Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[Carn The Berries]

CW Bank would have just assumed like all their ilk raising prices/fees would just go through unchallenged

Their CEO seems genuinely shocked at the reaction

Classic spin on display yesterday. According to the bank their only mistake were how the changes were communicated and that they need to do a better job of that.

Do they really think people buy this BS?

 

[The Punter]

Not answering a question from a reporter because of who they work for is on Page 1 of the Donald Trump political playbook.

 

[Saint]

Not answering a question from a reporter because of who they work for is on Page 1 of the Donald Trump political playbook.

Andrews answered thousands of ridiculous questions, which was highlighted more during the Pandemic. You can answer a question while still saying f-off.

In the end, more people trusted Andrews than the Herald Sun, which is a drastic turnaround from 50 years ago.

Albanese needs to learn this, or he will lose, kowtowing to people he will never win over anyway.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Not answering a question from a reporter because of who they work for is on Page 1 of the Donald Trump political playbook.

And yet it's highly effective.

 

[The Punter]

Andrews answered thousands of ridiculous questions, which was highlighted more during the Pandemic. You can answer a question while still saying f-off.

In the end, more people trusted Andrews than the Herald Sun, which is a drastic turnaround from 50 years ago.

Albanese needs to learn this, or he will lose, kowtowing to people he will never win over anyway.

No, Andrews responded to questions. That is, the reporter talked then Andrews did. Andrews was world class in not answering questions.

 

[Gavin Excell]

The hysterical reaction by the HS to Andrews even in retirement is the payback and a warning shot to others on how you will be treated

 

[Gough]

With all this discussion about about the Government's future I'm reminded of this from the time of the Turnbull/Morrison stoush.

Turnbull was warned Rupert Murdoch was trying to remove him as prime minister

Malcolm Turnbull understood to have received call from billionaire Kerry Stokes saying News Corp was looking for leadership change

www.theguardian.com

The Australian Financial Review and the ABC have also reported that Murdoch had told Stokes, chairman of the Seven Network, that Turnbull needed to be replaced as prime minister.

Stokes is said to have replied that the likely result of such a campaign would be to deliver government to Labor and Bill Shorten.

Murdoch, according to both reports, brushed aside Stokes’s concerns, saying Labor would only be in office for three years.

Albanese has been a disappointment to many including myself but we've seen his Government scrutinised in a way that Coalition one's never are.

 

[peetoo]

Let’s not act like Boomers didn’t get super.

Superannuation guarantee was introduced in 1992. Even the earliest Boomers (1946) would have still had 20 years of contributions at typically peak earning capacity years. The latest Boomers (1964) would have had it for practically their entire working lives.

10% super.? Barely 2 decades out of a working life. Nothing compared to a full 4 decades will bring with compounding
As you point out genx have quietly profited both ways, and are grinning while boomers and later generations are drawn into some kind of media stoush

9% 2001. 10% 2021. Someone retiring at 67 in 2024 will have had 23years. Not insignificant but half the 50 years they worked.
In any case a person starting work today will average over 7 figures in super on retirement after 40-50 years, home owner or not. It’s not a couple of thousand dollars as the poster mentioned quote ‘for doing nothing’

 

[zumahawk]

With all this discussion about about the Government's future I'm reminded of this from the time of the Turnbull/Morrison stoush.

Turnbull was warned Rupert Murdoch was trying to remove him as prime minister

Malcolm Turnbull understood to have received call from billionaire Kerry Stokes saying News Corp was looking for leadership change

www.theguardian.com

Albanese has been a disappointment to many including myself but we've seen his Government scrutinised in a way that Coalition one's never are.

Every PM seems to be disappointment to most. It's just the nature of the beast. People complaining about Albo will get a reality check when/if Dutton is elected.

 

[Rob R]

Andrews answered thousands of ridiculous questions, which was highlighted more during the Pandemic. You can answer a question while still saying f-off.

In the end, more people trusted Andrews than the Herald Sun, which is a drastic turnaround from 50 years ago.

Albanese needs to learn this, or he will lose, kowtowing to people he will never win over anyway.

