Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Injection Grain Bag   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Sterilized Grain Bag for Spawn   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
    #27575075 - 12/09/21 06:06 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

I dont want free tuition, that's unfair as heck, because some people have a 6 figure debt while others have 10k.

A basic grant of 5k would go a long way imo.

And socialist is a hot word, because Venezuela and Sweden are not the same.



--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
    #27575428 - 12/10/21 12:24 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

sudly said:

Less loopholes and adjusted capital gains taxes don't destroy millionaires or billionaires, they take burden off the middle class and even the playing field at least some.




Please, the wealthy in the US are already doing the heavy lifting in tax.

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/latest-federal-income-tax-data/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20top%2050,percent%20combined%20(28.6%20percent).

In 2018, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers paid 97.1 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.9 percent. The top 1 percent paid a greater share of individual income taxes (40.1 percent) than the bottom 90 percent combined (28.6 percent).


Quote:

Some people in the US have three jobs because each pays less than a livable wage.




The issue there is an appropriate award wage. A fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Only fair.

Expect though, if the US were to do this, to pay more for a pair of jeans or other consumables as we do in Australia. Products are far cheaper in the US as the wages paid there are low. Hence why so many rely on tips. The US consequently has a tip culture which is not the case here. If you go to a café or restaurant here you're not expected to tip.


Quote:

I don't expect to be buying a house in my 20s, we all understand investing has its merits, saving is a mindful thing, and hard work pays off.




Well, I can't speak for the US on this issue. I can say it is still possible in Australia if one lives with their parents so rent is free and they save and invest. This 23 year old woman managed that on the Gold Coast; a city I see in view to the ocean.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10244843/Investor-23-reveals-bought-home-23.html


Quote:

I think an issue arises when one day, people have to work hard 3 times as long to achieve the same as their predecessors.




I still can't see how extra CGT and inheritance taxes will make property more affordable to you?

I think you should be looking at fair minimum wages so you don't have to "work 3 jobs" and at the same time you'll have to throttle down on consumables as they will soar in price once fair award wages are set.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
    #27575440 - 12/10/21 12:55 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

You're referring to income tax, some people like Elon Musk limit their income tax greatly compared to what the average person can do. 

And there isn't mention of capital gains taxes in your linked article.

Quote:

ProPublica obtained confidential IRS data on thousands of wealthy people in its analysis. The analysis found that Mr Musk, as well as other prominent US billionaires, escaped paying federal income taxes.

The 25 richest Americans “saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018,” the publication reported. But collectively those Americans paid a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes over those five years, which was a true tax rate of just 3.4 per cent.

This compared to the median US households that earned about $70,000 annually but paid a 14 per cent tax rate to the federal government. Couples in the highest tax rate paid 37 per cent to the federal government for annual earnings of higher than $628,300, the analysis added.

Billionaire Warren Buffett, who had a reported income of $125 million over the five years despite his wealth growing 24.3 billion in that same timeframe, paid the lowest tax rate out of those analysed by the publication. His true tax rate was just 0.10 per cent.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, paid a total of $973 million in taxes to the federal government over the five-year period for his reported income of $4.22 billion, making his true tax rate 0.98 per cent.

Then Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and founder of Bloomberg LP, reported an income of $10 billion but paid just $292 million to the federal government for a true tax rate of 1.3 per cent.

ProPublica noted that billionaires have access to “tax-avoidance strategies beyond the reach of ordinary people,” which has likely assisted them in paying a lower true tax rate compared to the average American.

But the obtained IRS reports show a significant divide between America’s top earners and the rest of the country in percentage of wealth paid back to the federal government.

ProPublica did not disclose how it obtained the tax records, which are confidential to the private individual and illegal for the IRS to distribute.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/elon-musk-income-taxes-propublica-b1862013.html






Quote:

The issue there is an appropriate award wage. A fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Only fair.

Expect though, if the US were to do this, to pay more for a pair of jeans or other consumables as we do in Australia. Products are far cheaper in the US as the wages paid there are low. Hence why so many rely on tips. The US consequently has a tip culture which is not the case here. If you go to a café or restaurant here you're not expected to tip.







Living with your parents is a great way to save money. Family dynamics can be a complicated affair at times and living with your parents can be a serious compromise to privacy and mental health.

It seems to me that independence is a riskier choice, but it is because nowadays the proportion of your salary required to own a home has tripled in the last 40 years!

Looking into the investment market is a good strategy, but with potential for exponential growth I think the system should have caps.

Quote:

I still can't see how extra CGT and inheritance taxes will make property more affordable to you?




It's not that the tax revenue of extra CGT, inheritance and stock trading taxes would make housing more affordable, it's that they would provide more finances for public services like education, health, public transport and infrastructure.

I think Australia has a more decent minimum wage, at least here we don't rely on tips!


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
    #27575557 - 12/10/21 03:49 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Yes, the wealthy can get more wealthy if they simply let their investments grow and don't sell. It's a simple strategy.

They incur proportionally speaking a low income tax because, if you have several billion and get by on $5-mil a year, you'll pay a small amount of tax by mere drip-feed selling to get cash to get by. If they choose to live a truly extravagant lifestyle they pay more tax. Better from a shareholder's point of view (yes, yours truly) that they live frugally relative to their multi-billion dollar operations, so they have the maximum amount of capital to grow. I'm a fan of Warren Buffet as he does just that. Your list shows he's tight on personal fan fare.

So, I still can't see what's wrong with this?

