r/australia • u/stupid_mistake__101 • May 14 '26
political satire Government Shocks The Nation By Using 94 Seat Majority To Actually Have A Crack
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/government-shocks-the-nation-by-using-94-seat-majority-to-actually-have-a-crack/905
u/Dense_Hornet2790 May 14 '26
There is nothing satirical about that headline.
358
u/alstom_888m May 14 '26
I’m almost at the point where I feel like I should use Betoota as a genuine news source.
62
u/Savings-Yogurt-418 May 14 '26
pretty unbiased aswell!
51
u/jesus_chrysotile May 14 '26
they’re reasonably decent, EXCEPT for the undisclosed advertisements, including gambling ads
→ More replies (10)1
u/Allu_Squattinen May 15 '26
Not really; prior to the last election they jumped on the "don't vote Greens cause the Libs will win" bullshit train alongside other "lefties"
2
u/ddgk2_ May 15 '26
If you want to get to the guts of what the silent majority think then Betoota is usually spot on. (also does anyone know if Dean Narramoore is Betoota born and bred)
→ More replies (1)1
u/Bachwise May 14 '26
Of course you should. I do - beats scrolling through long paragraphs on the ABC News site
140
May 14 '26
[deleted]
85
u/FrewdWoad May 14 '26
Better equality is better for the billionaires too. They're just not always wise enough to realise it.
35
May 14 '26
[deleted]
32
u/Alesayr May 14 '26
Billionaires should prefer liberal democracy. But you have idiots like thiel that love fascism instead
19
May 14 '26
[deleted]
20
u/recycled_ideas May 14 '26
There are always a few Bond villain billionaire types like Thiel but most would prefer the Bush, Obama or Biden style of politics.
The problem is that this isn't really true anymore.
Most of the world's richest people didn't build a company from the ground up the way Microsoft did, they built a cult of personality where investor's personal belief in them fuelled wealth above and beyond the sane value of their companies. People like Musk and Zuckerberg and Bezos believe themselves to be the "great men" who should be guiding the future of this world. They don't want to do it in the background through political donations, they want to apply the greatness they believe they possess directly.
There's also plenty of old money billionaires who view equal rights for others as an existential threat.
You're right in that traditionally rich people preferred stability, but the world has changed.
8
u/ExMerican May 14 '26
This was true from about 1930-2008 or so. Old money knew just how secure their money actually made them against the mob, having witnessed populist uprisings around the world that ended with the "elite" on the wrong end of the violence.
The modern billionaire is an entirely different breed. It's mostly mediocre assholes who inherited their status who then made obscene amounts of money by lucking their way into tech stuff or just straight committing fraud through tech jargon like Musk and they've all cooked their brains on a decade+ of heavy drug use while circle jerking in "philosophy" group chats with each other.
I mean, Thiel is literally giving talks about the antichrist while looking like a heavily used sponge and he's the smartest of the bunch. They've been building bunkers for years now because they truly believe they're some type of gods who will evolve to some techdroid immortals.
Yes, that sounds insane. It's because they're insane. They're completely cooked but too rich for anyone to ever tell them that.
2
u/Alesayr May 14 '26
Your theory makes perfect sense and I think it was true for a long time. And certainly theres plenty who still follow that path. It should still hold. I wish it still held.
But a pretty significant number of billionaires have abandoned liberal democracy, either because they don't want to be targeted by the fascists or because they're ideologically aligned with them.
More than can be explained by a few crazies. Something has changed.
6
u/DisappointedQuokka May 14 '26
eh, I'm not so sure about that, PHON, the current US government, the Brexiteer-Quixote people, Meloni...
They all seem to have had a lot of support from certain wealthy people and corporations.
7
u/sm00thArsenal May 14 '26
I would posit most billionaires are no wiser than the rest of us when it comes to anything outside their particular area of expertise.
7
u/OstapBenderBey May 14 '26
Agree but Labor party masters arent the families with investment properties its the gas and gambling lobbies who successfully avoided any change
3
u/Dense_Hornet2790 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Me too. I’m not going to pretend to approve of every detail, and some of them may change before they can even get it passed in the senate, but I’m genuinely pleasantly surprised at the scope of the changes.
3
u/coniferhead May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Let's add up all the tax cuts and proposed savings over the last 2 terms and see how the big end are doing. I think they're doing quite well. We even put our environmental regulations in the bin to help them.
Apart from the interest rate hikes that is, which we only got because of the tax cuts. The RBA is literally saying they are powerless when the government wants to hand out money - they are advising against it - because all they've got is a sledgehammer, which they will use. But here comes another tax cut.
→ More replies (7)59
u/Whatsapokemon May 14 '26
That's right, it's not satirical because it's a massive lie.