Andrews was helped a lot by the stupid liberal response to COVID and the lack of an empowered IBAC. A half decent opposition would have destroyed Andrews given his incompetence and dishonesty. Instead Liberal cooker comments made the story about them whilst Amdrews got away with saying I am in charge but don't know anything and didn't make the bad decisions.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[peetoo]

With all this discussion about about the Government's future I'm reminded of this from the time of the Turnbull/Morrison stoush.

Turnbull was warned Rupert Murdoch was trying to remove him as prime minister

Malcolm Turnbull understood to have received call from billionaire Kerry Stokes saying News Corp was looking for leadership change

www.theguardian.com

Albanese has been a disappointment to many including myself but we've seen his Government scrutinised in a way that Coalition one's never are.

Wikileaks confirmed all the un democratic stuff which goes on

 

[HirdsTheWord]

10% super.? Barely 2 decades out of a working life. Nothing compared to a full 4 decades will bring with compounding
As you point out genx have quietly profited both ways, and are grinning while boomers and later generations are drawn into some kind of media stoush

swings and round abouts to a degree.

Boomers didn't get the full benefit of things like super sure, but they got a massive benefit from things like massive equity in housing which they got cheap as **** relative to their incomes at the time. Not to mention smaller mortgages taking less time to pay off again relative to income.

I know which one I'd rather have - and it aint super.

 

[Gavin Excell]

Let’s not act like Boomers didn’t get super.

Superannuation guarantee was introduced in 1992. Even the earliest Boomers (1946) would have still had 20 years of contributions at typically peak earning capacity years. The latest Boomers (1964) would have had it for practically their entire working lives.

While this is true, it's fair to say that there would have been a fair chunk of the population in 1992 and the years that followed that would have viewed super with some caution and not invested in it in the way people do today. Was only 3% too from memory when introduced

 

[Gavin Excell]

swings and round abouts to a degree.

Boomers didn't get the full benefit of things like super sure, but they got a massive benefit from things like massive equity in housing which they got cheap as **** relative to their incomes at the time. Not to mention smaller mortgages taking less time to pay off again relative to income.

I know which one I'd rather have - and it aint super.

Those fortunate enough also to get in on the now closed defined benefit schemes were in the sweet spot

 

[peetoo]

swings and round abouts to a degree.

Boomers didn't get the full benefit of things like super sure, but they got a massive benefit from things like massive equity in housing which they got cheap as **** relative to their incomes at the time. Not to mention smaller mortgages taking less time to pay off again relative to income.

I know which one I'd rather have - and it aint super.

I respect your choice. But it is incorrect to say people starting work today will retire with a ‘couple of thousand’ in savings

When we are talking ‘life wealth’ I think all aspects should be discussed

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Their actual plan would reduce costs in the short term, they'll burn more coal, and it'll become more expensive in the medium and long term when renewables are even cheaper in generation per KW, but the Libs will have signed up to some god-awful 20-year deal with coal and gas generators.

The key way in which the government can tackle cost of living is to lower inflation, which they can do by lowering government spending.

They are doing the exact opposite, pouring petrol on the inflation fire by spending so much. They are hugely contributing to inflation and have the gall to say they’re tackling it.

They are making it worse, they know this. Typical modern politics - say one thing, knowingly do the exact opposite.

Because they want to spend in stupid little sugar hits, as they have no goal except to win the next election.

The government gave the RBA no choice but to hike rates, and give them no ability to cut them now.

But it works for them because people don’t blame the government for high interest rates.

Look at this absurd handout to power companies as a “credit” on everybody’s bill. Keeps inflation burning with taxpayer money, which is paid for with high interest rates.

Albanese is, of course, a complete fraud.

 

[Saint]

The key way in which the government can tackle cost of living is to lower inflation, which they can do by lowering government spending.

They are doing the exact opposite, pouring petrol on the inflation fire by spending so much. They are hugely contributing to inflation and have the gall to say they’re tackling it.

They are making it worse, they know this. Typical modern politics - say one thing, knowingly do the exact opposite.

