-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
rosy23 said:
Probably not, but as this story has huge exposure, it's all just following protocol just like previous governments did in the past. The Barlow & Chambers one was a failure. Where was the Man of Steal then as opposition leader?
TigerForce said:
Not much use comparing different leaders and different governments. That's comparing apples with oranges. Sticking with apples I'm just wondering if the current govt is making the same efforts for the other dozen or so Aussies on death row. One life is as important as another to those closely involved. I'd like to think the size of media exposure wasn't a prime criteria for the efforts the government makes....but I'm a tad cynical for that.
I would assume they are making the same efforts as they did at the same stage of the bali 9's cases. None are imminently facing execution as I understand it.rosy23 said:
I would hope that the reason we don't hear anything is because they are lobbying and talking behind closed doors because in Asia that is the right way to do it.
tigertim said:
Sure did. But I assume that there is a reason the PM prefers 2UE to the ABC. I'm guessing it is the audience. On QandA recently Jones was introduced by Tony Jones as "Australia's most influential broadcaster". That really ticked me off because he has no audience outside N.S.W. and Brisbane that I know of, and Melbourne is still growing at a rate that will outpost Sydney soon so by far the majority of Australians don't listen to him. It is an example of the Syndey-centric nature of pollies from N.S.W. John Howard was almost the PM of Sydney and Tony Abbott is cut from a similar cloth IMO. The PM's over-blown rhetoric seems designed to play well to exactly the audience I described.
Makes me sick that Jo Hockey is talking about letting first home buyers use their super to buy houses. Irresponsible on so many levels. Would be great for people like him though (pushish up the value of his big property portfolio).
As of a couple of years ago people have been able to use their super via a self managed super fund to buy investment properties. I think that's an irresponsible policy too but now he is talking about letting first home buyers to use their super as their deposit. Effectively, they will have no savings (and no evidence of capacity to save), but still be able to take on a massive amount of debt.willo said:
martyshire said:
Thanks for that info Marty. I was just having a read up on it. I can remember a workmates dipping into his super some years ago to purchase his home. That must have been how he did it. Not sure though.
I guess the advantage is if people are able to withdraw enough so they don't have to pay mortgage protection insurance it may be the difference of them being able to get into their own home rather than being in the rent trap.
Pros and cons I guess. Perhaps the savings then allow extra payments back into super.
martyshire said:
It's like digging a bigger hole. We already have problems with post-Baby Boomer generations pensions being enough to survive with....especially waiting until 70 years of age to get it.
There's no way super fund trustees will allow this.
Not good policy. Basically try to keep the property bubble at levels that ean it's the lowest affordability in the world so property investors remain happy and the average Joe feels rich because he can draw down on equity and buy another car, a boat and another 65" TV.
Short term feel good factor that's going to make the inevitable correction even harder for everyone bar a few.
Short term feel good factor that's going to make the inevitable correction even harder for everyone bar a few.
Sydney and Melbourne currently have a “Median Multiple” (median house price divided by gross annual median household income) in the 8s and 9s.
In the mid 90s, Melb was about 4.5, Sydney around the 6 mark. We're currently one of the least affordable cities in the world without any real reason for it to be like that. We have the space, we have relatively low population. The only real reason for the prices to be so out of whack is because the government uses housing and the construction industry to drive the economy and peoples feel good factor. There just aren't any fundamentals that point to Australia being able to sustain this wort of price. Best case scenario is a stagnant market for a decade or so to level things out but with the Government thinking about allowing Super to be used for 1st home buyers, it's just pumping an already over inflated market
In the mid 90s, Melb was about 4.5, Sydney around the 6 mark. We're currently one of the least affordable cities in the world without any real reason for it to be like that. We have the space, we have relatively low population. The only real reason for the prices to be so out of whack is because the government uses housing and the construction industry to drive the economy and peoples feel good factor. There just aren't any fundamentals that point to Australia being able to sustain this wort of price. Best case scenario is a stagnant market for a decade or so to level things out but with the Government thinking about allowing Super to be used for 1st home buyers, it's just pumping an already over inflated market