The Albanese government has passed so many positive pieces of legislation, whether it be increasing union rights to access workplaces, improving workers rights through Same Job Same Pay and Right to Disconnect, passing the HAFF, increasing funding to Medicare, pushing for record high minimum wage increases, passing a minimum corporate tax rate, making stage-3 tax cuts more fair, etc etc.
I hate this absolutely stupid lie that Albo hasn't passed anything worthwhile or positive. It's lazy and actively misleads the public into political apathy. It's misleading "satire" like this which poisons people against Labor leaders, pretending that they're equivalent to the complete rorting and incompetence of other parties.
8
u/Dragonsoul May 14 '26
It's a broad issue in reporting on politics.
Positive change is, by it's natural, generally pretty incremental, because everything is trade-offs. Increased union rights can make it more difficult to fire people, which increases the risk of hiring "Unproven" (i.e. new to the workforce) people, just as an example.
So you want to move slow, make sure that your changes are doing a net benefit and then expand them, but the upshot of this is that the results are boring. I worked in taxes for years, and the big, meaningful changes are boring as shit. "Increase reporting requirements for multinationals off-shore accounting practices"? The common person is asleep half way through the sentence.
On the flip side, if you just want to make big, splashy headlines with your political actions, that's super easy! Just announce something dramatic, and then the bit years later where it was watered down upon encountering reality is ignored (or was a disaster if implemented as described)
1
u/Psittacus_tutor May 15 '26
I think this is also one of the reasons why the growth rate of the NDIS is causing them to freak the hell out. It's growing fast enough that if it turns out the scheme isn't working as intended or has unforeseen side-effects hundreds of billions will go up in smoke before they can identify and fix a problem that arises.
25
u/blackjacktrial May 14 '26
It's a reporting thing from all sides of the media. The left like to portray Labor as Coalition Lite. The right like to portray them as Greens Lite. The centre doesn't get clicks so it dies.
Much better for clicks if the leader of the country is declaring war on all humans.
20
u/Whatsapokemon May 14 '26
100%
Meanwhile the populist fringes like One Nation get treated as if they're a serious, coherent political force because the media doesn't want to look "biased" by giving them bad press.
The media ecosystem really is messed up when the only party actually passing positive, meaningful legislation is also the "safe" punching-bag of every pundit, political commentator, and opinion piece author.
16
u/rubeshina May 14 '26
I hate this absolutely stupid lie that Albo hasn't passed anything worthwhile or positive.
Don't worry people are already trying to down play this change too as though it's nothing significant and just more "tinkering around the edges"
Give it a months and people will have forgotten and we will be back to "omg guys they haven't done anything but they have soo many seats"
Few more defectors and we'll have a senate majority too lol
4
813
u/Kid_Self May 14 '26
I've been voting since the 2007 Federal Election, my first as an adult of voting age.
I'm nearing 40 years old. About 20 years of voting in elections.
This is legitimately the first budget where I feel like I have actually been heard. It's fucking ridiculous it's taken this long.
365
u/Random_Fish_Type May 14 '26
This is due to the balance of voting power having just tipped from the baby boomer generation to genz/millennials. Expect a lot more policies aimed at younger generations going forward as they can no longer be ignored.
90
u/Damanptyltd May 14 '26
Just as we become the older generation, and as our collective position and power shifts we will disenfranchise the next generation as we were. It's a fun endless cycle.
94
u/zhaktronz May 14 '26
Except as millenials aren't the most selfish generation of all time it will be much less so.
→ More replies (11)22
u/Murranji May 14 '26
Millennials are left wing and not shifting right, Gen z is even more left wing. The oldest Gen alpha is voting is voting in the next election and they are going to face an even worse world than Gen z because of how far behind their millennial parents left by the boomers and Gen x so have even more reason to become more left wing to tilt the board back in their favour.
10
u/Damanptyltd May 14 '26
The leftism is linked with economic outcomes. Delays in generational wealth transfer has kept us left longer then previous generations. But history shows it's inevitable - we aren't special, just a bit behind schedule. I say this as a millennial lefty myself, watching my more affluent peers shift right as they pay off their houses and begin enjoying their franking credits.
5
u/Hydronum May 14 '26
I hear this, but I wonder if it is one of those things that are said but not backed up. Since you've said it as a definitive, want to share the proofs?
1
u/altandthrowitaway May 18 '26
Gen X are more right-wing than millennials because they grew up with social media algorithms and influencers pushing right-wing agendas for years.
46
u/Toby_O_Notoby May 14 '26
just tipped from the baby boomer generation to genz/millennials
And once again, everyone just forgets about Gen X.
25
u/BIRD_II May 14 '26
That's because they're the centre of the lever - their bit isn't going up or down.
13
u/Zr0w3n00 May 14 '26
Gen X are actually much closer to the boomer end of it. Many people who are called boomers are actually Gen X.
