Albanese - how long?

Remove this Banner Ad

Choc Milk said:
Well, higher income earners tend to invest their money. Low income earners go nuts and spend every extra dollar they get.
Look what happened with covid. Everything is a LOT more expensive now and inflation went wild. Jobseeker etc
Click to expand...

You don't tend to generalise much, do you?
 
Kram said:
It's a great idea. It's only $50k to help hard working people get started, plenty of time to bulild more super over a career and a roof over you head is of far more importance now. It's just being switched to a different iife long investment anyway!

If it was a Labor plan the cheerleaders would have zero objections to it, nothing surer other than the sun coming up tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...

Their ultimate aim is to kill super (or at least industry super).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Maggie5 said:
Oh, I was just going to post, doing a 'Bradbury'.:)
Click to expand...

Typical, a couple of champagne socialists discounting and making fun of someone who actually experienced abject poverty.
Mummy working two jobs to avoid the letter of demand from Brighton Grammar is not growing up poor mate.

Anyway it's pointless arguing with you people you are not looking for discussion.
 
Choc Milk said:
Typical, a couple of champagne socialists discounting and making fun of someone who actually experienced abject poverty.
Mummy working two jobs to avoid the letter of demand from Brighton Grammar is not growing up poor mate.

Anyway it's pointless arguing with you people you are not looking for discussion.
Click to expand...
I detest champagne (and white wine), my preference is a good red.

Didn't think you were looking for discussion either.
 
Kram said:
It's a great idea. It's only $50k to help hard working people get started, plenty of time to bulild more super over a career and a roof over you head is of far more importance now. It's just being switched to a different iife long investment anyway!

If it was a Labor plan the cheerleaders would have zero objections to it, nothing surer other than the sun coming up tomorrow morning.
Click to expand...
Agree, this is probably the best of all the policies put forward by both parties, it's a win win. Gives the opportunity for a young person to gain the benefits of owning their own house (giving security in older age) and still contributing to their Supa which with charges taken out won't show any better appreciation than home investment.
 
Brad Goodman said:
Their ultimate aim is to kill super (or at least industry super).
Click to expand...

yup, make it an "opt in" or out under the guise of individual choice.

really of course it's an attack on the state as an agent of collective good as well as diminishing bargaining power/wage costs over time.
 
Magruder said:
yup, make it an "opt in" or out under the guise of individual choice.

really of course it's an attack on the state as an agent of collective good as well as diminishing bargaining power/wage costs over time.
Click to expand...
Why would they want to kill it, they don't pay it, the business owner pays it.
 
JBMAN said:
Why would they want to kill it, they don't pay it, the business owner pays it.
Click to expand...

That's a self-saucing pudding...

They (the Libs) want to kill it because it's a "cost" to business.

To the extent that it exists they want people to have to use it to do stuff that the government should be funding.

They want to make it an opt in or out because that weakens it over time and will eventually result in a further share of profit ending up with capital..
 
JBMAN said:
Agree, this is probably the best of all the policies put forward by both parties, it's a win win. Gives the opportunity for a young person to gain the benefits of owning their own house (giving security in older age) and still contributing to their Supa which with charges taken out won't show any better appreciation than home investment.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone complaining about the $1500 per annum in fees and charges that get taken out each year. That would add up to 40-50k easily.
And guess what, those fees are gone forever. This has to go back in when you sell

This is a good policy!
People treat politics like football teams

Also, who is going to be better off? The person who utilises 50k from super now and gets their own mortgage to pay? Or the person who keeps paying 25-30k rent every year to pay someone elses mortgage for the next 30 years?

Simple answer to this question
 
Last edited:
Choc Milk said:
I don't see anyone complaining about the $1500 per annum in fees and charges that get taken out each year. That would add up to 40-50k easily.
And guess what, those fees are gone forever. This has to go back in when you sell

This is a good policy!
People treat politics like football teams
Click to expand...

it's depletive and ideological.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JBMAN said:
Agree, this is probably the best of all the policies put forward by both parties, it's a win win. Gives the opportunity for a young person to gain the benefits of owning their own house (giving security in older age) and still contributing to their Supa which with charges taken out won't show any better appreciation than home investment.
Click to expand...
As a young person this idea is ****ing stupid.

Libs just want to get my super out of my hands.