They grow great companies producing the very household names and products we all use daily. Be it operating systems, cell phones, brands of vehicle, cosmetics, clothes, pharmaceuticals, shipping, trucking, air flight travel and so on. If their company wealth was taxed it would reduce the means to produce these great products and services. The best stewards of this are the very passionate and work-a-holic CEO's; yes the billionaires. Never in 100+ years of Communism have we seen a single Commissar produce anything like what the billionaires routinely do. We are lucky such people exist!

Now lets entertain your idea on taxing the gains on shares that have gone up even if not sold as a way to get a higher proportion of tax relative to their expanding holdings.

You should realise if one knocked off the value of the shares by a tax on a sliding scale of value that it would drive shares down when they reach these arbitrary lines. This would see to massive volatility. Why would I want to invest for example in Tesla or Amazon if I get slugged a "billionaire tax" on unrealised share sales? And by what I mean "unrealised" is shares not sold so the profits or losses have yet to be realised.

Yes, your idea is forcing a realised value on paper value shares. This is actually worse than margin loans that get called seeing to a forced sell off to claw back to lenders on a market where almost all is borrowed. That's how stock markets crash. It's worse because it would kill a bull market even with sound fundamentals where the tide is up for all. The US 401ks, Super in Australia and across the world would take the hit along with the billionaires. The very people who have created this opportunity for all to participate.

Which gets me to the next point; if unrealised shares can be taxed by forced selling, what about property? How is that assessed? Property is very rubbery and much can influence its price including the ability of the agent selling. Would it be some big government bloat like the IRS or ATO arbitrarily deciding the value based on goofy actuarial studies? Really??

The reason why none of this unrealised selling has never been rubber stamped is because private property is respected by law. You own every grain of whatever it is until you sell it and then you face taxes. If it's a profit you get taxed. If it's a loss you can use it to offset gain to minimise tax. This is not going to change.

Quote:

Living with your parents is a great way to save money. Family dynamics can be a complicated affair at times and living with your parents can be a serious compromise to privacy and mental health.




I moved out age 18 because of such, but perhaps if faced with the headwinds the young have today I'd have played it differently. None the less I chose a harder path regardless.


Quote:

It's not that the tax revenue of extra CGT, inheritance and stock trading taxes would make housing more affordable, it's that they would provide more finances for public services like education, health, public transport and infrastructure.




The billionaires already do this by employing no end of people who would otherwise be on welfare. Jobs and opportunity are made by the private sector. Taxes do not create prosperity because they act as brakes on economic activity.

And in closing that meme you posted of burgers sold in the US and in Denmark, I'll go by a bona fide source.

https://minimum-wage.procon.org/arguments/raising-the-minimum-wage-would-increase-the-price-of-consumer-goods/

A 2013 article by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago stated that if the minimum wage is increased, fast-food restaurants would pass on almost 100% of their increased labor costs on to consumers and that other firms may do the same. [2] A 2015 Purdue University study found that raising the wage of fast food restaurant employees to $15 or $22 per hour would result in a price increase of 4.3% and 25% respectively, or a reduction in product size between 12% and 70%: “a hamburger would be much smaller,” the researchers stated. [53] NBC News found that the price of a cup of coffee went up by 10 to 20% in Oakland, California, after a 36% minimum wage hike in the city to $12.25. The report also found a 6.7% rise in coffee prices in Chicago after the minimum wage rose to $10. [54] The Alberta Hotel and Lodging Association (Canada) found that a “sudden and significant increase to the minimum wage” would result in “ncreased prices for food & beverage, guest rooms and meeting facilities.” [55]

Edited by Oz_Salvia (12/10/21 03:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27575815 - 12/10/21 09:11 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Stable Genius, this is your thread and a good call as an oasis in a US-centric sub-board.

Yes, even though we will likely not agree per little and even less you may see my posts in your bias as boorish but you will agree I've kept this at the top of the subforum page. Not that I'm asking favours. :tongue:

So all said and done get back at your convenience so I can undress your ALP-esque ideals. Always a good muse to give the failed Leftie element a backhand. After all only on these boards and other lamenting platforms of sore arse'ry are such seen as they're still bent out of shape the majority voted LNP. Such will happen again. :laugh:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia] * 1
    #27576527 - 12/10/21 06:50 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

You don't want to regulate loopholes that allow capital gains taxes to be avoided.

You don't want a wealth tax specific to billionaires and multimillionaires.

Quote:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democrats on Monday proposed a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to 3% for wealth over $1 billion.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-propose-3percent-wealth-tax-on-billionaires.html




I get it that you want the bottom line to be padded, but there are 'bad' practices that allow for this, like using government subsidies to do stock buybacks, and monopolising pharmaceuticals to remove competition, price gouging and having no other companies that can challenge you.

From a shareholders point of view, all the peasants are dispendible and if their life is on the line it makes it easier to squeeze them for money.

Where on this scale do you think I am?



Corporate tax cuts for the most part don't lead to foreign investment, wage or job growth, but instead returns to shareholders or investment.

Quote:

While pie eating seems like a pretty Australian thing to do (cutlery or no cutlery), this part of the argument depends on us believing that: company tax cuts = increased foreign investment = a better economy = more jobs and increased wages for workers.

Firstly we should tackle some of the assumptions here. When people (usually business lobby groups) say things like “what’s good for business is good for Australia” the underlying message is: working Australian’s will be better off when businesses are making more money. This assumes that workers will somehow benefit from those profits. Benefiting from them would mean pay rises or more jobs or more secure jobs. In the case of company tax cuts what the business lobby is saying is: if the company pays less tax they have more money to spend on ‘other things’.

