly right up until the day you die taken out of the value of your home, and you'll never be kicked out. Private operators offer similar deals. The Financial Review published a feature on this topic on Saturday.

The full pension is marginally above the poverty line, and likely to go below that as we move forward to a time when everyone has had mandatory super contributions for the entirety of their working life. Going into debt to live off premium chum seems like a pretty lovely strategy for retirement.

quote:

Australians are right to want to dip into their super to buy houses. Many do it the minute they can, telling their super fund trustee they've "retired" at the age of 55. They use the payout to pay down their mortgage and get back to work. You can't blame them. It sets them up for retirement better than would super.

It would set them up even better if they were able to use their super to pay down their mortgages earlier, before they grow.

Not if it means they're paying a higher price in the first place by inflating the market it doesn't.

quote:

They can't because the present system forces them to save year in, year out at 9.5 per cent even when they should be paying down debt. Like attempting to drive a car by pressing on both the brake and accelerator pedals at the same time, it is possible to save and be in debt simultaneously but it's wasteful.

Or, you could actually have more diversity in your wealth rather than sinking every last penny into one single large indivisible asset which is often hard to move. Having all your wealth tied up in a house is as stupid as having it all tied up in a single large gold bar.

quote:

That's how Labor's Paul Keating saw it in 1993. Campaigning as prime minister he promised to let all Australians draw up to $10,000 from their super to help buy a family home. Young Labor saw it the same way on the eve of Kevin Rudd's election in 2007. It proposed what Hockey is now proposing. Australians up to the age of 30 would be able to take $15,000 from their super for the deposit on a home.

"What good is having an extra $15,000 in super when you're 65 if you're still renting when you are 85?" asked its then national president Sam Crosby. Labor's Wayne Swan responded. He came up with a plan for super-like savings accounts, especially to save for deposits.

Well how about for a start you're quoting an argument from the national president of Young Labor. Secondly $15,000 in super when you're buying a house won't be $15,000 in super when you're retiring because it will have been compounding interest over the course of ~35 years.

quote:

The contributions and earnings would be taxed like super � at a flat rate of 15 per cent � up to a generous limit. After four or more years they could be withdrawn, but only for the purpose of buying a first home.

The plan bombed, partly because Swan made the mistake of making explicit the unfairness of the super tax concessions. Treasury told him to tax the accounts normally and achieve an effective tax rate of 15 per cent by making direct contributions, more for high earners, less for low earners.

Invited to submit comments on the treasury website, Australians were appalled. "I am shocked and utterly disillusioned to find that under the current proposal, the government contribution is twice as much for those paying the highest rate of income tax," wrote one.

Swan modified the scheme somewhat and it died of lack of use. The main reason it bombed was that Australians didn't have the spare cash to put in the accounts; 9 per cent of their income was going into super, whether it was wise or not.

Surely being economic rationalists they would still have made sacrifices to put the money towards a deposit. After all, what use is $15,000 in your piggy bank at 65 if you're still renting at 85. Also claiming that super is 9% of a person's income is ridiculous.

quote:

Compulsory super is a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem that hasn't been clearly defined. It takes the same proportion of wages each year regardless of the calls on income that year and the size of the debt that would otherwise be paid down.

Canadians are able to withdraw up to $25,000 from their super funds to buy first homes on the proviso that after a year they begin paying it back in equal instalments over 15 years. New Zealand and Singapore offer similar deals.

It's said that if it happened here it would push up the price of houses, but that's true of any measure that makes houses easier to buy. Denying someone access to their own money in order to deny them access to the housing market is a particularly cruel way to restrain prices.

This is utter gobbledygook. You know a measure that makes it easier to buy a house without pushing up prices? Putting downward pressure on prices. How about instead of freeing up more funds for people we do want to buy houses, we close off avenues for people we don't want to buy houses. If only there were some current incentive provided to people buying to rent which we could close off.

quote:

The best way to hold down prices for first-home buyers is to take out the competition. Second and third home buyers (so called "investors") now almost outnumber owner-occupiers at auctions. One out of every seven Australian taxpayers is a landlord.

Eliminating the competition hey? What if we for example gave a lump sum payment to put on a house, only available to first home buyers, that should help out housing affordability right?

quote:

It can be said in their defence that they provide rental accommodation, just as that used to be said for the far smaller number of foreign investors in real estate against whom the government has taken action. But by elbowing out of the way would-be owner-occupiers those landlords are also creating a class of people to rent to, a class of Australians who may never be able to afford their own homes.

Eliminating negative gearing, while allowing it to stay for existing landlords, would remove the competition. Along with allowing Australians access to their own money to buy their own houses, it would ensure that more of us had the kind of genuine security in retirement that only a home can give.

