What's on your mind?

[RelentlessOblivion]

After 20 years I can honestly say I’m so disgusted by the behaviour of my foL team’s supporters that I refuse to follow that side anymore. In fact fuck the entire AFL for not taking racism, and crowd aggression seriously.mer AFO

[Dead1]

Only in Australia would the government publish a report that it's own immigration program will increase housing unaffordability and massively expand homelessness,

And only in Australia would such a report be ignored by the mainstream media.

 

By 2028 Australia has a shortfall of 124,100 dwellings.  With an average occupancy of 2.6, that's 322,660 additional homeless!

https://www.nhfic.gov.au/research/state-nations-housing-report-2022-23

Oh and government has no solution to this - they want to build about 30,000 houses in the same period (taken into account into numbers).

 

But the truth is public housing is disappearing in Australia - in 1950s it was 15% of all housing stock, now it's 4.6% (compare to 20% Denmark, 50% UK at its peak and 46% low rent housing in France).

Australia is increasingly a shit stain of country that is diving headlong into the third world.

 

[AlSymerz]

23 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

And only in Australia would such a report be ignored by the mainstream media.

 

Don't know which mainstream media you claim is ignoring it, I saw the report last week on three different TV channels, I saw it in several newspapers including the local rag and it's been on the radio.

The report not only shows a short fall in public housing it shows a short fall in housing in general. Something like 14 large housing companies have gone to the wall, several more are slated to head the same way within 12 months. Small building firms are struggling and all residential dwellings are falling in numbers. Demand for housing of all kinds is massively outstripping supply. Costs are sky rocketing for every part of the construction, and while I never agreed that the government should have subsidised the building industry like they did, those same companies are struggling to stay afloat because in many cases their fixed priced contracts, contracts the consumer demanded were in place, are no longer viable. Building costs have gone up between 30% and 50%, variable to different aspects of each dwelling, and much of those costs have to be bore by the builder because the client, be it private or in the case of community housing, the government, wont pay the difference.

This isn't a 'government issue', this is an issue that is being suffered in various ways throughout the entire world.

23 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

Australia is increasingly a shit stain of country that is diving headlong into the third world.

You could always fuck off and move to whatever part of the world you think of as Utopia.

[Dead1]

1 hour ago, AlSymerz said:

 

This isn't a 'government issue', this is an issue that is being suffered in various ways throughout the entire world.

You could always fuck off and move to whatever part of the world you think of as Utopia.

It's a government issue because the government increasingly withdrew from public housing and privatised a huge percentage of the public housing stock and at the same time stopped building public housing.  

Government made the laws that turned property into speculative investments (capital gains, negative gearing) or allowed foreign ownership (which increases demand).

It's government that removed tariffs to enable Australia to import cheap foreign building supplies instead of sustaining our own industries and creating a sustainable and resilient supply base.

It's also a government issue because immigration is actually driving the massive demand.  Government has removed caps on "temporary" immigration and jacked up the permanent rate by 22%.  There is currently 1.7 million "temporary" migrants in Australia - 680k are New Zealanders, rest are mainly international "students" and temporary labour.  That's 7% of the population.

I say "temporary" because most aren't really temporary.  I also say "students" because most aren't really studying anything of note and are now allowed to work full time hours leaving precious little time for study.  They're actually second class citizens as they're often not eligible for government assistance or Medicare that Australian permanent citizens/residents are entitled to.

Australia's net population growth last year was 419,500 people of which 303,700 was immigrants.  That number is set to increase over next few years to nearly half a million per annum.  In fact it will probably skyrocket more given some of the statements made by members of the Migration Review Board and the Minister for Home Affairs, Claire O'Neil.

It's simple supply and demand - import more people and you need more houses!  

 

So how is it not a government issue?  Unless you're a free market liberal market capitalist in which case you would probably be opposed to any farming or industry subsidies and tax rebates.

 

As for MSM, I did not see it reported in any meaningful way in ABC or the Guardian.  It was a major release yet it was largely understated and the immigration component largely ignored.

 

There are no utopias but things were better here in the past.  We're destroying our kids future.  The opportunities I had as a poor kid with unemployed parents don't exist anymore - we had a decent public house, the pension and unemployment benefits could still assure a decent standard of living, healthcare was much cheaper, university still accessible (accommodation is a killer here) etc etc.  All of this is increasingly gone.  Little wonder drugs like ice are so appealing - there's no hope for them.