We’ve already seen that there doesn’t seem to be any real relationship between cutting company tax rates and increases in foreign investment. But we can still look at whether there is any benefit for workers in cutting company tax rates. Cutting the company tax rate from 30 to 25% will at least result, theoretically, in companies keeping 5% of their taxable income that previously went into government revenue. So what is likely to happen to this money?

What will those ‘other things’ be? Are they likely to be wage increases and new jobs?
To answer these questions we can look around the world, and here in Australia, at the connection between company tax rates and living standards.

When we mapped countries company tax rates against their living standards (which you can get a sense of by working out the GDP per capita) we found that there was no correlation between company tax rate and living standard. In fact, if anything, a country is slightly more likely to have a higher living standard if they have a higher company tax rate. So, on a global level at least, lower company tax rates don’t mean better living standards.

But what about in Australia? If company tax cuts are good for workers you’d expect that since the peak of company tax rates at 49% in 1986 to their current low of 30% you’d have seen wages increase. Instead what we see is that, as a share of our gross domestic product, wages have fallen by 13%.

When people talk about GDP what they’re talking about is ‘the pie’; everything in the whole economy that was bought and sold in a year; all the ‘economic’ activity, including wages. So despite a 19% decrease in the company tax rate, workers share of ‘the pie’ has declined by 13%.

So where does the money from company tax cuts actually go? Who’s getting more pie?
While we’ve seen that lowering the company tax rate doesn’t increase ‘the pie’ in Australia, it must do something for the business lobby to be so excited about it. And since Australian workers aren’t seeing any increase in their share of ‘the pie’, who is benefitting?

If we keep looking at wages what we find is that decline in the share going to workers is almost matched by a corresponding increase in the share of GDP (‘the pie’) going to corporate profits — especially the financial sector. And while that’s worrying in itself it doesn’t tell the full story about the corporate tax cuts.

To understand a bit better we can look at a few things.

Firstly, what do CEO’s themselves say they’ll spend the tax cuts on? Good question. When the CEO’s of the Business Council’s 130+ member companies were asked in a secret Business Council of Australia survey to nominate one of four options as their preferred response to the company tax cut in Australia, only 17% nominated higher wages or more jobs. Over 80% selected either returning funds to shareholders, or more investment.

Secondly, if we look at what has actually happened in the United States after the implementation of Trump’s tax cuts we can see that it resulted in big benefits to rich shareholders through share buy-backs and dividend increases, and an increase in mergers and acquisitions that benefit corporate executives and make big business even bigger.

https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-3-key-arguments-for-the-company-tax-cut-make-no-economic-sense-heres-why/




Quote:

But a $65 billion tax cut means a $65 billion decrease in our national budget and that has to be accounted for, either in cuts to expenditure (which really means government services like health, education and infrastructure) or increases in the budget deficit.




Quote:

Democrats want to impose a new tax on America’s wealthiest by taxing unrealized capital gains similar to other types of income— a major change to how those assets have been taxed historically.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced legislation on Wednesday requiring taxpayers with more than $1 billion in assets or more than $100 million in annual income for three consecutive years to pay taxes on unrealized capital gains.

“There are two tax codes in America,” Wyden said in a statement on Wednesday. “The first is mandatory for workers who pay taxes out of every paycheck. The second is voluntary for billionaires who defer paying taxes for years, if not indefinitely.”

The so-called “Billionaires Income Tax” would apply to around 700 taxpayers and raise “hundreds of billions of dollars,” according to the proposal, which comes as Democrats discuss ways to fund their reconciliation package over the next decade

https://www.google.com/amp/s/au.finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/democrats-unveil-billionaires-tax-on-unrealized-capital-gains-131232669.html




Here's an opinion piece from Fisher investments.

Quote:

Plus, there are two simple reasons capital gains taxes have preferred rates. One is incentivizing long-term investment, which drives job creation. The other is to account for inflation, which can offset a large chunk of long-term returns. Preferential rates help people avoid taking inflation-adjusted losses on their investments, which would skew the risk/reward calculation.
https://www.fisherinvestments.com/en-us/marketminder/the-many-problems-with-taxing-unrealized-capital-gains ;




And here's a report from the US Tax Policy Centre.

Quote:

Do lower taxes on capital gains spur economic growth? By reducing the disincentive to invest, a lower capital gains tax rate might encourage more investment, leading to higher economic growth. Many factors determine growth, but the tax rate on capital gains does not appear to be a major factor, as evidenced in figure 1, which shows the top tax rates on long-term capital gains along with real economic growth from 1954 to 2019.

Capital gains may arise from risky investments, and a lower capital gains tax rate might encourage such risk taking. Even without a tax preference, taxing gains while allowing full current deductions for losses on a symmetric basis would reduce risk by reducing after-tax variance of returns. However, deductibility of losses is limited, which limits the risk-reduction benefit of capital gains taxation for some taxpayers. Under current law, taxpayers can use capital losses to offset capital gains and, for noncorporate taxpayers, up to $3,000 of additional taxable income other than capital gains. Noncorporate taxpayers also can carry any remaining capital losses forward to future years indefinitely.

It is true that inflation causes part of almost any nominal capital gain. But inflation actually affects the returns on currently taxed assets (interest, dividends, rents, and royalties) more than it affects capital gains, which are taxed when an asset is sold.

BENEFICIARIES OF A LOWER TAX RATE

Critics are correct that low tax rates on capital gains and dividends accrue disproportionately to the wealthy. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2019, more than 75 percent of the tax benefit of the lower rates went to taxpayers with income over $1 million (table

Low tax rates on capital gains contribute to many tax shelters that undermine economic efficiency and growth. These shelters employ sophisticated financial techniques to convert ordinary income (such as wages and salaries) to capital gains. For top-bracket taxpayers, tax sheltering can save up to 17 cents per dollar of income sheltered. The resources that go into designing, implementing, and managing tax shelters could otherwise be used for productive purposes.

