|
Periphery posted:How about we just not buy expensive military boondoggles and instead buy things we actually need and will actively use? The best idea, also something that's not going to happen 
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
Fearless Fairfax Journo Paul Malone has responded to claims that he's a piece of poo poo by saying that actually if andie fox didn't want centrelink to release her private data to the public through his article, maybe she shouldn't have criticised them publicly with any personal information.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
NoNotTheMindProbe posted:We have one of the most highly educated populations in the world. Why can't we just design and build our own planes? Isn't it more about showing we're serious about our relationship with the US? Kind of like a gang initiation but instead of killing a dude you buy a plane.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
yeah, I doubt Australia is 100% in control of the decision to get these things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Buying planes is diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Only the loving ultranationalists would wear faux Islamic religious dress while going to court for racial vilification
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Only the loving ultranationalists would wear faux Islamic religious dress while going to court for racial vilification Question mark.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
I know I'll regret it and am probably being trolled, but Medicare beat up? http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/election-2016/2016/06/22/alp-medicare-claims-beat-shepherd/ quote:Opposition’s claims that the Government plans to privatise Medicare are a “gross misrepresentation”, according to the businessman who chaired the Coalition’s 2013 Commission of Audit. NOTE: Tony Shepard is a human shaped pile of still warm turds. Anything said by him is, at best, a misrepresentation and driven by his business interests. Any similarity between this and the CFA schmozzle are slim and coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:2) A tax on dwellings that sit unoccupied for more than 6 months of the year, valued at 1% of the capital improved value per year It's a pity the plan is not as straightforward as that, it won't have the impact a proper land tax would: quote:There will be exemptions if it is a holiday house, a deceased estate or if the owner is overseas. Reminds me of the discussion around property taxes in Italy (or could possibly be Greece) where if the building is under construction they don't have to pay tax, so they just leave a room incomplete in many homes so they can dodge. I feel like we're going to have the same avoidance strategy where foreign investment isn't touched and local investors just line up to declare their holiday homes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Can they define a holiday home as having to be in a different state, for a start? At least that should stop people claiming it for their local investment properties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rharris334/status/838517213917147137
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
iajanus posted:Can they define a holiday home as having to be in a different state, for a start? At least that should stop people claiming it for their local investment properties. That's a ludicrous suggestion. No state is ever going to want to support people buying holiday homes interstate, nor should it be forced on people that want to buy a beach shack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
JBP posted:That's a ludicrous suggestion. No state is ever going to want to support people buying holiday homes interstate, nor should it be forced on people that want to buy a beach shack. I meant more removing the ability of people to claim local properties that definitely aren't holiday houses from being claimed as such. My real preference is to not have the exemption at all. e: I mean, hell, if you can afford to own a holiday house I have no problem having it be taxed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
If you own a holiday home, then you should be in a position to be able to afford the taxes on it, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
JBP posted:That's a ludicrous suggestion. No state is ever going to want to support people buying holiday homes interstate, nor should it be forced on people that want to buy a beach shack.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:If you own a holiday home, then you should be in a position to be able to afford the taxes on it, tbh. What if you aren't in that position? You just have to sell it to someone that can afford the taxes because they have more money than you. open24hours posted:Do beach shacks even exist anymore? I thought they were all bought up and renovated decades ago. There are plenty of places outside Portsea, Torquay or whatever that are cheap and cheerful. If you go 500m back from the beach, you're in shack town. e: there are also plenty of beachside small towns that don't have fancy pubs and development around that are still economically priced due to being unpopular or not near a brand name beach. They're drying up though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
open24hours posted:Do beach shacks even exist anymore? I thought they were all bought up and renovated decades ago. There are a bunch of heritage listed ones in the national park south of Sydney. From what I remember though the title on them is non transferable so when the owner dies it becomes crown property again. That's not to say they are very common but they definitely exist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
JBP posted:There are plenty of places outside Portsea, Torquay or whatever that are cheap and cheerful. If you go 500m back from the beach, you're in shack town.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Ray Hadley in good opinion shocker Recoome posted:Only the loving ultranationalists would wear faux Islamic religious dress while going to court for racial vilification Is this in Queensland? Do they think they're the Chaser or something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