 

We're increasingly failing at everything - infrastructure, access to housing, health care, quality of education, access to well paid employment etc etc.  We now have slavery here and mass worker exploitation (those temporary workers who according to various studies are massively exploited).  Our attitude to environment is one of the worst on the planet - eg utilisation of public transport, sustainable freight, types of vehicles owned, general consumerism.

 

Australia is becoming a country of two people - the wealthy haves with a small rump indebted middle class and a growing mass of working poor who struggle to access basic necessities.  

 

I've noticed you are very much wish to retain the status quo in this country regardless of how bad it is getting.  Makes me wonder as to why?  Are you benefitting from tax loopholes on property ownership, superannuation, lax environmental laws, cheap overseas labour etc etc?

 

Having said all that I will be reinstating my Croatian citizenship which grants me access to EU.  So when it goes totally pear shaped we can relocate to EU.

[AlSymerz]

It's more than a government issue, whether they created it, started it, fed it, or ignored it, it's beyond a government issue now and will take more than a government to fix it.

 

54 minutes ago, Dead1 said:

I've noticed you are very much wish to retain the status quo in this country regardless of how bad it is getting.

 

I've never said things shouldn't change. I think there is plenty that needs changing, but having dummy spits on the interwebz is not how change happens. Change happens because people make it happen. Change happens because people are willing to stand up. Change doesn't happen when people sit around making excuses for themselves or why they can't be that change.

[RelentlessOblivion]

I agree, change will only happen when enough people actually put pressure on our elected officials to follow through on their promises, however, do you think there are enough Australians willing to push for things like a living wage, an increase in public-housing, universal basic income, acceptable healthcare standards, a transition to clean energy, and so on? I’d like to think there are, but there’s an increase in political apathy in Australia as far as I can tell.

, a transition to clean energy, and so on? I’d like to think there are, but there’s an increase in political apathy in Australia as far as I can tell.

 

I will admit, though, I haven’t spent too much attention, dealing with my own problems at the moment , which may or may not include a family member stealing from me. 

[Dead1]

Government can fix it - in fact they're the only ones that can:

Government reduces immigration -> reduces demand for housing ->eases pressure on prices and means more people can  get a house.

 

Supply issues are a bit more convoluted and require a long term response - eg rebuilding capability to build public housing.

Government needs to reinstate long discarded competencies and effectively reduce impact of market.  

There are no long term plans and long term planning is no longer a government competency due to media and gutting of public service planning services.

 

 

 

As for action there is none that is effective anymore as both major parties have pretty much the same opinion on critical issues.  The system is completely corrupted.  It's why there is no action.  

I actually write letters to politicians eg last one was about the secret corruption tribunal which I was arguing should be transparent.  Labour and Liberal politicians both responded how secrecy are key.  Only Greens agreed that it should be transparent.

 

 

And there is no appetite in either parties to fix anything - eg current problems with aged care.

 

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/2023/04/06/alan-kohler-aged-care-funding/

[AlSymerz]

There is enough people in this country to make change for the better but too many are focused on one thing and one thing only. Whether that's because they only want to see their side, or that they are incapable of thinking outside their own box remains to be seen. But there is definitely enough people.

 

Government can't fix the supply issue and while the supply issue remains the housing shortage exists, no matter who is footing the bill.

[Dead1]

22 minutes ago, AlSymerz said:

There is enough people in this country to make change for the better but too many are focused on one thing and one thing only. Whether that's because they only want to see their side, or that they are incapable of thinking outside their own box remains to be seen. But there is definitely enough people.

 

Government can't fix the supply issue and while the supply issue remains the housing shortage exists, no matter who is footing the bill.

Australians have rarely fought for anything - the country's early history as a prison has created a placid and malleable population that generally accepts whatever it's told.

In France they riot, in Australia they just accept.

So there won't be change.  Even if things get bad (as they increasingly are) there will be no mass of Australians pushing for meaningful change.

 

It doesn't help most Australians don't even understand how government works.  Eg so many people I know including educated ones don't understand the it is State and not Commonwealth government that operates hospitals.

 

Government can fix supply over time - eg by building homes, providing subsidies to material suppliers or even starting their own building supply manufacturers.

Remember government in 1940-1970 built power generation, helped establish manufacturing, built road and rail infrastructure etc etc.  They had government owned aircraft and bus manufacturing, government owned medical manufacturing (CSL), government owned airlines, government owned banks (CBA) etc etc.

Oh and built public housing.

