Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dogs_R_Us said:
The vast majority of people are not super wealthy and have worked for their assets, often until late in life. The valuation of where their home happens to be is not within their control. The trouble with these so-called "fair" ideas is that they are never thought through and there are always unintended consequences. And one bad idea is never enough.
Click to expand...
There's no justification for people with millions in assets getting welfare. Welfare is a social safety net, not an entitlement.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Taylor said:
"But people have paid tax all their lives"
Click to expand...
It's hilarious right? It's as though they think they never got anything from paying those taxes and it was put in some trust account for their future use. The schools that educated their kids, the roads they drove on, the armies and police that defended their safety, all that was paid for by magic.
 
Square Peg said:
It's hilarious right? It's as though they think they never got anything from paying those taxes and it was put in some trust account for their future use. The schools that educated their kids, the roads they drove on, the armies and police that defended their safety, all that was paid for by magic.
Click to expand...

And almost everyone hasn't contributed more during their working lives than they've taken out.

I know how people react when presented with the reality that they haven't made a contribution above the cost of providing the lifestyle they enjoy, people tend to get offended and feel attacked like their efforts have been entirely without value which of course isn't the point.

And we do need to provide for those in need, that's a fundamental value of our society.

But I prefer models that treat everyone the same on delivery, like emergency room care, over those where you are stripped bare to see if you qualify for help, like centrelink.
 
Square Peg said:
The family home is exempt from the assets test. You can live in a $10 million palace, have no other assets, and get the full pension
Furthermore, any financial planner will tell you the extent retirees go to in order to receive even a few dollars part pension, since once you get any amount you get the health care card. The few dollars is irrelevant, it's the large subsidies the card provides that they're chasing
Click to expand...
I share an office with 2 financial planners and they don't have one client that is a multimillionaire and structured their affairs to get the full pension for the reason I outlined previously regarding the income test.

I do, however acknowledge that in parts of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane some retirees by default have been fortunate and ridden the property market up and retained a part pension.

In light of the huge government debt we all need to now pay off I would suggest a simple solution would be to include the excess over and above a threshold of say $1.5m (?) of their family home in the assets and income test for age pension. This would cut this situation out completely.

Also acknowledge the sense of entitlement from retirees to some of the taxes back they have paid over their lifetime regardlesss of their wealth accumulated is not something I support.

The sense of entitlement to taxpayer dollars is not just limited to some babyboomers. Centrelink benefits received by the long term unemployed also needs to be reviewed.
 
Kram said:
Will never ever happen of course as it's political poison but when physical asset rich people claim the pension from the tax payer there really should be an inheritance tax to recoup the cost of it.

I mean it's also funny, someone out in the country retires in a $150k home but has a few hundred grand in liquid assets and their pension gets cut right back. But live in a 2 million dollar home in Perth with no liquid assets and they get the whole lot.
Click to expand...
We do have a death tax that is not insignificant.

As people are now dying with large amounts still in superannuation their is a death tax on the taxable component of lump sum payouts to non dependants of the deceased.

Non dependants include surviving adult children of the deceased.

Superannuation benefits are continuing to grow at at rapid pace as the government quite rightfully provides the financial carrots for people to self fund their retiements. This death tax will continue to grow as well.
 
Kram said:
Will never ever happen of course as it's political poison but when physical asset rich people claim the pension from the tax payer there really should be an inheritance tax to recoup the cost of it.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be easier to just include the value of their property in the assets test for pensions?
 
Purple_Turtle said:
Wouldn't it be easier to just include the value of their property in the assets test for pensions?
Click to expand...

That leads to people being required to sell their homes, move out of their neighborhoods, to get the money to pay the bills. That is very easy to oppose politically.

If there is cheap housing available anywhere, why should the government pay for anything when you can sell your home and survive for a short while off the proceeds?

That's not going to lead to positive social outcomes.
 
Taylor said:
That leads to people being required to sell their homes, move out of their neighborhoods, to get the money to pay the bills. That is very easy to oppose politically.
Click to expand...
Not as easy as opposing the state swooping in to take the wealth you've accumulated through a lifetime of hard work and prudent financial planning before you can pas it onto your loved ones.

Cheap housing is a good point though, and I seriously believe governments need to prioritise increasing the supply of housing. It's one of the most vital domestic issues right now.
 
