|
From the other thread:quote:The Brisbane tradie sponsoring a prominent neo-Nazi website Their business website is something else. The top half looks like your typical DIY webpage from 15 years ago, and then the second half 
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Oh also if you hate your ears there's apparently a "Young IPA Podcast" hosted by Andrew Bolts son. If it makes the resulting brew less hoppy, I'll take it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Imagine being an anti-fluoridation single issue voter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
I wouldn't hold it against a business for making moderate donations to the Liberal party. It's not great, but not a huge sin in the grand scheme of things. But if they are working with a religious organisation to sponsor a video on SSM, then there's a good chance that they've got some lovely motivations behind it. It is pretty hard to come out looking good when you are working with a partisan organisation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:They remembered the ring!! god bless
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Frogfingers posted:Wait, that's the Caleb? The young-conservative-who-already-looks-old walking stereotype? Good grief, even I would rather gently caress Leak, and he's dead! I don't believe she is sincere about most of the poo poo she writes, except for her views on Islam. She figured out the easiest way to make it as a young political writer (with her leanings), is to mimic the style of the alt-right with an edgy acerbic wit. It's really cool and good that Caleb can't see her insincerity. https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/11/islam-modern-day-sexual-slavery/ https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2017/01-02/islamic-state-child-soldiers-islamic-schools/ So full of good opinions that she choose to author them under a pseudonym. Tokamak fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:i don't remember lid going back through paul sheehan's blog or whatever and finding a big ol picture of paul sheehan and posting a big ol HMMMMMMMMMMMMM 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Bernie would have won
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
I got a third way through the Dutton article before wondering if it was from SBS's satire section. Complaining about his Telstra line, and happy to take business donations but doesn't want to hear their opinions. How quickly do LNP members become anti-choice/free speech when it comes to action against their pet issues.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:The nerd boner for nuclear power mystifies me. Chatting to some guys at work about nuclear vs renewables, I raised an article I read ages ago that it would take 20 years for nuclear to be viable in Australia, but renewables are ready now. And they kept saying that nuclear would improve its technology but "there's no guarantee that renewables will get more efficient" and it's like, gently caress, engineers are working on both, what's the difference? It is also going to be twenty years until a large scale renewable projects is politically viable. I don't think time is a good argument when this thread (and John Howard) were arguing about nuclear and renewable projects a decade ago. A better argument is money, but the government makes terrible funding decisions all of the time. I don't think they will be able to convince the public to spend 10+bn on it though. At this point in time I prefer any action that will transition us away from coal, over no action. As long as it is new scientific funding, a nuclear program is not the worst way to spend money. The major capital investments are a decade into the future, and you don't even need to commit yourself to building the reactors. It is an insurance policy. The larger benefit is that you are creating work in a field where there is not a lot of work to go around. Again, I would prefer them to invest a billion dollars into a large scale renewables project, but that is not even on the cards. In an ideal world the government would already be making sufficient investments into renewables, science, engineering, and infrastructure. Schlesische posted:And then you have all the neckbeards who will go BUT IN 20 YEARS CHINA WILL HAVE (testing stage) FUSION. Not even an argument worth considering. It is more like twenty years to know how commercialisable the technology even is. The reactors that are currently being planned are an experiment. How well it will translate to a commercial power generator remains to be seen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
ModernMajorGeneral posted:How is nuclear more politically viable than renewables? The current government doesn't give a poo poo about either and renewables have labor/greens/a reasonable proportion of the public behind them. It isn't. The reason why the issue got bought up is because some members of the LNP are agitating for it, and was remarked upon by Turnbull. Public opinion on the matter isn't insurmountable, and having an up to date study on all of the facets of building and operating a plant would go a long way to secure that support. It is the sort of thing the government should be funding anyway. Money is the real issue, and even that can be overcome under certain conditions. One of which is not having the peaking gas/storage to cover intermittent supply/demand.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
rest in piss
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Reading tea leaves.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:Truly in touch with the common man. Was there ever anyone under the belief that the pub test was anything more than a rhetorical device to make subjective statements seem more objective? Even the most sycophantic members of the press gallery gave it little credence. It always turned into a joke of which pub, and who's drinking at it. Which is to say the pub is parliament, and the person drinking at it is the politician making the judgement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Thanks Unilever!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
TheMightyHandful posted:Bolt moonlighting for buzzfeed: Couldn't even come up with ten Australian examples.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 12:28 |
|
|
Every professor I've ever had who prescribed their own textbook have pointed out how little money they make from it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 11:10
|
|