 

[AlSymerz]

Not supply of houses, supply of goods to make the houses. There is a massive fucking worldwide supply issue which is stopping houses being built all over the country and sending building businesses broke. The cost of what limited supplies are available is hurting builders and in the end those paying for the houses. No government can fix the supply chain even if it was possible for them to build 11 billion houses in a week.

Even if they could sure up the supply chain there are so many building companies going under that there wont be the builders to build the homes. Even the government plants 10,000 chippie apprenticeships this year alone there wont be enough tradesmen to build the houses needed for both public housing or community housing and you can't have one without the other. Likewise they can't simply create new supply manufacturers because none of that can be done in the short term, it takes years to create the kinds of businesses needed to supply housing on the kinds of level needed. If they started today it would make zero difference to the housing shortage plan released last week.

[Dead1]

 

37 minutes ago, AlSymerz said:

Not supply of houses, supply of goods to make the houses. There is a massive fucking worldwide supply issue which is stopping houses being built all over the country and sending building businesses broke. The cost of what limited supplies are available is hurting builders and in the end those paying for the houses. No government can fix the supply chain even if it was possible for them to build 11 billion houses in a week.

Even if they could sure up the supply chain there are so many building companies going under that there wont be the builders to build the homes. Even the government plants 10,000 chippie apprenticeships this year alone there wont be enough tradesmen to build the houses needed for both public housing or community housing and you can't have one without the other. Likewise they can't simply create new supply manufacturers because none of that can be done in the short term, it takes years to create the kinds of businesses needed to supply housing on the kinds of level needed. If they started today it would make zero difference to the housing shortage plan released last week.

As stated government can fix that in long term - they could even open brick works, timber mills etc etc.  Or they could support local businesses, new start ups etc etc.  Couple with public housing construction this could create a long term sustainable industry.

These are long term options of course.

And as mentioned in short term they can cut immigration to reduce demand.  The problem of massive and growing immigration led housing demand is immediate - 2024 is the first of the 5 years in which we have a forecast housing deficit.

 

So slash immigration so we don't have a housing deficit.

 

In reality they will do nothing because they don't want to rock the boat with the corporate interests who are now the true power behind the throne.

 

[AlSymerz]

Where is the money going to come from for the government to open these industries? It's certainly not going to come from the private sector. It's not going to come out of current government coffers no matter whether there is waste there or not and they certainly can't borrow enough to make it happen.

Take it private and as soon as government start supporting local business we end up having the same issue the car industry had. They subsidised it and subsidised it, when they gave a dollar to one company they had to give a dollar to the other. Then when somewhere else in the supply chain broke the government were called again and again until such time as one government said no more and the car industry shut down.

The only way for governments to afford such industry is to increase taxes and people really love that idea.

Immigration in some form also supports all the industries need to keep the building industry afloat. Unless we can pick and choose which immigrants we allow into the country then cutting immigration is at best a small part of the problem. If we start selecting immigrants purely because of what they can do for the country that goes down like a lead filled balloon.

In reality yes we do nothing because right now no one is standing up and offering a solution that actually works. If you think governments, analysts, economists, and generally cleverer people than you or I, haven't already thought of the above ideas, then that's naive. These people have a lot more information at their hands than we have, they have to analyse the effects all these ideas, and more, actually have on society, not just say they are a good idea and wonder why some one doesn't implement them

 

 

[RelentlessOblivion]

Lobby groups play a role in maintaining the status quo. I.e politicians aren’t incentivised to close corporate and personal tax loopholes.

 

On another note funny how the threat of public shaming has yielded results where threatening to call police didn’t.

[Sardonicist]

I was assimilated by the collective. 

 

[AlSymerz]

Asstimulated?

Like Cartman?

Makes sense

[RelentlessOblivion]

Ei I’m seriously you guys…

 

Anyway on my mind is guitars, really want a new one.

[Dead1]

On 4/6/2023 at 3:08 PM, AlSymerz said:

Where is the money going to come from for the government to open these industries? It's certainly not going to come from the private sector. It's not going to come out of current government coffers no matter whether there is waste there or not and they certainly can't borrow enough to make it happen.

Take it private and as soon as government start supporting local business we end up having the same issue the car industry had. They subsidised it and subsidised it, when they gave a dollar to one company they had to give a dollar to the other. Then when somewhere else in the supply chain broke the government were called again and again until such time as one government said no more and the car industry shut down.

The only way for governments to afford such industry is to increase taxes and people really love that idea.

Immigration in some form also supports all the industries need to keep the building industry afloat. Unless we can pick and choose which immigrants we allow into the country then cutting immigration is at best a small part of the problem. If we start selecting immigrants purely because of what they can do for the country that goes down like a lead filled balloon.