Finally, the low rate on capital gains complicates the tax system. A significant portion of tax law and regulations is devoted to policing the boundary between lightly taxed returns on capital assets and fully taxed ordinary income.

https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-effect-lower-tax-rate-capital-gains




Plenty of people that billionaires employ are on welfare.

Quote:

Millions of Americans work full time yet are still impoverished, their wages so low that they qualify for federal health care and food assistance programs even though many of them are employed by the biggest and most profitable U.S. companies.

Because those companies don’t pay their workers a living wage, taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for daily necessities those employees can’t afford to buy themselves.
In short, corporate America is pawning off the cost of rock-bottom wages on taxpayers.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-18/who-helps-pay-amazon-walmart-and-mcdonald-s-workers-you-do




It doesn't look like the countries that increased their minimum wage have collapsed yet, and a slow and measured increase appears to be best practice too.

Quote:

Many business leaders fear that any increase in the minimum wage will be passed on to consumers through price increases thereby slowing spending and economic growth, but that may not be the case.

New research shows that the pass-through effect on prices is fleeting and much smaller than previously thought.

In a new Upjohn Institute working paper, Daniel MacDonald and Eric Nilsson, of California State University, Bernardino, advance the literature on price effects of minimum wage increases.

Historically, minimum wage increases were large, one-shot changes imposed with little advance notice for businesses. But many recent state and city-level minimum wage increases have been scheduled to be implemented over time and often are indexed to some measure of price inflation. These small, scheduled minimum wage hikes seem to have smaller effects on prices than large, one-time increases.

By looking at changes in restaurant food pricing during the period of 1978–2015, MacDonald and Nilsson find that prices rose by just 0.36 percent for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, which is only about half the size reported in previous studies. They also observe that small minimum wage increases do not lead to higher prices and may actually reduce prices. Furthermore, it is also possible that small minimum wage increases could lead to increased employment in low-wage labor markets.

While federal and state minimum wage increases appear to produce similar results, more research is needed to fully grasp the effects of city minimum-wage raises.

https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/does-increasing-minimum-wage-lead-higher-prices




--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
    #27576658 - 12/10/21 09:11 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Firstly, what do CEO’s themselves say they’ll spend the tax cuts on? Good question. When the CEO’s of the Business Council’s 130+ member companies were asked in a secret Business Council of Australia survey to nominate one of four options as their preferred response to the company tax cut in Australia, only 17% nominated higher wages or more jobs. Over 80% selected either returning funds to shareholders, or more investment.




Sounds good to me.

And where on the political spectrum are you?

I'd say centre-left as you have ALP-esque ideals. It's generally fashionable to the young to have these ideals; even to the point of being radical Communists because that's the student culture in all universities and always has been. Take for example this poster plastered up all over the Australian National University in the Nation's capital, Canberra. This one was back in 2018. I recall much the same sorts of posters in the 1980's. It's always the same shill of Marxism. *yawn*




I could be wrong on where you are on the spectrum but that's not important. While you're tilting at windmills you could put that effort into working another job and putting the money into the market. Yes, the quiet achiever. You won't beat this situation because the wealthy hold all the chips and therefore all the power, so best you join it. There is plenty out there for to get your hands on if you choose to.

Go and look at this thread which is over 16 years old. There are Leftists in there crying about the same stuff you have. Now had they ceased their belly aching and invested over the said years they'd have improved their lot.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/4176792

There will be in the years ahead the same lamenting across these boards because these drug boards attract an element of victimhood and rather than get on with a different approach they want to complain. I'm not impugning I'm just saying it as I see it. I don't see this view in the Motley Fool forums (per subscription services). Sure, some will lament if a share they have has done poorly. However on the whole they're optimists and have confidence in themselves and are happy to share and discuss stocks worthy of attention.

Success is an attitude and poverty is a choice. Personally I gave away Left-wing thinking by age 15 or 16 knowing there's no such thing as a free lunch, nor is there in nature. Every calorie competed for in food webs and all under the pump of selection pressure at both intra and inter-species level.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia] * 1
    #27576692 - 12/10/21 10:04 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

The stock market doesn't reflect the real economy.

Quote:

Most times when people say “the stock market is not the economy,” they mean the day-to-day performance of major stock indices that track the value the nation’s biggest firms, like the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average, bears little-to-no reflection on what’s happening in most Americans’ lives.

https://journalistsresource.org/home/stock-market-not-economy/




What do you think the difference is between Sweden and Venezuela?

Because I think it's important to be able to discuss policies without resorting to a strawman and exclaiming communism.

I'm doing moderately well for myself at the age I am, and I know the system is unlikely to change in any dramatic way any time soon, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing the potential for change.

Opportunity is a catalyst and fortunately for Australians we have medicare so we're not eternally indebted for breaking a leg.

I mean sure there's no such thing as a free lunch, and neither are there free submarines, free roads, free infrastructure, free healthcare or free education :shrug:

But somehow we get them.:strokebeard: :pipesmoke:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
    #27576790 - 12/11/21 01:03 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

What do you think the difference is between Sweden and Venezuela?




It's a myth the Left push.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-op-us-democratic-socialists-dont-get-scandinavia-20181025-story.html

A modern conversation between a Republican and a Democrat about socialism will end with the Republican asking, “What about Venezuela, Nicaragua and the Soviet Union?” The Democrat responds, “What about Sweden, Denmark and Norway?” Unfortunately, very few Americans are aware of the drastic differences in policy. Scandinavian countries truly are exceptionally wealthy, but “democratic socialists” are being dishonest about their policies. Far from socialist, the Nordic countries are actually closer to true laissez-faire capitalism than the U.S., as reflected in the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index, year after year.