Mere sentences after claiming all attempts to make buying a house easier inflate the market, he suggests a measure that would make it easier to buy a house without inflating the market.

quote:

Home ownership was once an article of faith of the Coalition. Hockey has at least shown an interest in getting it back on track.

An article of faith is a perfect way to describe this sort of attitude to home ownership as it is entirely non evidence based (let's not even mention the fact that current attitudes to home ownership were fostered as a means of social control in response to the post-war red scare).

Shoving never-ending streams of more money into the housing market does not help people who want to own the place they live in.

Encouraging people to have even higher proportions of their wealth tied up in a concrete asset like a house is not sound economics.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2015 22:13

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Doctor Spaceman posted:

Martin's normally pretty decent too, I don't know what came over him,

Made even weirder by his article today lauding the head of the grattan institute taking Hockey to task on negative gearing last night.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 00:59

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Open up submissions for anyone who has lost a loved one who eschewed medical treatment after contact with her book and then throw her in jail on X counts of manslaughter.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 03:42

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

I was misdiagnosed, it wasn't brain cancer, it was fingerpaint

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 03:44

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Les Affaires posted:

I'm reminded of the various cases in the 1980s where concerns parents were alarmed with the rise of metal and the argument that came back from one of the bands was basically "Why the hell would we knowingly want our fans to kill themselves?"

Fan death remains a major issue for South Korean metal bands

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 03:48

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Ragingsheep posted:

Hockey wants more than $1m in damages.

Yes but what about next weeks groceries

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 03:51

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

The UN needs to gently caress off with its bullshit moralizing about how its not okay to throw rocks at the heads of children explicitly under your care.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 05:40

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

duck monster posted:

As opposed to my dad who lost almost half his super when the US economy took a poo poo and died?

This isn't actually that bad an idea in the sense that property IS in fact a pretty sensible retirement strategry. Even when the economy tanks, you'll still have a house.

The problem is Joe has also bee proposing raiding super for unemployment money and poo poo as well. Which is *loving reckless*

A properly managed super fund is diversified, this coupled with the length of time it's supposed to be operating on makes it far less likely that you will wind up hosed compared to if you have one house.

I guess you can argue that when we get to the stage where not owning a home is more common than owning one, that this in fact increases diversity in your assets, but we're a fair way from that still.

It also doesn't do anything to address the problem Hockey claims it does: housing affordability. Injecting more money into the market will just raise prices, simple as that.

Actual levers which could be used to increase housing affordability: get state governments to dramatically increase land taxes for undeveloped land; get state governments to institute caps on allotments over a certain size in particular areas, start to grandfather out negative gearing etc

Gough Suppressant fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Mar 17, 2015

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 07:51

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

surely then you'd just kidnap the executives of any company whose details weren't published.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 08:34

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

I want to know what rare brain parasite peter Martin had when writing that article defending hockey's brainfart considering the articles following and preceding

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 10:58

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

ScreamingLlama posted:

Oh good, finally people who want to vote for a centre right party but don't like the ALP can be represented again.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 14:36

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

How do you expect people to take you seriously with your claim of "keeping the bastards honest", when you are the bastards who assisted in passing the GST, and were found to have dishonestly inflated your party membership resulting in deregistration by the AEC?

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 14:45

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

It's a bit disingenuous to claim the GST was passed to the howls of the entire populace when it was taken to an election and the party doing so formed government. It's still a poo poo tax and the democrats can get hosed forever for passing it.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 22:04

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

ScreamingLlama posted:

1. What makes you think the whole party was OK with the GST?

2. That was One Nation. Totally different bunch of bastards.

1)It is in the minds of most people the single most defining act of the Australian Democrats. You can't try to resurrect the name of a party and trade on don chipp's catchphrases for some easy notoriety without also being linked to that.

2) Nope, the party claimed it had well above the threshold for registration, the AEC reckoned you were lying and what do you know, turns out you were.

If you are claiming this incarnation to be a fresh face and has no institutional memory of those things then it sure as gently caress has no connection to any of the far more distant virtues you're laying claim to.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2015 22:10

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Perhaps if making public knowledge of wealth disparity is feared to inspire widespread kidnapping of executives, the problem is not in fact with the reporting but the wealth disparity.

:shrug:

# ¿ Mar 18, 2015 01:43

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Les Affaires posted:

God damnit, the GST isn't a regressive tax. Do I need to hit you all over the nose with a rolled up newspaper?

This is a loving dumb post and you know it.

Consumption comprises a larger part of your income the lower your income is. GST is applied to consumption. GST comprises a larger part of your income the lower your income is.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2015 03:35