In reality yes we do nothing because right now no one is standing up and offering a solution that actually works. If you think governments, analysts, economists, and generally cleverer people than you or I, haven't already thought of the above ideas, then that's naive. These people have a lot more information at their hands than we have, they have to analyse the effects all these ideas, and more, actually have on society, not just say they are a good idea and wonder why some one doesn't implement them

 

 

You realise the government is actually doing all this now - Eg National Disability Insurance Scheme is literally funding a whole new industry (and a fucking inefficient and unequitable one at that) or AUKUS nuclear submarines which at current estimates will cost up to $368 billion* for 6-8 submarines (of which at least 3 are second hand and built in US).

*Which assumes costs don't blow out which they invariably do for all defence projects.

 

Government also literally funds billions in tax breaks for rich investors (eg superannuation or property or fossil fuel extraction).  Again if they wanted to this money could have been used to fund a whole swath of profitable industries or in case of superannuation, using taxes from cancelling rich people tax offsets make pensions liveable.

 

 

And also governments can run deficits (which Australia currently is running).  Governments can print money which is what they did during COVID and GFC.  As long as they can service that debt no one gives a shit. 

How they spend that money is up to them - in GFC they spent money to keep a corrupt banking and financial system afloat and during COVID they spent money to keep retailers and other businesses alive or in the case of retailers earning above average profits.

As for taxes - yes we need more of them at the higher end to get equality back in line.  Eg after WWII income taxes for highest brackets were often in excess of 90%.  They stayed that way up to 1960s when they started reducing them.   Even as late as 1986 the tax rate for top bracket was 60%.  They are currently 45% but they are applied at much higher levels of relative income.

 

Eg in 1986 Median male income was $23,207 (marginal tax rate = 46%).  Highest tax rate of 60% was applied at $35,000 .

In 2022 Median income was $65,0000 (marginal tax rate = 32.5%).  Highest tax rate of 45% was applied at $180,000.

 

By 2024 the highest tax rate only kicks in at $200,000 whilst for median income earners it drops to 30% and the 37% tax rate for $120,000-$180,000 is abolished.  So right now a rich person on $200k is paying $60,667 in tax whereas by 2024 they will be paying $51,592! 

The poor actually pay up to $1500 more in taxes due to removal of Low and Middle Income Tax Offsets.

 

 

As for migrants and building industry - it's a circular argument - you need more housing for migrants so you need to increase building industry which in turn needs more migrants.  The real beneficiaries are property investors and speculators who benefit from prices that are largely beefed up by artificial demand!

 

Same applies to health, education, infrastructure and consumer goods.  Our economy is a ponzi scheme dependent on massive new injections of consumers, not on any clever developments (what government refers to as "productivity.").  In fact massive injections of new migrant workers reduces productivity as they're usually employed in low skill labour intensive jobs.

 

 

As for car industry and subsidies that was due to a very poorly designed system of subsidies that weren't tied to improved outcomes (much like NDIS etc).  Australian businesses are essentially lazy and don't like investing in innovation.  Australia's research to GDP ratio is only 0.56% compared to average of 3.3% in US, 3.1% in Germany and 3.6% in Japan.

Australian industry also hates investing in human resources (ie training, decent pay etc).

 

My own solutions include elements of models that Asian countries such as Japan, South Korea and China implemented to propel their own industrialisations and living standards as well as some western ones from the 1930-60s:

1. Government heavily involved in industry either through direct ownership (51%) or legislation that effectively aligns corporate interests with government ones.    Any government profits to be reinvested into that company's research and development, capital or human resources. 

2.  All key strategic industries (health, education, aged care, petrochemicals, infrastructure, utilities) to be nationalised and run either free (paid by taxation) or breakeven. 

3.  Immigration limited to essential skills only and then designed in a manner as to expand local skills (ie importing people to teach/instruct).  All fixed term labour (eg fruitpickers) to be governed by government and their salaries to be paid to government and then distributed to fruit pickers.

4. Reinstating public housing.

5. More punitive measures for businesses and individuals violating rules be they tax or industrial or environmental (eg you rip off workers, you get a 10 year stint in a jail and are never allowed to be employed in a managerial capacity again).  Corrupt politicians and public officials to be tried on treason charges with very long terms of imprisonment.

6. All political donations to be submitted via specific government department which then forwards it to relevant party and publishes online lists of donors.  No more donations by companies or foreigners.