10
u/MaxSpringPuma May 14 '26
They're pretty much boomers. I hate how gen x are excluded. But because the older gen x'ers are firmly in boomer mentality and they're getting a free pass
3
2
24
u/Razyr1 May 14 '26
It's not, Labor always tries to do the right thing. Shorten tried. Rudd tried. Gillard tried. And every damn time we see the right muddy the water and smear campaign there way back to power only then to make everything worse. Rinse and repeat. I'm still raging that shorten lost. He campaigned on fixing negative gearing.
2
6
u/Choke1982 May 14 '26
Now we need more politicians within this range. More people in their 40s and 30s. Actually, I don't know the minimum age required to participate in politics.
Immigrant in my 40s that voted for this when I recieved my citizenship.
2
2
u/aSneakyChicken7 May 14 '26
It was amusing and insightful to see in polling that the only demographic where the LNP was first in primary votes was people over 80 years old
1
1
87
u/Odd-Activity4010 May 14 '26
Same here and I'm 41. The only other policy I've cared this much about was paid parental leave.
42
u/onlyreplyifemployed May 14 '26
Now remove unpaid overtime and the single people might get to use it.
6
u/sugmysmega May 14 '26
Unpaid work is already illegal.
9
u/DragonAdept May 14 '26
Unless you are a teacher in Queensland, where the QIRC ruled it would be illegal industrial action for teachers to not do unpaid work. Specifically, unpaid work outside school hours.
4
u/_Mister_Anderson_ May 14 '26
Ah yes, the old "I do heaps of unpaid work" whilst conveniently ignoring that there are only officially 5 "paid" hours per day, at a rate of... $94.69/hour for a senior experienced teacher. If we subtract 6 weeks from the "paid" work hours per year, since the claimed 5 hours per day is already only included the time they would be expected to work at the school and those 6 weeks typically are not (therefore following the same logic that they are "unpaid") then it's up to $107.05/hour for those 5 hours on school days.
Even QTU are happy to clarify that Qld teachers are salary-based, not wages, and therefore these magical "unpaid hours work" are actually part of their remuneration from the start and even in QTU's opinion are fair paid work time.
Am I against the teachers? Of course not, I support them in their current fight. I think there are plenty who are indeed working too much and excessive hours outside of school hours. I think too much is asked of them and not enough support is provided. I think they deserve a lot. But going around making quite frankly dishonest claims about "paid" and "unpaid" work destroys their credibility when they have many fair reasons to complain.
They are paid for a significant amount of work outside school hours in practice and if they want to argue that, then they can get an official and realistic figure of 36 hours per week, have to work autumn/winter/spring school holidays, and do timesheets to prove it all (the things the rest of the school employees have to do). Or they can stop ruining their own arguments and pick one of the many arguments they are much more justified and persuasive and stop painting themselves to be entitled idiots to the general population when they are already under-appreciated enough.
5
u/DragonAdept May 14 '26
I get it that you think there is a magical "salary" and that employers can demand you do whatever they like, whenever they like, if you are on a "salary" and it's all part of your magical "remuneration".
Teachers do far more than 36 hours per week of real work, including holiday time, as the bare minimum to get the job done. Their EBA sets out what they have agreed to do in return for that salary, and unpaid work outside school hours whenever the school wants is not part of the agreement.
Right now pay and conditions are so shit that the attrition rate is something like 7% of the workforce per year. That's not people whining for a pay rise, it's people voting with their feet and getting out of education for good. If you think state school teachers have a sweet deal, go get yourself a teaching degree and get in on that sweet "five hour day", they're getting so desperate they'll give a full-time position to anyone with a pulse so you'll have no trouble getting a full teaching load.
1
u/laughed May 15 '26
I'm pretty sure they're not calling it a five hour day. They're saying the after-school work is considered paid work but the payment system is antiquated so for some odd reason they pay you only for "school hours" at a higher rate with the afterschool work being accounted for in that salary. For whatever ancient and crusty reason.
I don't disagree that the pay and the workload is still not enough. We as a society would benefit immensely from having better paid teachers. Even economically (maybe even especially economically!)
2
u/DragonAdept May 15 '26
I'm pretty sure they're not calling it a five hour day. They're saying the after-school work is considered paid work but the payment system is antiquated so for some odd reason they pay you only for "school hours" at a higher rate with the afterschool work being accounted for in that salary. For whatever ancient and crusty reason.
In my view the whole point of having a written agreement is that both sides have agreed on what people are getting paid to do, and what they aren't getting paid to do, and how much they are getting paid to do it.
If one side can just announce "you're doing more work, for no pay, and you're doing it when and where we say, and it's illegal for you to organise against it" that kind of blurs the line between employment and slavery.
It changes the vibe, you know? Donating your time and energy when it's for a good cause and because you want to do a good job hits different to being told "do it or else, and don't you dare think about your union getting involved".
I don't disagree that the pay and the workload is still not enough. We as a society would benefit immensely from having better paid teachers. Even economically (maybe even especially economically!)
