|
What would Malcolm's threat be in this situation? Kick them out of his cabinet? Ask people for a vote so he can kick his deputy out? They would just say 'I think Malcolm will win the next election and have no plans' until someone who wants a spot in the next cabinet nominates them and if Malcolm tries to retaliate to that then he is out anyway.
Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Apr 6, 2018 |
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
The Daily Mail is going for the coup de grâce on the besieged Greens."The Daily Mail posted:A shorter working week, NO public funds for private school, free transport and 'safe' ecstasy: What Australia would look like if the Greens were in charge. What a dystopian horror.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 08:09
|
|
|
Honestly this is my favourite right-wing dystopian/actually utopian future I've read since Pauline predicted PM Penny Wong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 10:11
|
|
|
I live in SE QLD and one of the many things we get right is that we don't call it a sausage in bread. If CARTO keeps this repugnant slander going we will be forced to secede.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 06:25
|
|
|
bigis posted:C’mon auspol here’s the link again. This video is extremely good!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 08:17
|
|
|
List of filthy centrist policies: tripling of the tax free threshold, NDIS, broadening of medicare, toppling of one of Telstra'a near monopolies with the NBN, carbon tax, mining tax, means testing the private health insurance rebate, a federal ICAC, removing capital gains benefits, focusing on renewable energy, etc etc for infinity. Unless you're saying having some hard right wing policies makes a party centrist, at which point, lol for thinking Labor hasn't been like that forever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
bell jar posted:* Long overdue and severely short of assisting people in poverty Okay some of these things were extremely necessary, or not as good as they can be. Sure. But are you actually trying to argue that making a taxation system more progressive is more centrist than it is left? Or do you think I'm saying Labor couldn't possibly be any more left or something? Honestly don't get it. Something being badly planned with poor messaging isn't leftist you say?  I mean you do you, but I'm a member of the Greens party, so clearly I don't think not having your stated policies implemented makes your party centrist. The idea that Labor's left wing has disappeared since booting Rudd is dumb. Either it never existed, or it is getting stronger.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
bell jar posted:Moving something from the right to the center, is indeed centrist, yes I mean this is really irrelevant to my point but I'm curious about your opinion here; Is there a level of progressive taxation that isn't centrist? Edit: Or wealth redistribution in general?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
bell jar posted:100% taxation over certain thresholds for income tax would be a good place to start Okay. I mainly asked because I wanted to avoid dumb as poo poo conversations in the future but I'm not sure if shifting my personal overton window so the Greens party has a centrist economic policy is a good way to do that, but gently caress hey whatever I'll genuinely give it a go.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
hooman posted:Or better yet when it comes to funding to address poverty: I mean, I agree with literally all of this within the scope of addressing poverty. But if, like me, you're defining left wing here as economic policies that help escape inter-generational poverty, then surely, surely things like making taxation more progressive and starting the NDIS are 'more left wing' than explicitly not doing those things?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
bell jar posted:For the examples you've mentioned - making taxation more progressive - sure it's leftist in theory, but the nuances of its implementation determine whether or not it is actually left/centrist policy. Raising the tax free threshold to $18k looks good on paper, until you realise that people on the poverty line are making $22k on average, so it doesn't really help these folks much except for a slightly larger payday once a year at tax time. If those taxes don't actually go towards things like welfare or healthcare, or making life better for the people the left are supposed to care for, then it can't really be considered a leftist policy. If you get progressive income tax to cover the write off for corporations, what's the point? Okay sure, but the point in this situation was partially to give an extra $600 / year to people making $20k / year, for example. And for the working poor, it wasn't a lump sum unless their employers didn't fix their contributions. I think we both agree that it isn't nearly adequate and UBI would be tops. If we don't agree that giving money to the working poor is a left wing goal, or progressive taxation is a left wing means of reaching that goal, or even that those two things make it a left wing policy then I hope we can at least agree to disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
bell jar posted:Is giving $600 a year to poors left wing? What planet do you live on? Uh, yeah I feel that decreasing poverty is a left wing goal, even if it doesn't eliminate all inter-generational debt or whatever. I'd ask you what 'number' you'd want for it to be considered left wing, if you feel you have to define it that way, but last time we went down that road you talked about an upper limit on wealth being the 'start' of left wing economic policy. This conversation is dumb I'm sorry thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2018 10:26
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I realise this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion as I'm typing it, but I feel like charging interest on cases like the one used in the example (over $800,000, including claims for children who didn't exist so very hard to argue they were just confused about how it all works) is fair enough. I mean yeah the gutting of Centrelink by the government is evil and hosed up, but that doesn't make welfare fraud okay, and Centrelink is hard enough to get without fuckers deliberately committing fraud and undermining the system. If it was a private individual who'd been scammed out of $800,000 I'd also support them getting money back with interest. I am extremely confident in saying that the relatively few cases of massive deliberate fraud have nothing to do with how hard it is to get Centrelink, similar to how the few cases of electoral fraud have nothing to do with some US states voter ID law. We have methods of pubishing people who deliberately defraud the government already. This wouldnt actually do anything to reduce the debt but will give massive hard one to people who fantasize about teaching poor people 'financial responsibility' and punishing poor people who, even accidentally, step out of line.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