7. Politician salary increases to be capped at average salary growth rate for all workers.

8. Reinstate higher tax rates for marginal workers and simplify tax systems to reduce tax avoidance.

9 Remove any tax and other subsidies that only benefit rich people.

 

Naivety is assuming the people "more clever than you and I" have our best interests at heart.  The system is increasingly rigged towards the rich.

 

Remember I work in government in financial management and planning in health.  I literally am technically one of those people you think are cleverer than everyone else (truth is we're not).  

I see everyday how inequality is tearing up apart access to healthcare.  I have been involved with privatisations where government used to spend nearly 100% of every tax dollar on service delivery.  Now these private providers only spend 30-40% of every tax dollar on service delivery and the rest is swallowed up by undisclosed administration fees and margins (even for supposed not-for-profits).  Oh and services reduced and often directed only at middle class whilst lower socio-economic clients miss out.

 

I try to fight it by presenting well detailed reports on impacts and efficiency.  They are ignored by the high level public servants and politicians who just want to further their own careers and who due to deliberate lack of accountability and transparency, aren't held to account.

I once did a 50 page report which showed privatising home carer services would not save us any money and would decrease service accessibility especially in rural and remote areas.  It got turfed and the state manager wrote up a 3 page document which used some trendy terms and justified privatising it (luckily the unions found out, cut sick and the whole plan was foiled). 

 

In the end you were still saying nothing should change, the system is fine, ignore the homeless, ignore decaying public health and education, ignore housing unaffordability, ignore inequality, ignore exploitation etc.

 

 

[AlSymerz]

If you'd actually read what I said I stated that it doesn't matter what waste governments presently have it wont be changed to make anything more affordable, therefore it's pointless mentioning that as a possible option to use. I also said we couldn't borrow the kind of money needed, not because it's not possible but because there is a bunch of economists who would scream that too much debt is not sustainable, and like it or not, believe it or not, those people will be listened too and money will not be borrowed for such things.

1 hour ago, Dead1 said:

In the end you were still saying nothing should change, the system is fine, ignore the homeless, ignore decaying public health and education, ignore housing unaffordability, ignore inequality, ignore exploitation etc.

No, in the end I did not say that but because it suits your rhetoric to have anyone with a different opinion to yours as being wrong you have to assume that's the stance I take.

[Dead1]

Forgot to mention about Australia's manufacturing industries, their lack of innovation and efficiency and their subsequent decline as represented by car industry.

Car manufacture is not reliant on either cheap labour nor on market size.  The current global car makers include high labour cost countries such as Germany and Japan and low cost ones like China and India.

 

Some of these countries produce vehicles primarily for internal market use eg Malaysia with 702,000 cars produced  in 2022 or Iran with over 1,000,000.  Note both those countries might be larger than Australia but per capital vehicle sales are lower due to poverty.

 

The Australian car industry was set up between 1940s and 1970s by which time the industry was churning out nearly 500,000 cars per annum.

 

But then they refused to innovate or change practices.  Whilst rest of world focused on manufacturing small cars or more preferably (due to value add, profitability) large SUVs, Australia's industry focused on increasingly unpopular large sedans.  There was no investment in additional capacity and work practices were often old.  fashioned and labour intensive.

Hence despite growth of car sales in Australia, the local industry never topped their 1970s peak.  Near complete lack of innovation and capital investment meant the industry was inefficient and unsustainable.

 

Yes I understand parts suppliers went bust first but if the industry grew as fast as Australian car sales then the suppliers would have greater economies of scale.

 

It's the same with everything - eg In 2000 Australia refined most of its oil at 8 oil refineries.  Now we have 2 refineries left and 1 of them was being mooted for closure until the government bribed both $2.3 billion to stay open to 2030.

 

Again lack of investment and innovation - most of the refineries never saw any major upgrade or recapitalisation since they were built in the period between WWII and 1960s.

 

Under my model the whole petrochemical (and gas) industries would be government owned and run on ethical but still profit driven motives with all profits going back into R&D and recapitalisation.  And there would be a clear transition model to non fossil fuel so the industry can be rolled back once there is sufficient local sustainable energy sources.

 

 

[Dead1]

30 minutes ago, AlSymerz said:

If you'd actually read what I said I stated that it doesn't matter what waste governments presently have it wont be changed to make anything more affordable, therefore it's pointless mentioning that as a possible option to use. I also said we couldn't borrow the kind of money needed, not because it's not possible but because there is a bunch of economists who would scream that too much debt is not sustainable, and like it or not, believe it or not, those people will be listened too and money will not be borrowed for such things.