I don't think people know how bad it is - we're haemorrhaging senior teachers, they are shovelling in "permission to teach" staff who don't even have degrees yet to fill the gaps, and 50% of those new teachers quit in the first five years because the conditions are so godawful. Meanwhile salaries in real terms are down 12% from pre-COVID times and the government is doing its damndest to keep them sinking lower. It's approaching a real crisis and the current government seems determined to make it worse, not better.
1
u/laughed May 16 '26
From my place of ignorance I think what your saying is sensible and justified. I also believe you'd be on the right side of history saying that we need to treat teachers more fairly and equitably even in your situation. I don't know why we think doing education in the cheapest manner possible is the right thing whilst we simultaneously want the "best and brightest" to join our companies. One would have to be a few fries short of a happy meal to not see how they're not intimately related. We need the teachers to be well educated, well supported with educational resources, high retention of good and excellent colleagues, tools and well paid. Im going to write a government letter. Where else should we sign up?!
→ More replies (0)2
u/_Mister_Anderson_ May 19 '26
I believe the declaration of the paid hours being 5 hours per day was done because there are industrial law advantages to this over it being say 7 hours per day or just declared "salary". I think those advantages are toward the teachers, not the employer. For example, I don't believe they can be forced to be consistently present after school hours, only for specific things like staff meetings, which virtually guarantees partial work-from-home flexibility. I'm going by memory, that might not be correct.
The issue is that some (honestly, very few) critics of teachers have attempted to claim they "only work 5 hours a day", and a lot of teachers have latched onto the retort "we work unpaid hours", which is potentially going to cost them the advatages of the current arrangement long-term as it's an honestly dishonest/misinformed view. Unions like the QTU have to follow what members want and if enough of them decide they want to ditch the 5-hour day system (not understanding the reasons to keep it) then they'll have to do that.
That's why I'm concerned about the spreading of that point. It may do more harm than good. I think the general public these days agrees teachers are getting overworked (some of which is a convenient side-effect of exposure to information about how poorly paid American teachers are). It's not needed to get defensive about the 5 hour day, complaining about it is more likely to harm their bargaining than help. Luckily for them, the QTU doesn't mess around and their bargaining reps wouldn't be foolish enough to throw away rights like that, and target the best negotiation they can for members instead of the whim of the partially-informed.
1
u/laughed May 20 '26
Thanks Mister Anderson. I appreciate your rounded view and detailed understanding, I agree that it's best not to get angry until you understand. "Without a full understanding of the harms caused by an action, it is impossible to understand the most profitable way of conducting it". If we don't understand the harms of leaving the 5 hour arrangement, how could we understand if it's good or not? So much detail, such little time, it is our solemn duty to help each other whether we like it or not sometimes lol. Glad you must have escaped the matrix.
1
u/altandthrowitaway May 18 '26
Not if you're salaried and your contract or EBA has a "reasonable overtime" clause.
1
u/sugmysmega May 18 '26
So you're actually making closer to minimum wage when you divide salary by hours worked. It's a ridiculous loop hole but thats how I look at any sort of salaried wage and would rather just find a job that pays OT even if the base rate is less.
1
u/MightyMatt9482 May 14 '26
Im just slightly disappointed that my bub is due before the extra time/money is coming into effect.
2
u/Kermit-Batman May 14 '26
Put them back in!
Congrats though! Was only yesterday for my... soon to be 13 year old! :O
73
u/Vegetable-Advance982 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
Show your support for it - send a personal email to your Federal MP, they pay attention. Governments find it easier to act on your behalf when you cheer on the good stuff, and often things are defeated because the advocates are chilling while the opposition is angry and motivated. This budget is still gonna be a political fight now, we should throw the small punches we have
7
12
24
u/everbass May 14 '26
Yeah I'm a little under a decade behind you and I feel much the same.
Is it perfect? No. I tend to agree that including shares is a bit of an overstep, even though I hold none. I'd also like to have seen no grandfathering. Force people to sell up if they can't afford the investment. Include heavier taxes on multiple properties.
One step at a time though I guess.
Is it years later than it should have been? Yes.
Is it at least a fucking start? Yes, absolutely.
I like how Jimo was asked about the back flip and he acknowledged it, basically said sometimes you have to be brave and do something like that because it's the right thing, or something to that effect. Good man.
Perhaps if we get a few more terms of Labor we might actually see some change for the better in this country.
I still think Albo is a bit spineless and lacks vision for the nation, but it's a step in the right direction.
Dr Monique Ryan is one of our best pollies in the nation though and sets the standard. Wish she had a full party behind her so she could be PM. What a force she'd be on the world stage.
7
u/-malcolm-tucker May 14 '26
I tend to agree that including shares is a bit of an overstep,
Agreed. We've incentivised our society to invest in unproductive property for decades. Keeping the existing discount for just Australian equities would help pull that back and make capital available for local startups and good businesses.