AbortRetryFail posted:It doesn't matter who else is stealing money at all to make fraudulent claims a generally bad thing that should be punished. We give huge fines and send people to prison for it all the time. This is different from interest though, as it isn't automatic/ all entirely up to Scott Morrison.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Extensive systematic fraud will result in a more stringent system of checks and balances, and it's already a bitch to try and get approved. It also pushes the public narrative of "welfare queens who just don't want to work" which is also bad. Apparently this will affect fewer than 200,000 people, who have a month to contact Centrelink to organise a repayment plan. Assuming this means an individually tailored plan and not, like, "pay us $6000 a month or it's off to debtors prison with you", that's not unreasonable to me. Government bad yes, deliberate welfare fraud also bad. Why is it already a bitch to try and get approved? Do you honestly believe it is because the cases of deliberate fraud not being punished enough? If you do see that it isn't really about that, why is this case special? Why is this LNP plan of expanding their powers of punishment over Centrelink users, except this time with no oversight, why is this one so special as to make it worse if we don't give them more power? Whitlam posted:Cases of legitimate accidental overpayments are different, but claiming over $800,000 including imaginary children? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they knew what they were doing, and I'm fine with people in that scenario having to pay it back and then some. If the federal prosecutors agree that it was deliberate they already do have to, via fines and possibly imprisonment.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Like this is so hosed. I don't know if you have ever both been poor and had maxed out credit cards or whatever but at 8.7% with numbers that could have accrued over a decade or more, that can be way more life ending than a prison sentence. I wonder if you are allowed to bankruptcy out of this one. Edit: you can't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
The woman in the example is probably a bad cookie or whatever, assuming no mental illnesses etc, but I honestly don't know if it is possible to believe in both a rehabilitative, understanding justice system, while simultaneously believing that whoever is in the Dept.of Human Services at the time can decide that you will have to be perpetually bankrupt for the rest of your life or have debt collectors taking whatever they want for the rest of your life. (they can't collect only during your period of bankruptcy) I don't know what someone's income has to be to pay back 800,000 plus 8% interest, but I think it's pretty fair to say those are likely her two options. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:A politician makes a claim about 800k debts and you're all taking that as fact? Uhh ok. I'd have thought if the solution was BS maybe most of the problem is too. On the back of 30 bad Newspolls, you don't think they'd stretch the truth a bit to satisfy the base like every other time they announce this kind of thing? This is fair, 800k is a ridiculous number. The only way I can think of someone defrauding the government to that extent is if they somehow managed to let Barnaby nut in 'em for 8 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
Even in Whitlams own, made up example the reasons his imaginary friends defraud the system is because they think they won't be caught, or if they are, they can ignore the fine and somehow not get sent to prison. Letting the Dept of Human Services add interest as they see fit not only won't stop these figments of someone's imagination doing the crime, it also won't make Centrelink easier to get or prevent it from being harder to get in any way. Plus there's that whole thing where a single part of the government can issue what can be an actual permanent financial punishment at their own discretion. But hey for some reason that is fine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Her, and I'm willing to accept it may be a generational/situational thing but the perspective and mentality is that it's no big deal, the system is broken so why shouldn't I get as much as I can, all my friends are doing it and they've never been caught so why shouldn't I? I mean sure they're not fraudulently claiming hundreds of thousands a year so they're probably not high on the priority list and won't be caught unless they're randomly audited, but if your argument is the system is perfect and nobody ever commits Centrelink fraud then just lol. My argument was that the idea that this would act as a deterrent doesn't make sense given even your examples of why people do defraud Centrelink, and our understanding of how possible punishment works in the decisions to commit non violent crimes. So if it doesn't actually work the way you want it to work in your understanding of the world, and it doesn't work in the scientific understanding of the world, we are forced to wonder, what is your real reason for wanting it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I recognise that the only one of those reasons that would be addressed by increased penalties for intentional fraud (which is specifically what I'm talking about) is 1., and that's fine. I'm not claiming it's a whole solution, or the only thing we need and everything will be perfect if we do it. I support greater allocation of resources to Centrelink and the social support system as a whole. I also am not in any way advocating that "if Centrelink says you're committing intentional fraud, that's it, you have to pay it back at 9% no takesies backsies". Administrative review is a crucial part of the judicial process, and oversight is important. I just can't get morally outraged at the idea of increased penalties