JBP posted:What if you aren't in that position? You just have to sell it to someone that can afford the taxes because they have more money than you. I Imagine any vacancy tax would be based on something like property value, or council rates. So if you get a beach shack that isn't worth much, then you won't be paying much on it. If you can't afford it then maybe you should sell it. If there aren't enough eager rich people around to buy them, then I imagine property valuations would fall to a level that could support them. Cheaper shacks for the people who can barely afford them sounds like a win to me. If it is still too much for them, then they can just go to a lodge/caravan park like the rest of us plebs. I'm not sure who the person that can afford a 100k shack but not an additional ~1k a year in taxes is. How can you be struggling that much, and also go on regular holidays (even on a budget, you still spend more then you would on a typical weekend)? If these places don't have running water, electricity, sanitation, or council services, then I can understand why it ought not to be considered a property for the sake of a vacancy tax. But if your shack is more house than shack, then maybe it ought to be treated like a house. I can also understand if the house is in a region where there isn't demand for rental properties. But on the other hand, should we really be giving any concessions to people who build and outfit dwellings that are left largely unoccupied? It seems really wasteful from my perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:I Imagine any vacancy tax would be based on something like property value, or council rates. So if you get a beach shack that isn't worth much, then you won't be paying much on it. If you can't afford it then maybe you should sell it. If there aren't enough eager rich people around to buy them, then I imagine property valuations would fall to a level that could support them. Cheaper shacks for the people who can barely afford them sounds like a win to me. If it is still too much for them, then they can just go to a lodge/caravan park like the rest of us plebs. You take a holiday using your leave whenever you like without worrying about peaks and also buy a reasonably priced investment with your disposable income. That's the attraction. The people that can afford a 100k shack but not the taxes are going to be people that have already paid off the home. Even if you introduced a moderate (by Aus standards) of 5-10% tax that's still $5-10k a year you need to dig up. That is real money. The demand for homes in holiday areas isn't for workers or whatever in any case. Few people live there and the people buying property are going to holiday there which is how those small economies tick over. Holiday homes are seriously the least concern when it comes to housing availability and affordability unless you run a surf shop. e: tax the gently caress out of and punish with metal baton anyone that abuses access to tenancy and a home near major centres of employment though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Honestly the sad thing about this is that working class people no longer have the security of employment or moderate disposable income to invest any money in their future or recreation. It's disgraceful. Double E post: 
JBP fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Man being sued by 4 channel 7 employee's claims that Channel 7's CEO is running it, instead of being a private totally not funded by Channel 7 case:quote:Q. Mr Keegan, you have four clients in this matter? In other news JB Hi-Fi may replace cleaners with robots. The news being they already HAVE replaced cleaners, but it's still on a trial basis. Comstar fucked around with this message at 04:08 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:There are a bunch of heritage listed ones in the national park south of Sydney. From what I remember though the title on them is non transferable so when the owner dies it becomes crown property again. That's not to say they are very common but they definitely exist. My Nan owns one of these. its $100 a year to keep and when the lease holder dies, its over. you're also not allowed to maintain them or improve them. they have no electricity or running water. Theres maybe 3-4 of them left standing. if it was a property you could sell (and could improve on it), it would be worth millions. there was a fairly heated battle between the leasers and the national parks over ownership of them because the RNP wanted to clear them to make the land available for parking/camping but yeah, they ended up being heritage listed so even after the lease is over I imagine they will be there until 'vandals' ruin them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Laserface posted:My Nan owns one of these. its $100 a year to keep and when the lease holder dies, its over. That's pretty cool, very noice spot for a holiday shack. It's good that they're not allowed to be built upon / traded though as there are more than enough beach towns anyway and there should be more national park. As someone who grew up surfing Garie and camping at Era a bunch I'm a bit jealous you got shack access though. Back in Auspol related stuff. It seems Hanson is giving up all pretence of having a clue about what she is on about. https://twitter.com/josh_jerga/status/838554886157426688 https://twitter.com/NicPerpitch/status/838585945188282368
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:29
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Man being sued by 4 channel 7 employee's claims that Channel 7's CEO is running it, instead of being a private totally not funded by Channel 7 case: Welp. It's happening. All the menial labour jobs are going to be replaced. You'll need a considerable amount of education to get a job in the future. Which means poor people, who can't afford TAFE courses, and won't have the requisite skills to get into university (as their poor parents can't help them and the school system is fairly bad at value adding these skills to children) will remain unemployed forever. How can you apply for several jobs a week if there are none.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