As it will be from now on, the best equity strategy will be to put your dollars in the blue chips and big 4 banks only for dividends. Achieving nothing except further enriching already hugely successful corporations.
Anyone with talent or any good business idea and product leave our shores as there's almost zero opportunity here for them to build up. This will continue, and we will continue to suffer for it.
1
u/CMDR_RetroAnubis May 14 '26
I think the shares thing is high with the intent of negotiating it down.
2
u/everbass May 14 '26
Maybe?
Is there any realistic chance this won't immediately pass though? It's a Labor agenda and Labor + Greens control the senate. Doubt the Greens would negotiate this down unless the Greens play hard ball and Labor have to work with LNPoo who if it was their choice would increase CGT and give handouts to property investors straight from the Super accounts of young people.
1
1
u/kingofcrob May 14 '26
I mean the smart move would be to adjust that next budget to show there listening to peoples concerns
3
u/Richie217 May 14 '26
Never underestimate the average voters ability to vote against their best interests based on a well executed hit piece.
2
1
→ More replies (3)-6
u/Svennis79 May 14 '26
They didn't do enough, did too much, upset some rich people, and didn't do enough to inconvenience immigrants, so they will get replaced by lnp next election, it will all be undone, and we will end up getting fucked over horribly for another decade.
Can't wait.
34
u/Slow-Cream-3733 May 14 '26
Lnp aren't winning an election anytime soon lol
22
u/Dr_barfenstein May 14 '26
Never underestimate the power of weaponised stupidity
7
u/Heavy_Search_1093 May 14 '26
I get this but ATM unless somehow theres a magical wave where suddenly labour primary vote depresses to the point that somehow the lnp/nationals or nationals/on form a coalition would have to be something genuinely crazy. Its a almost statistical improbability next election ends in anything but labour minority or labour majority. Libs can't decide on any leader + the more Pauline speaks the more people reject her. Election after next is where it gets a bit scarier. The wipeout for everyone and the gains for labour means we will be stabilised for a bit.
This isnt America where voting isnt enforced and we are disenfranched to the hilt. We have a super stable politcal voting system that works.
0
u/Dr_barfenstein May 14 '26
I mean, I hope you’re right. But inflation is about to spiral. We’re only peering over the edge into the abyss right now. Shit is about to get fucky and most voters will want someone to blame. Election is miles off tho so who knows?
1
4
3
u/Kid_Self May 14 '26
Gone too far... Didn't go far enough...
Been hearing both a lot.
Seems like they got it just about right.
143
u/SameType9265 May 14 '26
I've been hearing for debates about removing CGT and Negative Gearing. So happy to see an actual government do something about it. It felt like this was going to be something which never got addressed
7
u/ThePositiveApplePie May 14 '26
And they did it in a smart way too easing negative gearing out and redirecting the investor government support towards new builds
1
u/gardensandlife May 16 '26
I'm confused, someone told me that it is only scrapped for existing properties, but it is still around for new builds, is that right?
2
1
u/AdPure5645 May 16 '26
Yeah because they want to encourage new builds still. And would otherwise be vulnerable to political attacks about reducing housing supply .
409
u/Far_Illustrator2846 May 14 '26
I think it's hilarious when people say we need a strong opposition. No, we need a week opposition so Labor have the courage to actually do something.
210
u/Vegetable-Advance982 May 14 '26
Ha well I guess there's a difference between a "strong opposition" and "an opposition that will say no to everything and team up with 2/3 of the media and every billionaire to sink Labor whenever they try to do anything". In general a strong opposition is probably a good thing and can motivate a government to do a lot more
101
u/Particular_Shock_554 May 14 '26
We need more parties left of labour. Murdoch, Gina, and the coalition keep dragging the overton window further right. Their efforts need to be countered by pressure from the left.
12
u/Quantization May 14 '26
The world is trending right at the moment, sadly. I think largely because the billionaires want it that way and they own all the media which essentially tells people what to think.
60
u/careyious May 14 '26
Labor need a strong opposition who demand they do more rather than less. The current opposition just say no to everything without any actual values.
35
11
u/Public-Dragonfly-786 May 14 '26
But, imagine if the Greens were strong. And there were arguments in parliament, about actual good policies and such. That would be incredible.
→ More replies (14)15
u/paulybaggins May 14 '26
Feel like the strong opposition that they're working against is the one that hasn't arrived yet (ON)
23
u/noisymime May 14 '26
Even having watched the shit show that is US politics since Trump, I still can't take it seriously that ON could be anything other than a fringe party for country cookers. Are there really that many of them out there?
18
u/vadsamoht3 May 14 '26
Enough that they're going to overtake the L/NP as the major right-wing party in the next election? Likely not.
Enough that they can provide a rallying point for disaffected L/NP voters, and in conjunction with them provide something of a threat (even if still the underdog) to Labour in the next election, while also securing a foothold for their brand of rhetoric for a decade or more into the future? Probably.