 

The economists (who I do read every day) are a mixed bag.  Their opinion is based on where they sit on the political spectrum.  If you read AFR and Australian, the economists are right wing neoliberals who state government debt is the worst whist defending promoting private over indebtedness.   Or you get centre left like Greg Jericho from Guardian who promotes some socially equitable policies and doesn't see deficits as necessarily a bad thing.

 

Indeed there are different schools of economic thought with the current dominant one being the neoliberal Chicago School of Economics as championed by Milton Friedman and as wholesale adopted by western governments in 1970s and 1980s (Bob Hawke and Paul Keating being noteworthy adherents in 1980s Australia).

Some school of economics government debt is the worst thing in the world (whilst promoting massive private debt) and others say that government debt doesn't matter as government controls money supply.

Economics are not science and they do not produce predictive "laws" unlike chemistry and physics.  I laughed out aloud when I was reading several economists who were shocked that the Philips Curve was no longer functioning as predicted or when Australia's unemployment levels fell below their completely arbitrary Non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment (NAIRU).

Even "law" of supply and demand can be fucked with and made unworkable (eg when Australian wages didn't increase despite no immigration during COVID and unemployment level lowest since 1970s).

 I studied economics at university and one of our lecturers who was an ex-USN fighter pilot and ex-Wall Street stockbroker openly said most of the assumptions underpinning economic theory were total garbage.

 

And indeed they are - I once read an ABS study that showed if you applied their assumptions petrol prices had not increased above inflation levels despite them at the time time jumping 20%+ when CPI inflation was about 3% (and CPI is a crock of shit too).

With enough assumptions I could prove to you Sydney houses at $1.2 million are completely affordable by anyone.

Basically economics more closer to religion than science.

-----

As mentioned the money for new industries and infrastructure is here already even without hiking marginal tax rates or getting into debt- it's just doled out as tax offsets for the rich or pumped into barely regulated yet government subsidised industries such as private healthcare and social services or stupid white elephant defence projects that actually ignore key aspects of our defence (eg counter sea mine measures or anti ballistic missile defence of our cities).

 

Oh and how can you deny cutting immigration wont instantly alleviate at least part of the housing pressures?   If only 100,000 people come to Australia per annum  in period 2023-2025 (total 300,000) instead of 400,000+ in same period (total 1.2 million+), then you don't have a 48,900 dwelling shortage.

 

In reality there is a lot government can do both in terms of short and long term.  This country was actually built on that kind of planning and thinking in 1950-1970s at which point they figured out it was more lucrative to abrogate responsibility and let the rich do as they please. 

[Dead1]

Oh and here's a corker - your "clever" people have literally allowed property to be used for money laundering purposes for last 16 years!  Why?  Because it suits vested interests.

 

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2023/04/global-pariah-australia-green-lights-property-money-laundering/

[Dead1]

Also some fascinating stats:

 

In 1940-1950, only 4% of economic growth went to top 10%

 

Today it's 93%

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2023/apr/13/young-australians-never-stood-a-chance-for-decades-the-controls-have-been-set-to-favour-older-generations

 

Why?  Government neoliberal policy (the stuff that according to Mr Al SYmerz cant be changed and is out of government hands).

[AlSymerz]

Still reading into things what you want to see because you can't accept that anyone with a differing opinion to yours can be anything but incorrect. Hell of a way to live your life but each to their own.

[Dead1]

9 minutes ago, AlSymerz said:

Still reading into things what you want to see because you can't accept that anyone with a differing opinion to yours can be anything but incorrect. Hell of a way to live your life but each to their own.

The things is your opinion was literally reasons as to why we can't change anything (screaming economists, supposed clever people already looking at it, people not wanting to pay more taxes and government debt being bad) and must go on our merry way to hell.

In fact most Australians seem to think like that either through lack of education or because they have vested interests (eg rental properties that benefit from current policies or own businesses benefiting from cheap labour or work in corrupted not-for-profit sector that benefits from government pseudo-subsidies).

We have many options, but our current ideological viewpoints and vested interests act to kill off most of those options.

[AlSymerz]

You need to read without pre-judgement, just because I offered reasons doesn't automatically make those reasons opinion. You've assumed opinion because the reasons don't 100% agree with your way of thinking. Not everything expressed has to be an opinion or something believed as fact. "We can't do X because of Y", is a statement, "I think we can't do X because of Y", is an opinion, the way it's written makes a difference.