Purple_Turtle said:
Not as easy as opposing the state swooping in to take the wealth you've accumulated through a lifetime of hard work and prudent financial planning before you can pas it onto your loved ones.

Cheap housing is a good point though, and I seriously believe governments need to prioritise increasing the supply of housing. It's one of the most vital domestic issues right now.
Click to expand...
I'm still struggling to understand how we haven't overcome the housing shortage in WA yet. To say it's a priority is an understatement.

Including part of the family home over a certain threshold in the asset/incomes test will be a hard sell politically but it is time for rich retirees still getting some pension to give it up.
 
Imagine a future where the government has built bulk housing in closed communities full of services specifically for pensioners. You sell your existing home and move into their place, you pay no rent, you get paid a pension, all the services are free for you.

Then when you pass the assets you had are garnished to pay for that, whatever is left is passed onto your estate.

Now let's discuss the real problem which is people in their elder years who don't have assets to their name. The people there aren't the problem, at all. The choices they've made contribute, for sure, but the social expectation is that you will be looked after - so why not burn your cash?

You might also have people who are divorced, addicts, unwell. It's complicated.

If that pensioner village doesn't discriminate on who gets in to live free and be paid to be there then it all works out.
 
BanjoRules said:
I'm still struggling to understand how we haven't overcome the housing shortage in WA yet. To say it's a priority is an understatement.
Click to expand...

Getting activists and politicians to recognise the issue as supply is an issue. See the Greens recently pushing for a rent freeze and cap, despite the fact rent control is one of the few policies economists universally would call stupid.



In the long term rent control just sees the quality and quantity of housing decrease as investors and landlords lose the ability to profit from providing housing or adding value to properties they rent out, but for some reason debates about housing costs tend to be sidetracked bringing this stupid idea back up again.

Nimbyism is also a big part of it. In principle higher density and other cuts to regulations to allow for more housing to be built is attractive, but voters don't tend to want that higher density being built in their own neighborhoods. So even if the state government want to fight for more housing to be built you'd be fighting a number of local governments, activists and other community groups to provide it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rent control is a great idea in a market with interest rates going up.

Oh, not for existing owners or renters. For people who have plenty of money to buy up the houses of landlords going under, people like investment property firms who then have the leverage to have the politicians change it back.

They say wealth is made in the down times, this is how. Use the power of the machine to make people think they are getting a win, push out the people who previously were the landlords by demonising them as greedy rich people - have them replaced by actual rich people and then once the little period is over rent goes straight back up and they own all the property.

They work very hard to keep us all thinking we are different from each other, heaven forbid we ever realise we have far more in common with each other against the real enemy.
 
Dogs_R_Us said:
A million-dollar home is pretty average these days.
Click to expand...
Just made me think about it, home prices and the way they've shot up.
Taking Surrey Hills for example in NSW, up until the end of WW2 (actually right up until the 1980's) it was a low-class, cheap, vice-ridden neighbourhood for poor folks who couldn't afford anything else. Immigrants, mostly, or returned soldiers and their families. I remember reading "The Harp in the South" when I were a lad, seems like it was a horrific place to live.
Of course of you owned one of those row houses now, you'd be sitting on a couple million bucks worth of real estate.

A lot of it comes down to cultural change.
Back then, you bought a home and that's where your entire family grew up. Now, people buy houses that they live in for a couple of years and hope the value has increased a hundred grand or so in that time. It's the investment value and continual spruiking of real estate values these days which drives values, more than anything else... the investment value outweighs a home's cultural value. Half the reason many can't afford a home anymore.

I could throw in the Americanisation of European traditional values there. Probably sound like some old fart whining about the good old days though.
I think the "Great Australian Dream" is misunderstood in modern times. It wasn't about simply "owning a house". It was about owning a home.

At risk of being accused of wordplay, there's a distinction there that goes soaring over the heads of too many.
 
Last edited:
Episode IV said:
Just made me think about it, home prices and the way they've shot up.
Taking Surrey Hills for example in NSW, up until the end of WW2 (actually right up until the 1980's) it was a low-class, cheap, vice-ridden neighbourhood for poor folks who couldn't afford anything else. Immigrants, mostly, or returned soldiers and their families. I remember reading "The Harp in the South" when I were a lad, seems like it was a horrific place to live.
Of course of you owned one of those row houses now, you'd be sitting on a couple million bucks worth of real estate.