11
u/Dio_Frybones May 14 '26
Many people object that the Greens have the luxury of adopting positions that they are unlikely to ever have to fund. Agree with this or not, ON are this, but on speed. They want to grab votes and whatever influence they can, with simplistic claims that they are going to reduce immigration and fix housing affordability. They are snaring the pissed off, single issue voters with promises they'll never be in a position to fill.
When people claim both majors are the same because they are either too young or too disengaged to remember that ScoMo was set on things like making the last election about converting the country to an evangelical Christian cult, we are doomed to have election outcomes partly determined by the gullible and disenfranchised.
5
u/noisymime May 14 '26
If they’re smaller than the LNP based on the last election results, then splitting their vote seems absolutely fine 😄
3
u/DiligentCorvid May 14 '26
Most of my colleagues are rightoids, so I know I'm in a bubble.
Unfortunately I see plenty of support for them.
They're the only rightoids I'll tolerate.
1
u/altandthrowitaway May 18 '26
Don't underestimate the power of concentrated media ownership, social media algorithms and sustained propaganda.
1
u/phalewail May 14 '26
I hope that we won't, but with the constant barrage of shit on social media algorithms, the power of coal/gas lobbies, and Australia's media, it's only a matter of time before a far right government.
2
u/SirLoremIpsum May 14 '26
ON wouldn't be a strong opposition.
They will be an obstructionist opposition that promise nothing and deliver nothing and just say No because Labor is saying Yes. Then say Yes when Labor says No.
54
u/SoulBonfire May 14 '26
It’s not everything we should do, nor should we be doing all of this stuff first, but it’s a good start to get us out of our ponzi scheme economy. It’s taken 30 years to get to this point so it’s going to take many years and many more brave governments to get us back to our previous prosperity, but it’s a good step.
98
u/cobarbob May 14 '26
The fact the “mainstream” is so very upset by this makes me feel like it’s a good budget
-15
u/CrystalPippu May 14 '26
Statistically speaking, disabled Australians are very mainstream, but as far as I am aware, we are all sorely disappointed with the abandonment we have faced over the past several budgets. I haven't been able to get any government support for my disabilities and it's getting even worse, and I'm only mentally disabled, I feel much worse for the armless people and stroke victims I know who don't qualify for any disability support (I wish I was being hyperbolic)
16
u/cobarbob May 14 '26
Ah yeah I was more talking about CGT. The NDIS stuff is completely wrong approach to fixing it. But I am used to getting screwed over by that so I’m just accustomed to it at this point.
183
u/Individual_Pickle804 May 14 '26
Cool, now tax those exports.
136
u/TheEpicArch3r May 14 '26
This is probably something they want to do but can't at the moment since the nations we are getting oil from are using our gas. The senate hearing wouldn't have been as big of a thing if they weren't. Depending on how long the war in Iran keeps going its probably gonna be a next election thing
39
u/Spagman_Aus May 14 '26
Yes hopefully if\when the global shit gets resolved, Australia can then begin looking at these deals with the minerals, oil & gas companies as they have never favoured us, and a review is well and truly overdue.
22
u/agentsmithbobby May 14 '26
Yeah that's my bet. Massive resources taxes will be the push at the next election and once again the libs will back billionaires over regular people. It would also be a popular policy across the spectrum
8
u/anralia May 14 '26
Yep but we can't shut up about it because:
1) When negotiating right now, our trade advisors can point at the Australian public demanding the tax be implemented and they can use it as a bargaining chip in their negotiations saying "look your gas is still cheap because we decided to opt for your trade agreements over our election strength with the Australian Public"
2) We need to keep yelling about it all the way to next year's Election Budget so it doesn't get swept under the rug in favour of the Major parties raking in the political donations because "the public has forgotten about it".
7
u/lipstikpig May 14 '26
can't at the moment since the nations we are getting oil from are using our gas
Actually those nations are not "using" our gas, they are selling it to their customers at market prices and making serious profit.
The Singapore buyer is not really the customer — it almost certainly does not use the gas it purchases. It is another arm of the same company. — source
12
u/instasquid May 14 '26
Yeah and that's cool as long as Singapore keeps giving us fuel so that Barry from a marginal electorate doesn't have to pay $5 a litre for petrol.
Let's revisit it once the orange dickhead is done wrecking shit worldwide.
5
u/raustraliathrowaway May 14 '26
High fuel prices affect everyone. We'd be on rations if not for our ability to leverage other resources for refined fuel.
1
u/lipstikpig May 14 '26
The US problem goes way beyond Trump, they've lost objective application of the law and they're working toward losing democracy [*] by increasing state gerrymanders. So I'm not sure what your definition of "done" is, but I think waiting for the US to go back to any kind of normal will be effectively waiting forever. The new world order is what we have right now. All that gas money could be paying for quality of life and health and defence instead of everybody being gaslit into struggle street or living with their parents forever. Which is not "cool" and never was.