Quote:

Because I think it's important to be able to discuss policies without resorting to a strawman and exclaiming communism.




Not at all as it show cases this Leftist ideal that has permeated throughout our universities and in turn poisoned the minds of many young graduates. Often hopelessly WOKE and full of victimhood and/or guilt because they subscribe to critical race theory. It's an idea that white people are wealthy because they're white rather than the graft they put in to get there. It makes POC believe they'll never get the same footing because the playing field is run by white supremacists. I've seen these aburd and emotive arguments on the boards and it plain hobbles people to not think individually and instead they absurdly think on identity. It's why so many on these boards are into defeatism.


Quote:

I'm doing moderately well for myself at the age I am, and I know the system is unlikely to change in any dramatic way any time soon, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in discussing the potential for change.




Well, once you build your nest egg you'll sigh in 20 years to have a 20-something expecting to get their hands on it, despite you legally applying tax minimisation strategies.


Quote:

Opportunity is a catalyst and fortunately for Australians we have medicare so we're not eternally indebted for breaking a leg.




Better to have private and aim to that.


Quote:

I mean sure there's no such thing as a free lunch, and neither are there free submarines, free roads, free infrastructure, free healthcare or free education :shrug:




Yes, nothing is for free but legal tax minimisation is above all legal.

I suggest you read this and apply this thinking going forward. Cease thinking you won't get ahead such as you won't buy a home in your 20's. You are not set by fate. Your decisions matter.

https://themakingofamillionaire.com/you-will-never-be-rich-if-you-keep-doing-these-10-things-8c9677bc06b0?gi=7674beeab719

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
    #27577399 - 12/11/21 01:56 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Oz_Salvia said:
Stable Genius, this is your thread and a good call as an oasis in a US-centric sub-board.

Yes, even though we will likely not agree per little and even less you may see my posts in your bias as boorish but you will agree I've kept this at the top of the subforum page. Not that I'm asking favours. :tongue:

So all said and done get back at your convenience so I can undress your ALP-esque ideals. Always a good muse to give the failed Leftie element a backhand. After all only on these boards and other lamenting platforms of sore arse'ry are such seen as they're still bent out of shape the majority voted LNP. Such will happen again. :laugh:




Sorry I was busy crawling through a roof helping another urban hippy.

If you believe that the LNP or the ALP are completely wrong or completely right I don't believe we have anything to discuss. This left and right rubbish pushed by Sky News is turning our political debate toxic, they need their broadcasting licence cancelled imo. They don't broadcast News they broadcast vitriol and snide remarks, it's NOT news.

Also, here's a few examples of what I think.
I think Turnbull was a decent prime minister for a Liberal and always thought he should've joined the Labor Party.
I also blame Paul Keating for the housing crisis which has done so well for anyone who bought a house 30 years ago but has made home ownership a nightmare for anyone buying their first house.

And I wouldn't describe your post's as boorish, I can think of other descriptions :awesomenod: but hey, glad you found the thread and are interested in replying.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27578037 - 12/11/21 09:36 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

I also blame Paul Keating for the housing crisis which has done so well for anyone who bought a house 30 years ago but has made home ownership a nightmare for anyone buying their first house.




Let's review what bought that about and I agree with Howard on this because it's what happened in the 80's.

https://www.therealestateconversation.com.au/news/2016/05/20/look-1985-negative-gearing-impact-says-john-howard/1463741788

Former Prime Minister John Howard yesterday told 350 delegates at the First National Real Estate convention in Cairns he was intrigued that the national economic debate about negative gearing had made very little reference to the experience of its removal in 1985.

“When negative gearing was removed by then Treasurer Paul Keating in 1985, it was quietly brought back in the 1987 budget,” said Howard.

“The debate needs to focus on that piece of field evidence because the experiment with negative gearing was widely regarded as a failure. That’s more important than glossy economists reports," he said.

When negative gearing was removed in 1985, rents rose strongly.


Point is, no matter how loud the Greens get the government simply hasn't the resources to have a massive roll out of government housing to give renters a roof over their head, even it were at market value rent.

So the call back in the day was for the private sector to fill the gap by making the investment risk attractive by writing off interest rates occurred on the principle if the rent return is not profitable (known as negative gearing). They say the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. So the rental crisis in the 80's was simply can kicked down the road for 30+ years.

Perhaps the best way to deal with negative gearing which we can't cease on investors who are already in on it, is to end it on all property unless they are new builds. This will encourage more new housing to ease the current rental crisis and get the construction industry booming; perhaps more jobs for the idle sparky to get in the roofs of the urban hippies. This is what negative gearing re-introduced in 1987 after it's 1985 hiatus should have been (if they were going to bother with it at all). Sadly it is what is.

What I can say in my 24 years of property ownership is input by the government to influence the market usually has deleterious impacts, such as first home grants. These quickly see to a greater demand at entry level property which in turn pushes up property prices because it's all dominos of knock on.

The winners are not the first home buyers; as the market climbs the real estate agents get greater commissions, the investment property owners see their unrealised property values rise including people like me who have property shares, not to mention State governments getting stamp duty taxes at the expense of the Federal coin.

Now I have seen several of these schemes peter out as fails make the said wealthier and the rest holding the bag, especially the first home buyers it was supposed to help.