Because they want to spend in stupid little sugar hits, as they have no goal except to win the next election.

The government gave the RBA no choice but to hike rates, and give them no ability to cut them now.

But it works for them because people don’t blame the government for high interest rates.

Look at this absurd handout to power companies as a “credit” on everybody’s bill. Keeps inflation burning with taxpayer money, which is paid for with high interest rates.

Albanese is, of course, a complete fraud.

You do realise that if people could afford their own power bills, that would also be inflationary?

It's only inflationary if it increases discretionary spending. Which it's only doing in the top 20% of households. I agree, it should be more means-tested.

But 80% of people need support. Taking money away from the top 20% (by taxing them more) and re-allocating it to the lower and middle income earners (by taxing them less) who are suffering because of interest rates would have no net-effect on inflation.
Taxing profits more reduces inflation.

 

[Rotayjay]

Let’s not blame a particular generation though. There’s plenty doing it tough at all ages

Also most people entering workforce today will accrue 10% super levy all their working lives. Even at average wages that will be more than a few thousand at retirement.

Boomers didn’t get that

It's not about blame, but rather recognising that property prices rising much faster than wages is unsustainable.

 

[Rotayjay]

The hysterical reaction by the HS to Andrews even in retirement is the payback and a warning shot to others on how you will be treated

Daniel Andrews is a legend who saved lives. Rupert Murdoch is a semen stain on humanity.

 

[Sttew]

The key way in which the government can tackle cost of living is to lower inflation, which they can do by lowering government spending.

If we lower Government spending then we officially are in Recession. It is only population growth through immigration (>500,000 in past 12 months) + high government spending that is masking the true state of the economy

 

[Sttew]

Daniel Andrews is a legend who saved lives.

Not the forum to discuss Andrews, but what lives did he save?

 

[peetoo]

The key way in which the government can tackle cost of living is to lower inflation, which they can do by lowering government spending.

They are doing the exact opposite, pouring petrol on the inflation fire by spending so much. They are hugely contributing to inflation and have the gall to say they’re tackling it.

They are making it worse, they know this. Typical modern politics - say one thing, knowingly do the exact opposite.

Because they want to spend in stupid little sugar hits, as they have no goal except to win the next election.

The government gave the RBA no choice but to hike rates, and give them no ability to cut them now.

But it works for them because people don’t blame the government for high interest rates.

Look at this absurd handout to power companies as a “credit” on everybody’s bill. Keeps inflation burning with taxpayer money, which is paid for with high interest rates.

Albanese is, of course, a complete fraud.

So

Govt needs to help with col

Govt does x y z

But govt is contributing to inflation doing that?

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

No, Andrews responded to questions. That is, the reporter talked then Andrews did. Andrews was world class in not answering questions.

And it pissed them off.

To the point media outlets became unhinged.

Either way he showed the path to take to deal with unfriendly media.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

I respect your choice. But it is incorrect to say people starting work today will retire with a ‘couple of thousand’ in savings

When we are talking ‘life wealth’ I think all aspects should be discussed

I'm not sure i said that.

I'm simply saying that boomers got a pretty sweet deal in hindsight. The fact they didn't get the full super allotment is pretty irrelevant to the equity gains they got, that others dont have as easier access to now.

I'd rather buy a house for 2.5 my salary even at 15% iterest rates, with no super, than buy a comparative house one now at 16x my salary but get super.

Many boomers forget that Super is still taxed. When they downsize their PPR and pocket the million(s) which they bought for 20k and not have to pay tax on it that PPR sale, i think you'll find they are far ahead.

if you took a poll right now, i guarantee you 99% of people will take the boomers situation.

 

[Vindicater]

While this is true, it's fair to say that there would have been a fair chunk of the population in 1992 and the years that followed that would have viewed super with some caution and not invested in it in the way people do today. Was only 3% too from memory when introduced

My parents invested 50% of my dad's income. They were the smart ones. Not sure if that was a particular scheme as he was in the army but right now they are going on yearly Europe trips and their balance is still going up.