A lot of it comes down to cultural change.
Back then, you bought a home and that's where your entire family grew up. Now, people buy houses that they live in for a couple of years and hope the value has increased a hundred grand or so in that time. It's the investment value and continual spruiking of real estate values these days which drives values, more than anything else... the investment value outweighs a home's cultural value. Half the reason many can't afford a home anymore.

I could throw in the Americanisation of European traditional values there. Probably sound like some old fart whining about the good old days though.
I think the "Great Australian Dream" is misunderstood in modern times. It wasn't about simply "owning a house". It was about owning a home.

At risk of being accused of wordplay, there's a distinction there that goes soaring over the heads of too many.
Click to expand...
Maybe something that needs to be considered is how long the home has been owned for by the individual/family. My folks inherited their block in Bicton in '71. Needless to say the value has gone up somewhat.
 
From bashing of Dai Le, Men's Sheds and the referring to conservative indigenous as 'coconuts' the mask comes right off some when it comes to non-white people and the downtrodden and disadvantaged when they don't subscribe to the progressive ideology.

One of this site's biggest culprits is a moderator.

Do better.
 
Purple_Turtle said:
Amazing how out of touch social media is.

A resounding majority of Australians want to retain the Monarchy rather than become a Republic - Roy Morgan Research

www.roymorgan.com www.roymorgan.com
Click to expand...

Brilliant haha

From my experience, social media is (mostly) just a bunch of boomers clicking and sharing centrist/right wing, pro-monarch, sky news-esque propaganda. Especially Facebook. Though that poll was SMS based, which is probably even more boomer-centric, as most young people I know don't really use SMS traditonally - it's all whatsapp/FB messenger etc. for the younger mofos

I'm surprised I've not seen more Minion based memes about Lizzy
 
im_a_lazy_sod said:
Brilliant haha

From my experience, social media is (mostly) just a bunch of boomers clicking and sharing centrist/right wing, pro-monarch, sky news-esque propaganda. Especially Facebook. Though that poll was SMS based, which is probably even more boomer-centric, as most young people I know don't really use SMS traditonally - it's all whatsapp/FB messenger etc. for the younger mofos

I'm surprised I've not seen more Minion based memes about Lizzy
Click to expand...

It's a 52-48 split for the under 35s. Obviously not as commanding a lead for the monarchists as the 60-40 overall or the 67% of the 50-64 age group, but we're not dumping Charles anytime soon.
 
im_a_lazy_sod said:
Brilliant haha

From my experience, social media is (mostly) just a bunch of boomers clicking and sharing centrist/right wing, pro-monarch, sky news-esque propaganda. Especially Facebook. Though that poll was SMS based, which is probably even more boomer-centric, as most young people I know don't really use SMS traditonally - it's all whatsapp/FB messenger etc. for the younger mofos

I'm surprised I've not seen more Minion based memes about Lizzy
Click to expand...
You have to remember that most people will view the American experience as a frame of reference for the possible consequences of a republic, or at least a warning.
It's pretty clear that most people are more in favour of stability than radical change pursuing an elusive ideal. That article states as much, if you'd read it.
That has little to do with age, although I'd say the young would be more prepared to roll the dice (I might add somewhat tongue in cheek here that half of them seem to think they're American anyway, going by the fascination they have with the place)

Also, WhatsApp et al is social media. And an SMS poll is not boomer centric, it's generally messages to random numbers - you can't pick and choose your age group on that basis. Although again, I'd agree that the young ones would be less likely to actually to respond to such a poll.
I've convinced my parents (and a fair few other people ) Never to respond to SMS's from anyone they don't know. They wouldn't have responded either.
 
Kram said:
Becoming a republic is such a non issue, I mean is it really worth the effort? I'd have thought that the country would have hundreds of more pressing issues..
Click to expand...
Exactly. Why bother? It's not 1975 any more.
We had Whitlam, then Fraser. American had Ford, then Carter.

Now, we had Morrison and America had Trump. That's the evolutionary path to this point.
Lot of people going to be thinking about that and wondering if a republic is really all that great, in an era of populist politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top