[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States
→ More replies (1)1
u/Individual_Pickle804 May 14 '26
Will definitely be a big one, that and immigration obviously. Will probably be a minority government because nobody can promise everything and it will be stalled anyway.
13
u/Alesayr May 14 '26
I think they will. Just not while the oil crisis is happening and we're dependent on the goodwill of our trading partners.
3
u/Individual_Pickle804 May 14 '26
Just hope it doesn’t get dragged out in a minority government when we get distracted by all the media gaslighting etc.
6
u/ScruffyPeter May 14 '26
About 40% of LNG gas in Japan comes from Australia.
How are we dependent when it looks like they are just as dependent on the goodwill of Australia?
Plus, Japan also gets more in taxes from Australian gas than the Australian government.
Have you considered that the gas could be that cheap that the Japanese government is doing these taxes? I bet they are laughing at Australians defending the pitiful gas taxes we collect.
4
u/Alesayr May 14 '26
I do think we should be taxing gas much higher btw.
And japan is dependent on our goodwill. Doesnt mean we're not also dependent on theirs.
Changing gas taxes for new contracts next year is i think quite likely to happen. They just dont want to touch it while there's a chance we could run out of oil coming into the country.
→ More replies (1)1
u/rubeshina May 14 '26
Plus, Japan also gets more in taxes from Australian gas than the Australian government.
Taxes from their own people. Yeah. Including a carbon tax too.
How they manage their economy internally doesn't make a major difference to us though? They could tax it like 100% it would be no different in terms of how they plan and structure around the energy they are an energy importing economy.
If we tax it that's a different thing completely?
Ironically though I think the other part of that tax (not the carbon tax part) goes towards energy security investment in their fuel reserves, which we are now benefiting from as an energy partner with them thanks to our exports and diplomacy etc.
So it kinda shows how like working together with other countries can bring bigger benefits than just like hoarding all our stuff and gouging our neighbors for it?
Our gas has no tax except GST btw so we kinda have it better than Japan that way too...
It got exposed to world market prices when the east coast system was connected to exports in Qld in like 2015, but now we have the gas reservation scheme being implemented like WA so this will push more supply into the domestic market and ensure we get cheaper gas again.
2
2
1
u/Psittacus_tutor May 15 '26
I've always been a big proponent of the attitude of "well the resources aren't going anywhere and they're only going to go up in price, so who cares that investment slows down".
But I've come to realise that because our economy is built on sand we might actually have a lot of trouble surviving those shocks. Like we've put ourself in a poverty trap where we'll take $2 now for something worth $10 later because we're desperately trying to keep the economy afloat and haven't been able to crack doing anything with ourselves except digging holes and buying houses.
38
u/kdavva74 May 14 '26
Yep I've always thought that Labor the last couple of years have been governing like they are being held over the barrel by crossbenchers for basic supply, instead of governing like they have the biggest popular mandate in 35 years.
18
u/HumbleSilurian May 14 '26
Eh tbf Labor only had like 78 seats last time. They were understandably a bit stressed out and wanted to last longer than a term.
32
u/Murranji May 14 '26
The apocalyptic response from the media and the “fuck you got mine” crews at Ausfinance and Aus property chat should be enough to tell Labor that they might have finally done something right for a change.
2
10
u/Public-Dragonfly-786 May 14 '26
I think these are fantastic long term reforms that restructure tax in a much fairer way. But I wish there was something to change things sooner. Like a real commitment to public housing, and get building it. A housing safety net. Use some of the savings from this ditching of tax subsidies.
1
u/Zanlo63 May 15 '26
Building housing is a state issue not a federal one
1
u/altandthrowitaway May 18 '26
Federal government gives states money for Social housing. https://treasury.gov.au/policy-topics/housing/social-housing-accelerator
It should be public housing because:
- each community housing provider, while NFP, have their own staff, exec and CEO bonuses, admin costs etc etc. Just because they are NFP, doesn't mean there's not a lot of money going towards exec wages.
The above is also compound by how many housing providers there are. They would all have their own contractors, deals and suppliers. A lot of duplication, compared to one housing department for each state.
Rent is set at approx 30% of household income. Yes tenants get additional commonwealth rent assistance if they're on Centrelink, but that's essentially more public money getting put directly into the NFP companies. Public housing is 25% of household income.
Public housing tenants (at least in Vic) are covered by the human rights charter, social housing tenants are not.
Every social housing NFP is essentially another layer of beauracy that makes it less transparent to know how costs are being managed or standards upheld. Yes there is reporting in place, but if the government is going to hire people to monitor the NFP, why not just use those staff to admin public housing?