So the schemes have tried to learn from past mistakes. Such as the current federal first home buyer's grant under the guise of GST exemption.

https://www.firsthome.gov.au/

And here in Queensland we have stamp duty exemption.

https://stampduty.calculatorsaustralia.com.au/stamp-duty-qld#:~:text=Do%20first%20home%20buyers%20pay,pay%20full%20stamp%20duty%20rates. ;

As a first home buyer you don't pay stamp duty for the property up to $500k (due to First Home Concession Rate). Then you get a discount for properties valued between $505,000 and $550,000. If property worth more than that you pay full stamp duty rates.

Now it's clear neither removing GST and Stamp Duty for first home buyers has dampened real estate values for first home buyers. Which again only reinforces my view that successive government market manipulations only hurt.

Yet rather than accept it there's this view that we need to tax heavily to afford public housing or hand over a bag of cash to first home buyers to get head. Well, go ahead, I'll continue to minimise my taxes because I'm not paying for it. I don't see why we need to further encourage generational welfare and sink-estates, nor push property prices up by even more taxes, be it direct new taxes or the loss of existing ones (i.e. GST and Stamp Duty).

In hindsight it would have been better to have a complete laissez faire approach in the 1980's. Sure, many would have found it tough to rent and given the Hawke/Keating 'recession we had to have' 17% interest rates, they'd have had to hold off until the mid-1990's to buy in.

And this is why I believe in the private market. It keeps the field pure.

Edited by Oz_Salvia (12/11/21 10:05 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
    #27578209 - 12/12/21 02:36 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

I'm glad you agree.

Something I find hilarious as well is that if it wasn't for the Greens there'd be next to zero investment in Renewable Energy.

Join me in thanking Bob Brown :cookiemonster:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27578231 - 12/12/21 03:48 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Stable Genius said:
I'm glad you agree.

Something I find hilarious as well is that if it wasn't for the Greens there'd be next to zero investment in Renewable Energy.

Join me in thanking Bob Brown :cookiemonster:




It's not the Greens who are making renewables happen it's the private sector. The same crowd the Greens would love to tax no end. Go look at the Greens policy on their "tax the billionaires" nonsense, where the money they're claiming they want to tax is unrealised paper value shares. :rolleyes: https://greens.org.au/tax-billionaires

Whose policy is making renewables happen? Yes, the LNP. :wink:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/australia-calls-for-foreign-investment-to-fund-its-clean-energy-target-20211114-p598sv.html

The government’s technology investment road map is expected to result in up to $20 billion being invested over the next 10 years, but the government is targeting $60 billion in investment from the private sector – much of it from overseas.

“Inbound investment into Australia is so crucial if we are to realise the potential business growth in these sectors,” Birmingham will tell the Milken Institute on Monday.
   


Also, you'll be conflicted over your idol Bob Brown, and soon will be reading this. :smirk:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/15/bob-brown-rebukes-tasmanian-windfarm-project-as-the-new-franklin-dam

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,455
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
    #27578241 - 12/12/21 04:18 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

You guys are the only ones active on the political forum lately. If you don't mind, I would like to ask a couple questions. What political parties are the relevant ones in Australia? Do they usually have to form coalitions?

Another thing, I read about 4 years ago an article in Rolling Stone about Western Australia being an ecological disaster because they built it up and brought the water in from elsewhere, which sounded a lot like the Western U.S., probably more accurately South Western.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesudly
Quasar Praiser

Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 11,594
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
    #27578267 - 12/12/21 06:00 AM (2 years, 5 months ago)

You seem to like sharing opinion pieces.

Quote:

The countries where socialism works best tend to have a hybrid system whereby socialism works hand in hand with capitalism. These countries often have a capitalist free-market economy combined with a strong state-funded welfare system. So, is a Sweden socialist country?

Sweden, like most of the other Scandinavian countries, follows the Nordic model of government, also known as “cuddly capitalism”! In reality this means that they are capitalist countries, but with strong publicly-funded services and good workers’ rights.

For example, Sweden has no minimum wage, so employers can pay their employees the market value for any job, which is typical of capitalist countries. However, the country does have a strong system of powerful unions, so that workers are protected and supported in their jobs.

This may seem like a contradiction, but it seems to work in the Nordic countries, which have strong economies and good public welfare systems.

https://www.routesnorth.com/sweden/is-sweden-a-socialist-country/




Critical race theory is essentially a history class taught in some universities. Talking about things like the border between Texas and Oklahoma.

Quote:

When Texas sought to enter the Union in 1845 as a slave state, federal law in the United States, based on the Missouri Compromise, prohibited slavery north of 36°30' parallel north. Under the Compromise of 1850, Texas surrendered its lands north of 36°30' latitude. The 170-mile strip of land, a "neutral strip", was left with no state or territorial ownership from 1850 until 1890. It was officially called the "Public Land Strip" and was commonly referred to as "No Man's Land."




Australia, America, and a variety of lands are permeated with a history of genocide and racism, in acknowledging history it doesn't mean people who aren't racist or perpetrating bigotry should feel bad about anything.

And a lot of white people made it on their own, a lot of white people also had slaves, heck even black people had slaves.

Some people are too woke on all this, it's a history lesson, not a grovel and apologise for something you didn't do session.

If in 20 years time the rules that worked in my day had changed, I'd be able to acknowledge that.

Universal healthcare is a good start. imo.

Quote:

Yes, nothing is for free but legal tax minimisation is above all legal.




Slavery used to be legal too, doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be up for discussion to jump on the changing table.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Oz_Salvia]
    #27578705 - 12/12/21 01:19 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Seriously? Geeeez.

I said I FIND IT HILARIOUS that due to Bob Brown (and the general success of the Greens in the 90's) we saw a MASSIVE investment in renewable energy.
Personally I think he's a bit of a dick, and the Greens wouldn't be my first choice to govern(due to some of their crazy policies), nevertheless he got shit done.