Super = Power of capital, and we the people having power like that scares the shit out of every lib/nat in the nation.
 
Stan_Darsh72 said:
As a young person this idea is ******* stupid.

Libs just want to get my super out of my hands.

Super = Power of capital, and we the people having power like that scares the shit out of every lib/nat in the nation.
Click to expand...
OK mate,

Pay 30k rent for the next 30 years and tell me about your capital being removed from your hands.

Honest advice, don't get caught up in the politics. Use your head and do some calculations.

In fact, by keeping you renting, you are lining the pockets of "boomers"
 
The housing policy is bollocks, and if the ALP came up with something like this the LNP wouldn't hesitate to go after it.

It'll increase demand for housing, inflating prices and thus making the subsequent crash even worse.

It also assumes that younger people will be easily able to make back that super, which in an increasingly casualised, post-employment environment is a pretty heroic assumption.

RE its political effects, it would sway some voters if ScoMo was perceived as credible. Unfortunately, young people tend to heavily dislike him and its timing makes it look like a political stunt rather than actual, heartfelt policy, so I'm dubious.
 
Choc Milk said:
Anyone who is against this policy for a "younger person" is either financially illiterate, or acting in bad faith along political lines
Click to expand...

Fine. Let’s just say that “younger“ person is 30 and has a super balance of $100k. Pretty small number of people to be honest But let’s assume this coz it keeps the numbers simple. Let’s even assume they’re a couple with $100k each.

They withdraw $40k each, so $80k.

Lets see how well they compete for the very same entry level properties against the newly incentivised down sizers With seven figures in their back pocket from the sale of their family home in middling suburb. (And who have to spend most of the proceeds to avoid penalty)

Even if they do outbid them, they are over leveraged with their super savings depleted.

it does nothing to address supply just increases demand for 2-3 bedroom entry level properties in relatively desirable locations.

they ain’t buying the the downsizers family homes.

Anyone supporting the policy doesn’t understand the market.
 
Stan_Darsh72 said:
As a young person this idea is ******* stupid.

Libs just want to get my super out of my hands.

Super = Power of capital, and we the people having power like that scares the shit out of every lib/nat in the nation.
Click to expand...
You make the decision to do it or not. Not up to the government don't see your concern.
 
DaRick said:
The housing policy is bollocks, and if the ALP came up with something like this the LNP wouldn't hesitate to go after it.

It'll increase demand for housing, inflating prices and thus making the subsequent crash even worse.

It also assumes that younger people will be easily able to make back that super, which in an increasingly casualised, post-employment environment is a pretty heroic assumption.

RE its political effects, it would sway some voters if ScoMo was perceived as credible. Unfortunately, young people tend to heavily dislike him and its timing makes it look like a political stunt rather than actual, heartfelt policy, so I'm dubious.
Click to expand...

Unlike Labor’s policy to allow people who can only afford a 450,000 house to now be in the market for a 750,000 house, that won’t inflate prices at all!!!

Only thing keeping me out of the market is the deposit, this and the Liberals 5% deposit are far better than the government owning 40% of your home so you can buy a bigger house than you need.
 
Choc Milk said:
I don't see anyone complaining about the $1500 per annum in fees and charges that get taken out each year. That would add up to 40-50k easily.
And guess what, those fees are gone forever. This has to go back in when you sell

This is a good policy!
People treat politics like football teams

Also, who is going to be better off? The person who utilises 50k from super now and gets their own mortgage to pay? Or the person who keeps paying 25-30k rent every year to pay someone elses mortgage for the next 30 years?

Simple answer to this question
Click to expand...
It's so obviously a great idea, no one is compelled to do it, their own choice to do or not. If I were a young man again, I would be looking at doing it for sure, but each to his own.
 
Magruder said:
That's a self-saucing pudding...

They (the Libs) want to kill it because it's a "cost" to business.

To the extent that it exists they want people to have to use it to do stuff that the government should be funding.

They want to make it an opt in or out because that weakens it over time and will eventually result in a further share of profit ending up with capital..
Click to expand...
The business is still paying the supa contribution, that doesn't change, it just gives the person the right to use some of these funds to get into a house.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Albanese - how long?

Similar threads

M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3 4 5
Replies
124
Views
6K
peetoo
peetoo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top