for people who are knowingly and intentionally committing fraud. One of those points might be somewhat addressed, I'm incredibly skeptical that it'll do much. And with how bad a punishment this could end up being, it's a very important distinction. Especially compared to like, just imposing a bigger fine, if financial punishment is what you really want. We already have an oversight committee and that is the the public prosecutors and courts to decide if Centrelink's referral is valid or not. It's pretty good and the Dept. of Human Services asking to get around it pretty loving huge. The biggest problem with this, aside from the fact that courts sometimes get it wrong, is that even if this debt actually sends you bankrupt, it won't end. It will continue growing and Centrelink has the ability to send debt collectors after you forever. Since you work with homeless people I'm sure you're aware of how many of them have gotten there largely due to financial hardship, so I really have to wonder how you think giving so many people financial hardship for the rest of their actual lives is a good thing. One year of a fraudulent DSP is $22k, and it's a crime, but if a 17 year old does it for two years, they're going to have to keep paying $4k to the government every year for the rest of their life just to combat the interest. And that's assuming interest rates don't go up. I support punishment as part of the rehabilitation system but this is actually insane. Gentleman Baller fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Apr 20, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 06:01
|
|
|
That's a good saving tip though. I wish I could still live with my parents but they keep calling me a liberal because I don't like Assad and I think Russia does propaganda.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
bigis posted:Each poo poo, Valve. I've submitted a refund request for DayZ, I wonder if I'll get my money back. I'm a bit disappointed that they are allowed to put it at the bottom of their homepage, underneath all the advertising and sales but I guess it'd be a bit annoying if it was at the top for a year. Edit: changed my mind I am pretty sure I would thoroughly enjoy it for the entire year.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:I'm torn. On the one hand anime is complete garbage fire poo poo but... Mario is not anime, please enjoy the art for its profound, evocative message.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 09:39
|
|
|
I don't think that the victims being boomers, or the victims being dumb as hell, gullible believers of the 'Im with St George, we'll look after you  ' propaganda, excuses the banks and I think we should recognise how sleazy and predatory it is by both fining the hell out of the banks, and forcing them to forgive the loan.Gonna lol at them crying tho Edit: assuming there is proof of getting them to sign a blank form anyway
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 06:00
|
|
|
JBP posted:Can I get a loving refund for fallout 4 which I bought like a dickhead? They told me to gently caress off because it took me 5 hours to actually get to the game and work out that it was trash. Probably. Start a support ticket, don't 'request a refund' as that is automatic, and use words that vaguely sound related to the consumer guarantee. My friend got Dark Souls 1 refunded with 3 hours played because the port sucked and he's too lazy to install that patch.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2018 11:20
|
|
|
I believe Fallout 4's buggyness and misrepresented gameplay is enough to constitute a 'major fault' under Australia's consumer guarantee. Skyrim has plenty of flaws also, but I can't help but like the setting and the writing isn't as painfully dumb. Under Australia's Consumer Guarantee.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Tried to get a few very bad games refunded but Steam is just pointing to the 'two weeks' disclaimer. Don't use any of the refund options in support. That's automatic. File a proper support ticket and use the ~magic words~. If you're not pushing it/are willing to get refunded in Steam Credit you'll probably be fine, assuming losing their final appeal hasn't made Valve go full Galt. It'll take a week or so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
bell jar posted:People who refund games are the same people that sit through a movie and demand their ticket back Nah, I'm asking for my money back because 3 hours in to the 30 hour movie, bugs ran all over the projector and are making it crash every 20 minutes. Plus the movie is missing assets and it's so unedited you can see the boom mic... gently caress it you get my point.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
Consumer protections go too far against poor businesses, maybe you shouldn't have bought a faulty product, ever think about that, you leaner?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
bell jar posted:hey i'm not saying that there shouldn't be refunds on video games, i'm just saying the people that utilise them are fuckin dumb as hell lmao I reckon people who don't take their money back from lovely businesses who lied through their teeth and sold you a faulty product are dumb as hell but agree 2 disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2018 10:19
|
|
|
Galaxy brain financial wizard: Constant debt from Afterpaying everything since 0% interest is better than inflation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
That reminds me, my local MP owes me a free flag for this year. Soon, soon I will be able to host my own dumb nationalistic press conference.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Zenithe posted:If it's not fit for purpose then it absolutely is, but if you're buying something that is broken and it has been explained many times clearly that it is broken and you still buy it then I doubt that you're entitled to a refund under consumer law. If video game companies want to pretend they're selling the product 'as is' then they need to drop the early access tag. That tag specifically means the opposite of 'this is what you are buying' and it's been a while since I've checked up on Australian consumer law, but I don't think 'lol jk' works as a defense against product descriptions like that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
But I want to be cruel to someone with a medical condition and I find it very important that I morally congratulate myself for doing so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 22:54
|
|