Thanks Bob. Thanks for being such a huge pain in the arse for the major parties and holding a gun to the Labor party's collective head to form government and actually getting shit done. :super:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineStable Genius
Radicalised
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 6,234
Loc: Wide Bay Orstralia
Last seen: 8 days, 21 hours
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Brian Jones]
    #27578726 - 12/12/21 01:31 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
You guys are the only ones active on the political forum lately. If you don't mind, I would like to ask a couple questions. What political parties are the relevant ones in Australia? Do they usually have to form coalitions?





Labor Party - workers party
Liberal Party - conservatives and people that think they're better than everyone else party
National Party - farming party morphing into a coal mining party... weird... usually the minor party in a coalition government with the Liberals hence the LNP.
Greens - almost as big as the Nationals in the 90's but they still won't legalise pot :grrr:
One Nation - racist cunt party fast gaining in popularity.
Other assorted odd ball parties... Bob Katter is my favourite.






Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Another thing, I read about 4 years ago an article in Rolling Stone about Western Australia being an ecological disaster because they built it up and brought the water in from elsewhere, which sounded a lot like the Western U.S., probably more accurately South Western.




Western Australia mmmmmm they don't like us :lol: I'm serious they don't like anyone from the eastern states so I dare not answer for them :lol: but I do know their land clearing practise after WW2(soldiers were given a cheap plot) ruined a lot of land.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: sudly]
    #27579173 - 12/12/21 07:45 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

In regards to Sweden and socialism pitch.

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/january/february-2020/swedens-lessons-america

There is just one problem: Sweden is not socialist.

If Sanders and Ocasio‐Cortez really want to turn America into Sweden, what would that look like? For the United States, it would mean, for example, more free trade and a more deregulated product market, no Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the abolition of occupational licensing and minimum wage laws. The United States would also have to abolish taxes on property, gifts, and inheritance. And even after the recent tax cut, America would still have to slightly reduce its corporate tax. Americans would need to reform Social Security from defined benefits to defined contributions and introduce private accounts. They would also need to adopt a comprehensive school voucher system where private schools get the same per‐pupil funding as public ones.



All up if you think Sweden is a great Socialist paradise then head off there. No one is stopping you.


Quote:

Critical race theory is essentially a history class taught in some universities. Talking about things like the border between Texas and Oklahoma.




It's a huge waste of time to clutter one's head with that nonsense. It's divisive as it measures people on their identity not individuality.

Reminds me of the lyrics of the British Neo-Nazi band Screwdriver's 'Showdown': "the colour of your uniform is the colour of your skin"; yet that's also the BLM/AntiFa mantra with the same identity thinking hence this absurdity (lifted else where on this sub-board). :rolleyes:

We live in a white supremacist patriarchy so no you aren’t wrong, but it’s not like other groups have some explicit opposition to war and capitalism. It’s Plato’s Cave for most people, theyve lived in the “war and capitalism” box their entire lives and can’t fathom a system outside that. Even the millennials who swear that half of them love socialism only mean that they want the social safety net expanded.

Or one could reject both of the extremist nonsense and think individually and succeed. :cool:


Quote:

Australia, America, and a variety of lands are permeated with a history of genocide and racism, in acknowledging history it doesn't mean people who aren't racist or perpetrating bigotry should feel bad about anything.




Well, no guilt. I live in a white enclave and prefer it. I chose it. I did my own research per spatial demographics. Safer community and few rentals and too pricey for riff-raff. All owner occupied and many well heeled. Low crime rates. Ticks the bucket list of a more likely safe place to age. That's realism.


Quote:

And a lot of white people made it on their own, a lot of white people also had slaves, heck even black people had slaves.




Whites had slaves long ago where none are alive today nor are the slaves they had. Time to move on.

Blacks still have them but that's conveniently airbrushed https://qz.com/africa/1333946/global-slavery-index-africa-has-the-highest-rate-of-modern-day-slavery-in-the-world/


Quote:

Some people are too woke on all this, it's a history lesson, not a grovel and apologise for something you didn't do session.




It's definitely part of the victimhood Olympics of the Left. To be more a loser is exalted. To blame one's lot on everyone else is accepted.


Quote:

If in 20 years time the rules that worked in my day had changed, I'd be able to acknowledge that.




You're assuming two things over the next 20 years: 1.) that the change you want will come, which is less likely given the real change has seen the gap between the "have" and "have not" widen, not just in Australia but across the world (and this momentum will only increase); and 2.) that your political thinking will remain static.

Now what's going for you is you're in your early years. You can jump on board and give all that Leftie idealism the boot. I gave you a link to go read and think for yourself in getting ahead. Get selfish and get real. That's how it is. No one will come save you unless you do yourself. For the old fart Lefties on these boards who have never got ahead because of bitter indolence they're stuffed. Could care less for them.


Quote:

Universal healthcare is a good start. imo.




It's inevitable in the years forward it will implode in costs and private will be the only means. Ask yourself, are you going to be in a position to brace that?


Quote:

Slavery used to be legal too, doesn't mean it's something that shouldn't be up for discussion to jump on the changing table.




So you equate my tax minimisation to being the same as slavery. Interesting.

I guess being white, male, hetero, middle aged, got some mils, then I'm part of that hated bourgeoise class. I can hear the cart wheels of a tumbril in your imagination taking me to the gallows of the peoples' court for your glorious revolution. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27579269 - 12/12/21 08:41 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

I said I FIND IT HILARIOUS that due to Bob Brown (and the general success of the Greens in the 90's) we saw a MASSIVE investment in renewable energy.




