You just elaborated on my point. Newscorp and Libs have made social progression politically untenable.
It's sick.
-
LIVE: GWS Giants v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Lions at 65% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
It's sick.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #7,602
It's absolutely on Albo and the rest of the Federal Labor party
They are in power
they are choosing not to do anything, and they are pretending they never wanted to do anything either
or perhaps actually never wanted to do anything and are now being honest about that
Labor have no spine, none at all, they have no passion for improving the lives of people and almost their entire time in Government has shown this again and again
They have burned up all their political capital fighting against doing the right thing again and again while their supporters blame everyone bar the elected government for its own actions
Blame the Libs and newscorp for brain washing this country into believing anything that isn't in line with the far right ideology is bad.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #7,604
Labor enacted white australia policy
lets not pretend racism in this country is a modern Murdoch invention
this is also decades of policy from both major parties coming home to roost
they've been telling people since the 80s to look after themselves and destroying the idea of community because neoliberalism works better that way
demonsing welfare recipients has been a bipartisan program
creating the idea that for someone to get something other people have to lose something
Labor are reaping what they sowed here and honestly I don't think they're particularly bothered as long as they get re elected
some members of the party will be bothered but not enough and they're not going to do anything about it so it doesn't really matter
If they won't do this because there aren't votes in it then they're not interested in doing the right thing anyway
PTI.
No one is going to buy a fez for a million and insure it for 200g's. It's totally impractical thinking.
Even billionaires buy insurance policies.
For starters, insuring such an item is going to attract an eye watering premium. So they're going to expect, and rightly so, that their item is insured for what it's worth.
We are blessed to live liberally, if you can afford it, you can buy it and afford to have it insured fairly. Making insurance more expensive for rich bastards just coz they're rich bastards has tones of socialism about it.
God why can't you get your head around this?
You cap the liablity.
The owner then pays their own insurance for anything above the cap.
I didn't for one minute suggest not insuring the expensive cars.
My suggestion was, you want to drive it, you pay for any damage.
Yep by getting insurance.
Your beef should be directed at corporate greed, not person who can afford to buy flash car.
If you propose to have rich person pay for the damage out of pocket instead of the insurance covering the damage, no one (or only ridiculously rich people, which is certainly minuscule in minority) is going to buy flash car.
Doesn't sound liberal to me, freedom of choice to buy or do what you want if you can afford it, is by definition -liberal-. We're lucky to live in a country that allows yourself and your fellow citizen to have that freedom of choice.
If you want to enforce that rich person pays more (which they do anyway) just coz they're rich sounds like you wanna punish them just coz they're well off.
You don't get it.
I don't know what it is about you that stops you getting it, just that you don't.
If someone came up with a 2 Billion dollar car and started driving it around Melbourne. All the insurance companies would take it into account that there was a risk of regular mum and dad drivers causing 2 Billion dollars damage.
They don't gamble.
They would up everyone's premium. Not because of greed. To cover their potential losses.
IF the rich guy can find an insurance company stupid enough to insure him, they would cover his loss even if he was hit by a stray Israeli missile.
IF you are a criminal and you break and enter, you probably get fined $5000
You're saying that if you make a misjudgement or get distracted while driving , being in debt for life is OK.
I'm saying that its inappropriate that incredibly expensive vehicles be driven on the road, and as such, the liability for a third party should be capped.
I didn't suggest that the third party should not carry ANY liability. I said it should be capped at a reasonable level.
What about insurance coverage for damage caused to other types of property? Should someone in a $1m+ house have to take out extra coverage in case some dropkick slams into their house (as seemed to happen every other week when I was living in Perth)?
The cutoff for insurance payout is 200k under his plan, so you're out of pocket if the damage to your home is above that.
Precisely the point I was making, how would that be equitable? You'd essentially be putting all of the burden of insurance costs for houses onto the homeowner, even if it's caused by someone driving a car.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #7,613
either we've got a lot of rich people on here or a lot of people that think they're going to be rich one day
SaintsSeptember is actually proposing a more progressive insurance model
SaintsSeptember is actually proposing a more progressive insurance model
Oh I get, you want rich people to make gap payments coz they're rich so it reduces everyone elses premiums and everyone else does't make gap payments.
Yes insurance companies do that, it's called corporate greed.
Never said that, however you've just proved why insurance is necessary.
You've alluded that people who can afford a fez make out of pocket gap payments and everyone else doesn't have to, they're fully insured.
So what numerical amount of wealth decides this arbitery out of pocket gap expense? Who decides this? The government?
Has socialism tones about it.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 32,843
- 51,072
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Not socialism?
- Sep 17, 2019
- 24,021
- 37,477
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Moderator
- #7,616
Out of interest.... what year is your Hyundai?
You credit them with far too much influence, people are making decisions based on their interests, it isn't newscorp or the libs that are making people worried first and foremost about the cost of living. Same as the voice failure wasn't newscorps fault, it was a combination of economic circumstance, a terribly designed and led yes campaign and Dutton/newscorp.
On SM-A125F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Yep.
The government.
Insurance companies cover their losses always have. Its not "greedy" to make sure your liabilities are covered.
I think you'll find the gambling companies also aren't gambling.
By your argument you could say that any profit driven companies are greedy, and they owe it to their customers to go bust so their customers can save some cash.
Surely Albo isn't that boring that his thread has to have pages full of car insurance talk.
BTW what does the great man drive.
BTW what does the great man drive.
He gets chauffeured in a 7 series BMW worth more than $200,000!
What car does Anthony Albanese drive?
Ever wondered what the Australian Prime Minster drives? We have all the details on Albo's ride...
This actually places the man a couple of notches higher imo
RedStarUncle
Senior List
Capitalism = if you drive a car, you're liable if you damage to other cars. Therefore you need insurance, and the cost of your insurance will depend on the value of all the cars. If you can't afford the insurance, best you don't drive.
Liberal socialism = if you drive a car, you're liable if you damage other cars. But your liability is capped based on your own capacity to pay. Owners of cars with values exceeding the cap will need their own extra insurance against cost of damage above the cap.
Authoritarian socialism = if you drive a car, you're liable if you damage other cars. Therefore there should be no cars allowed that cause insurance costs to rise. Luxury cars are banned.
Or at least... something like that... next topic?
Liberal socialism = if you drive a car, you're liable if you damage other cars. But your liability is capped based on your own capacity to pay. Owners of cars with values exceeding the cap will need their own extra insurance against cost of damage above the cap.
Authoritarian socialism = if you drive a car, you're liable if you damage other cars. Therefore there should be no cars allowed that cause insurance costs to rise. Luxury cars are banned.
Or at least... something like that... next topic?
- Sep 16, 2006
- 36,148
- 35,984
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Considering what's happening in the UK right now with the racist rioting, not unexpected.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 32,843
- 51,072
- AFL Club
- West Coast
It's cute that Australia acts likes its prime ministers are assassination targets like leaders of countries that matter.
What car does Anthony Albanese drive?
Ever wondered what the Australian Prime Minster drives? We have all the details on Albo's ride...www.drive.com.au
This actually places the man a couple of notches higher imo
