Countdown to the Election

[Goreripper]

Unions have bargaining power. Unions bargain so individuals don't have to.

 

[Celestial-Todd]

Doesn't it seem odd that petrol prices have been out of control for ages and the government finally hands over power to the ACCC when they're being reamed in the polls

 

[Goreripper]

Well they're not being reamed in the polls so much now, which is expected really, but yeah... they've taken their sweet time to do this. Apparently the inquiry will hand down its findings in October, which will probably be a few weeks before the next election. But it's not a cynical vote-buying exercise.

 

[Southy]

Libs..buy votes? Well I never

 

[Spiff]

 

[Stonewall]

That is so funny I couldn't even brimg myself to laugh... awesome!

 

[Winmar]

Debt crisis forces mass super raid
Jason Koutsoukis
June 17, 2007

TENS of thousands of Australian families are being forced to raid their superannuation savings to pay off crippling personal debts.

Since 2001, the amount of money taken from superannuation accounts to pay off debt has quadrupled from $35 million to $135.3 million last year.

A record 16,500 individuals applied for early access to their superannuation accounts last year, with 13,871 applications approved by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.

This was more than double the number of applications approved in 2001 — reflecting an explosion in the number of severe financial hardship cases despite record employment.

Households owe a staggering $160 for every $100 of disposable income, up from about $50 in the early 1990s. And it is rising, which is placing more pressure on the regulating authority to release super fund money.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/debt-forces-mass-super-raid/2007/06/16/1181414613140.html

 

[Shannow]

Also, remember that it was under the watch of these current "economic geniuses" that the reverse mortgage became a common T.V. and radio advert.

Reverse mortgages indicate that there's something not very pleasant going on.

 

[Goreripper]

While I'm not sure this phenomonon is totally the government's fault -- clearly, people should be making better personal decisions about their finances and borrowings -- this is one of the negative aspects of living in a bull economy. The level of personal borrowing is at record high levels because of the perceived state of the economy, but personal borrowing is also part of the reason the economy is doing so well. So while it's not really the government's fault these things are happening, borrowing and spending is certainly not discouraged in boom times. People are losing their homes though, because there hasn't been any encouragement to curb spending. And the boom in reverse mortgages is about to create a generation of people who will be left without inheritances, and probably not even enough to cover funeral expenses when their parents die.

 

[Shannow]

Goreripper,
it's my view that the taxation benefits given to people to negatively gear housing (and I know guys on less than $100k per year who negatively gear anything from 2 to 10 houses...apparently the first two are the toughest, after that it's easy) are increasing the property prices top the point that in order to fulfill the Oz dream, people spend too much repaying the banks, and retire with too little. This necessitates the reverse mortgage.

Stop negative gearing on property...just like the Productivity Commission has suggested...and housing once again becomes a place to live.

I they want to keep negative gearing, then get like the U.S., and allow the interest on the primary residence to be a tax deduction.

Either way, I'm happy.

But don't let people get rich off the rental income from the poor (and the other taxpayers).

As per you post, people make some shocking decisions when it comes to having it now (and paying interest forever), or holding off and doing things when you can afford.

I HATE owing anybody else anything, so probably take that issue to the other unhealthy extreme.

 

[Goreripper]

Yeah I overlooked the negative gearing aspects of your argument, but I can't see any government doing too much to change that. Imagine the outcry from "mum and pop investors" if that happened.

 

[Winmar]

What you two said is what I was thinking when I posted the exerpt from that article. Good stuff.

 

[Goreripper]

So basically, our national prosperity is based on the mineral boom being driven by the developing world and by small investors borrowing buckets of money. And by the sell-off of national assets. If that's the case, the economy would be good no matter who was in the Lodge. It's fine to argue that the Liberals have always presided over times of economic boom, but Hawke, Keating and Whitlam combined were in power for a total of only 16 years out of the last 58. That doesn't seem like long enough to be making a really thorough comparison. It's just straight-out politicking. The economy was far more robust in the transition between Keating and Howard than it had been in the transition between Fraser and Hawke

 

[Priest of Evil]

Page 11 - Ripper, Gore! BRAVO!

 

[Southy]

Indeed keep it coming mate.

Am I the only one noticing that the last couple of Libs policies coming out, including today's broadband one are remarkably alot like the Labour policies that are seeing them lead the polls, are people really that blind/stupid/stubborn that they'll just revote who is already in, even though as most of society is noticing the Libs haven't been doing all that good for us

 

[Goreripper]

I rock

 

[Celestial-Todd]

"Boon, David - Legends Party"

It would have my vote

 

[FerretallicA]

It would find stiff competition from the remnants of the Jeff Fenech "What's Doin' Party".

 

[JonBonJovi]

It would also be a vote that would be better of in the bin. When you do votes like that they ignore everything and discount the vote.

 

[Southy]

They give donkey votes to the already elected party, so if you want change, VOTE FOR IT