The Greens became a household word because of the stopping of the Franklin River Dam; a dam which would have added to the hydo-electric generation of Tasmania which feeds the NEM by a Bass Strait interconnector. So that's a counter-argument then and there.

You should also appreciate rewnewables were far more expensive in the 1990's than they have become in recent years as the experience curve was yet to be realised. It was the private sector investment which did this. The Greens in the 1990's were small party, a good deal smaller than the ~10% of the electorate they are now and back then were an environmental party. These days they've become a Leftist party having robbed the ALP of their more radical leftist supporters. So how and why do you erroneously think they had the political clout back then that they have now by swaying the ALP of today? Spare me revisionism.

More formatively, it was not the Greens which bought about the change in emissions thinking, it was actually John Howard who did with his Australian Greenhouse Office - a world first to monitor by LandSat imagery landuse change for emissions, coupled with other metrics on other GHG sources. I know because I worked in this federally!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Greenhouse_Office

The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) was formed in 1998 within the Government of Australia as a stand-alone agency within the environment portfolio to provide a whole of government approach to greenhouse matters. It was the world's first government agency dedicated to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, managed Australia's response to climate change, and provided government-sanctioned information to the public.

Yes, this is what changed the mindsets to think of reducing emissions. You have to first empirically measure them to realise them to accept them and then craft policy to mitigate them. Other than landuse change the greatest emitter is electrical generation. I can assure you these numbers per the NIR and for years now have been and are submitted to the IPPC.


Quote:

Personally I think he's a bit of a dick, and the Greens wouldn't be my first choice to govern(due to some of their crazy policies), nevertheless he got shit done.




It wasn't renewables that he got moving. It was a revitalised sense of environmentalism that came about by stopping the Franklin River Dam. Give credit where it is due. Sadly the Greens party lost its way on environmentalism and has become a radical Leftist rabble.


Quote:

Thanks Bob. Thanks for being such a huge pain in the arse for the major parties and holding a gun to the Labor party's collective head to form government and actually getting shit done. :super:




Thanks Bob, for your "Convoy of No-Confidence" that swung Queensland to vote in ScoMo, so my franked shares remain untaxed nor have I been slugged an extra 25% on equities CGT. Bet Shorten just loves good ol'Bob. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineOz_Salvia
Conservative
Registered: 04/14/20
Posts: 165
Last seen: 2 years, 4 months
Re: The Australian Politics Thread [Re: Stable Genius]
    #27579344 - 12/12/21 09:38 PM (2 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Labor Party - workers party




Yet the tradies being the workers being the proletariats mostly vote the LNP because they like the dough they make and the property they can buy with negative gearing.

The ALP supporters are mostly government employees (public servants), unionists, numerous uni students, WOKE'ists, and inner-city progressives known as hipsters. These arts degree'ed sorts have been mind poisoned on Marxism to see themselves as the intelligentsia, yet generally earn a good deal less than the proletariats they despise whom they call bogans. Bitter grapes.


Quote:

Liberal Party - conservatives and people that think they're better than everyone else party




It's the party for people who want to work hard, save, invest and leave a Will to whom they please without unfair taxes to rob their endeavour. Their Liberal name is not to be confused with liberals in the US who are socialists. It's Liberal as in lasse fair.


Quote:

National Party - farming party morphing into a coal mining party... weird... usually the minor party in a coalition government with the Liberals hence the LNP.




They're still a farmers' party and farmers believe in owning property and private enterprise (hence their commonality with the Liberal Party). The coal issue is one of jobs in regional areas which saw the ALP Shorten lose his bid at the previous Federal election because he followed the Greens charter. That was fk'n poetry on election night. :thumbup:


Quote:

Greens - almost as big as the Nationals in the 90's but they still won't legalise pot :grrr:




Pot should not be legalised until a robust method to determine driver impairment intoxication and not just trace. I don't want stoned drivers on the road any more than drunks but I don't want people who smoke pot on the weekend to get done on Monday.


Quote:

One Nation - racist cunt party fast gaining in popularity.




Fast gaining because of the preachy Leftist views that they're racists. Everyone is fed up with the WOKE fuck'tards pushing endless guilt bollocks.


Quote:

Other assorted odd ball parties... Bob Katter is my favourite.




I like Clive Palmer's United Party, partly because he's a billionaire and successful. It means he can't be bought like the other politicians as why would he want a brown paper bag?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next > | Last >

Shop: North Spore Injection Grain Bag   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Sterilized Grain Bag for Spawn   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Kratom Powder For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush Plays Politics with 9/11/01 Zahid 1,617 12 10/23/03 09:07 PM
by Phred
* Whistleblower Explodes 9-11 Commission Report SquattingMarmot 737 2 08/05/04 09:25 AM
by Learyfan
* The 9-11 Commission Charade Ancalagon 561 1 08/25/04 10:20 AM
by CJay
* Commission singles out "lack of imagination"
( 1 2 3 all )
Phred 4,610 57 10/06/04 12:10 AM
by Xlea321
* Bush & Cheney & the 9/11 Commission
( 1 2 all )
Clean 3,055 21 04/30/04 03:09 PM
by sir tripsalot
* Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission usefulidiot 1,230 4 12/18/04 11:43 AM
by usefulidiot
* IRS and FEC Gag Political Speech silversoul7 855 2 02/09/04 06:52 PM
by Anonymous
* The Official Israel/Hamas War Thread.
( 1 2 3 4 ... 375 376 )
lifeiswhatyoumake 58,954 7,515 05/18/24 01:53 AM
by Bigbadwooof

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
14,765 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.