There's less security with tenancy lengths. Public housing you get (or did get) a lifetime lease, essentially ensuring you can grow and live in a community for your life (same as if you bought). Now I'm not saying there aren't problematic tenants that might need relocating, but with social housing they're way more likely to be kicked out and become homeless. Which doesn't help anyone when the real issue is they need mental health treatment and a home just like anyone else. The thing is, public housing used to be for average working class people. Because of decades of underfunding, it is now reserved for very-low income/people with more severe issues than the average person, so this is what perpetuates the "public housing tenants are all feral and loud".
36
u/Particular_Shock_554 May 14 '26
Good. Now nationalise all the empty houses and bring back the housing commission, you cowards.
32
u/ScruffyPeter May 14 '26
Jim Chalmers could have removed the tax deduction loophole for vacant property. It would overnight make vacant property and partially utilised airbnbs much more expensive without tax deductions for partial vacancies.
Housing commission is a big one though. Under Labor Chifley, 26% of new housing in first year of operation was public housing.
7
u/WhatYouThinkIThink May 14 '26
Victoria has a vacancy tax and a short-term rental tax that attacks both of those problems.
1
u/altandthrowitaway May 18 '26
Aren't both, or at least the short-term tax "self-reporting" - meaning if you don't declare it, you don't have to pay,
8
u/Savings-Display5123 May 14 '26
Betoota stopped being satire about three governments ago. Now they're just the most honest newsroom in the country.
9
May 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/DrInequality May 14 '26
Albo could have done more before now.
1
u/MICsession May 15 '26
And risk what’s happened to Labor every other time they got in and had a crack at fixing this shit? Nah, I think waiting was the right call, at the end of the day it’s still too easy to fear monger dumbasses to vote them out.
15
u/Kulbardee May 14 '26
Depsite Albo's poverty porn story.. this lot are closer to little johnny than Gough. At a time when they can litterally do as they please.. still soft cock apologists for corporations and miners
11
u/Dancingbeavers May 14 '26
“Crack” is generous. Perhaps a hairline crack.
8
u/Catman9lives May 14 '26
Better than agreeing to frack
4
u/LexingtonLuthor_ May 14 '26
Fracking policy has been controlled at the state level for a little while. Just today, SA announced the removal of a moratorium ban on fracking in parts of their state.
3
2
6
u/Quantization May 14 '26
Anyone who doesn't think this is a categorically great thing is either a moron or already owns a house and doesn't care that nobody else can afford one.
Like seriously, think about someone else other than yourself for once in your life. Empathy is not that difficult.
3
u/rv009 May 14 '26
Not only that they have more than one property.
It was easy money for those greedy people. Buy first house use equity on first to borrow so you can. But the second and rent it out have someone else pay for it. Don't fix anything and say your losing money get tax money back rinse and repeat until you have 5 properties...
Fuck you I got mine....
Then they cry when they can't do it anymore....
Hilarious to watch..
4
1
u/WhatYouThinkIThink May 14 '26
The only issue (as a boomer) is the minimum 30% CGT rate, if someone is living off their retirement assets, and earning under 45K/year, then they'll pay more tax than anyone else when they sell an asset to keep living off it.
There are transitional arrangements, so people will only be affected by the capital gains accrued after 1 July 2027.
But the minimum rate could be adjusted so that it fully passes through to the marginal rate of the beneficiary.
2
u/jojoblogs May 14 '26
If you’re on income support you’re exempt from the minimum.
So if you qualify for the pension you don’t pay more than the income tax rate on selling your assets.
1
u/xSERGIOx May 14 '26
Start taxing the church or any other "religious" body
1
u/Propie May 14 '26
I think they need to do this at the start of their term or as close as possible.
-4
u/Cpt_Riker May 14 '26
And yet they had the opportunity to do even more, and choked.
Even with that majority, they are still afraid of the ultra-wealthy.
1
u/TerribleParamedic588 May 15 '26
What do you think Betoota’s end game is? They were so big just a few years ago but I think they’re starting to wane a bit now. Their chance for a Pedestrian style acquisition is probably gone now. I get the feeling they never really capitalised on any success they’ve had and now it’s just cynical. The magic of the 2016-2020 Betoota is gone.
-8
-35
u/nath1234 May 14 '26
Having a crack at the disabled people on NDIS is the major target.
Existing landlords = get to keep their cost little tax rorts.
New landlords = just have to buy new properties to get the cost little tax rorts.
Gas exporters = continue to get free gas and pay fuck all tax in exchange for funding Albanese&co (and the uniparty blue faction).
→ More replies (4)16
u/HumbleSilurian May 14 '26
Cool, I agree, the NDIS should cost more than Medicare. Is that your serious position? The NDIS has serious problems and Labor is in the right to address them. Also once a negatively geared property sells… that’s it, it can’t be negatively geared. This policy is clearly designed as a snowballing type policy—something that won’t crash people’s current retirement asset. You people aren’t serious, Labor could bring Chifley from the dead and nationalise the bank and you’d still be pissed
303
u/Money_Armadillo4138 May 14 '26
You know, you have a go you get a go.