So keep asking her Federal questions then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:That's pretty cool, very noice spot for a holiday shack. It's good that they're not allowed to be built upon / traded though as there are more than enough beach towns anyway and there should be more national park. As someone who grew up surfing Garie and camping at Era a bunch I'm a bit jealous you got shack access though. They cant be sub let or anything either. If I want to stay there my nan has to write a letter to the RNP informing them I am staying, and when/how long/how many. its a total waste of time because you really want to just go for the day due to the nature of the place, but you cant because the second you are unlocking the door the ranger is there asking who you are and what you're doing while hes calling the police.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:So keep asking her Federal questions then. Another tweet says they did, about vaccinations and gst. Guess she didn't follow through with the threat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
It always baffles me the way parties who campaign in WA often try to force the narrative away from the actions of their Federal counterparts. Some examples include: - 2013 Labor Campaign asking Gillard to keep away, using "WA Labor" in all major comms. - 2017 Liberal campaign asking Turnbull to keep away - 2017 One Nation campaign trying to pretend federal issues aren't relevant to the state election campaign 2013 proved pretty handily that it doesn't matter - Western Australians DO consider the actions of the Federal parties when voting at the state level. Barnett should have been handily defeated, yet he actually managed a swing toward the Liberal party due to the massive ongoing media campaign against the Federal Labor Govt in preparation for the impending election towards the end of that year. Ignoring issues at a federal level will definitely lose her the "frustrated with the majors" vote, because it paints her as yet another political actor, rather than someone willing to consider and deal with their problems. So, good I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Konomex posted:Welp. It's happening. All the menial labour jobs are going to be replaced. You'll need a considerable amount of education to get a job in the future. Which means poor people, who can't afford TAFE courses, and won't have the requisite skills to get into university (as their poor parents can't help them and the school system is fairly bad at value adding these skills to children) will remain unemployed forever. How can you apply for several jobs a week if there are none. Fully automated luxury communism is the answer, but everyone will just end up dead instead. Utopian future. Only 500 million humans on earth or something. All ecological disasters averted. Thanks oligarchical capitalism!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Laserface posted:They cant be sub let or anything either. If I want to stay there my nan has to write a letter to the RNP informing them I am staying, and when/how long/how many. Just get 52 letters written for each weekend of the year and party. ------- 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
hahahahaha, that's magnificent. "i'm not dumb, i read books."
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:hahahahaha, that's magnificent. Sir do you have a question? "... I read big book"
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
A Turnbull government cabinet minister has been caught out failing to properly declare her financial interests, potentially placing her in “serious contempt” of federal parliament. Employment Minister Michaelia Cash did not declare a mortgage on a $1.4 million investment property for almost four months – and finally made the disclosure only after questions from Fairfax Media. Ms Cash bought the house next door to her home in the upmarket Perth suburb of Floreat in early November, property records show. It’s the fourth house in her portfolio, and second investment property. Ms Cash took almost three months to declare the house but did not declare the new mortgage – both of which are required under the rules.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
JBP posted:You take a holiday using your leave whenever you like without worrying about peaks and also buy a reasonably priced investment with your disposable income. That's the attraction. The people that can afford a 100k shack but not the taxes are going to be people that have already paid off the home. Even if you introduced a moderate (by Aus standards) of 5-10% tax that's still $5-10k a year you need to dig up. That is real money. You do know that this vacancy tax only cover's Melbourne's inner and middle suburbs? If you have a holiday home in the city, then tough poo poo, you can afford the tax. I don't even know why there is an exemption for them in the first place. The $100k beach shack in Melbourne is a purely hypothetical example. If it applied to a small coastal towns, then yeah it'd suck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:28
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:Just get 52 letters written for each weekend of the year and party. https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/837167394682351616
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:You do know that this vacancy tax only cover's Melbourne's inner and middle suburbs? If you have a holiday home in the city, then tough poo poo, you can afford the tax. I don't even know why there is an exemption for them in the first place. The $100k beach shack in Melbourne is a purely hypothetical example. If it applied to a small coastal towns, then yeah it'd suck. It smells of the typical "think of the little battler!!!" argument used to distract everyone from the fact the only people really affected are at the complete other end of the scale and share nothing in common with them except species.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:Just get 52 letters written for each weekend of the year and party. Can't even think on his feet well enough to turn a statement into a question halfway through!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:27 |
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:A Turnbull government cabinet minister has been caught out failing to properly declare her financial interests, potentially placing her in “serious contempt” of federal parliament. Well as was shown in the Gold Coast recently it's pretty easy to just buy a house of that price on a whim and kind of just forget to declare it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 05:38
|
|