Australian Federal Election 2025

[Knobby22]

Christopher Pyne just now said that you win elections by getting voters of like minded views.

He said you need to take the centre right, not try to make them far right.
He mentioned about 6 mistakes and said immigrants felt like the party wasn't for them, also women, public servants, young people etc.

He said when you go fishing you go to where the fish are, the same goes for politics.

Always loved Christopher Pyne. Top bloke.

He said this on the ABC 7:30 report.
So obviously a lot of the problematic people within the Liberals will ignore what he said and call him a traitor.

 

[SirRumpole]

There are plenty of pensioners on cruises, who have a full pension and a huge mansion.
I can actually remember politicians, saying that elderly living in mansions shouldn't get the pension and should have to downsize.
How times change, when those same politicians and their supporters, get older and live in mansions. LOl

@SirRumpole how much money do you think is lost, in CGT exemption, for the prime residence exemption?

Put it another way, should the married couple who sell their house for $1million and put it in super at 5% or $50k/ annum, be punished?

When they could have stayed in the house and received $50k pension, how that would that make sense?

It's an interesting subject and for super to work, there has to be a benefit for the worker, not only for the Government.

This is 2015-2016, what do you think it is now?

According to Treasury the size of the main residence exemption is $46 billion in 2015- 16. This means that the exemption to the top 10 per cent of households was worth $17.1 billion.

There is a difference between buying a house to live in and buying one to make money.

If I had to move for some reason, yes I would make a profit on the house I sold but then I would have to buy another place at an exhorbitant price, so there goes my profit. In effect the cgt tax I would have to pay would make it very difficult to buy another place that i would want to live in.

Unless I joined the frog in Panama of course, come to think of it....

 

[orr]

The Liberal party has a 'women problem' ... it's not a secret; just ask anyone.
.... It was basically Peta Credlin and Gina Hancock/Rienhart ( and even those two were happy to see the back of Sophie Mirabella). Now with Jacinta? .... The Lib's position? It's only gotten worse.
But as Napoleon is said to have said; 'don't interrupt the enemy whilst they're making a mistake'

 

[Bellcose]

I purchased this present residence in 1996. Although I have changed the kitchen and made a 1982 build more comfortable as a home, I haven't bought it since then so I wonder who caused the value to increase? Oh, I know, people younger than me who found the area desirable and were happy to borrow lots of money at low interest rates and probably pay inflated prices.

Their fault for being greedy, not mine.

It's fascinating in many ways. These oldies sitting in the expensive properties getting benefits and having a tax free home. So unfair.

This is some details of the property I sold (I have only ever had two homes) in order to move to my current residence due to an expanding family. Having kids can cause that.

Three bedroom dump in what was viewed as the lower undesirable part of the suburb. Yeah, did some work to improve it but no extensions or anything like that. Block size, 934 square meters. I remember that when we sold in 1996 the UV was $48k. Current UV is $944k. You cannot improve the actual dirt the property sits on so the cause can reasonably be assumed people now want is viewed as a good area in which to live (or invest). It was last sold in 2021 for $1.542m. It's still a three beddy.

Type of place close to where we lived but 572 square meter block. A three beddy sold in March 2025 for $1.0725m Previously sold for $675k in 2016. Yeah, an absolute mansion with SWF done to it over 9 years. Probably bloody boomers. The greedy so and so's,

He he.

 

[sptrawler]

There is a difference between buying a house to live in and buying one to make money.

If I had to move for some reason, yes I would make a profit on the house I sold but then I would have to buy another place at an exhorbitant price, so there goes my profit. In effect the cgt tax I would have to pay would make it very difficult to buy another place that i would want to live in.

Unless I joined the frog in Panama of course, come to think of it....

Absolutely, that's why they would put a value, on what is considered reasonable for the plebs.
There is a difference, between moving house from a median value house to a median value house and moving house from a $2m to a $5m house.
Same as there is a difference between having $1m in super and having $5m in super, the problem is, it is looked at and treated differently.

What if you sold your house for $1m and put it in super, as per Costello's window and decided to rent instead of buy, as you would enjoy a better retirement.

Then all of a sudden the Govt changes the conditions surrounding the income you are making off your decision and it cuts your income by 30%, that's fine?
All of a sudden your life savings in the $1m house, is different from what you converted it into, in the belief it was a good decision based on Govt policy.

I do agree with you, if someone is on a $200k pension, they shouldn't get it tax free, also the same person, shouldn't be able to flip a $5m house for a $2m profit tax free.

Again it goes back to what is fair, it isn't fair to apply the same conditions on low wealth people, as they do on high wealth people, that's why we have a progressive tax system.

Houses and super should be treated the same, if it is unreasonable to have super over $3m tax free (which I agree with), in the same breath it should be unreasonable to think that houses flipped for more than $3m should be done so tax free.

Like I keep saying our tax system isn't fit for purpose anymore, people have more money in super, jobs are disappearing so income tax is becoming an issue, it is dissolving into a mess that bandaids ain't going to fix.

 

[Bellcose]

There is a difference between buying a house to live in and buying one to make money.

There is also a difference between a house and the concept of home.

I was at a function over Easter meeting up with a few people I hadn't seen for a bit. I was standing with a group which included a GP. Next to us was a group from interstate and one young fella was going on about the cost of houses and how oldies are stopping others from getting housing and should be encouraged to move to smaller places.

Anyways, when that group moved away the GP said, and I quote, "Great! More potential for elder abuse." She said she has patients who were encouraged (pressured?) to do that and, boy, did they regret it. Severed their social networks and easier access to medical care. And now reside in locations where even if they sold in order to move back they cannot as they have been priced out of the Canberra market.

 

[wayneL]

Expect adoration of Dear Leader soon

 

[wayneL]

Could it be? This is getting farkin expensive. A bottle of Dom for Bandt and Zoe Daniels.. now Lambie?

If Monique Ryan goes down I'll be both broke and extremely drunk

 

[sptrawler]

Could it be? This is getting farkin expensive. A bottle of Dom for Bandt and Zoe Daniels.. now Lambie?

If Monique Ryan goes down I'll be both broke and extremely drunk

She had a good run.

This is getting interesting, labor's primary vote hasn't gone up much, the Libs and the Greens primary vote have gone down, now independents are losing seats.

Sounds like a consolidation and a shift of sentiment, that hasn't found somewhere to settle IMO.

With the news of Price moving ship, it may indicate a big reshuffle in the Lib party room and a resetting of the obvious lack of enthusiasm and work ethic.

Let's be honest, Morrison had a million more primary votes than the current election and he was hammered for everything by the media.

So the Libs have to realise they have to actually have a pulse, even if they are in opposition, they obviously have way too many seat polishers.

Sitting down the back and saying Fck all for three years, ain't going to cut it, post Trump IMO.

For Australia to stay viable, it is going to have to change in a lot of ways, the old saying of too many leaner's and not enough lifters' is coming home to roost IMO.

Time will tell, but the new world order, won't be the same as the last 50 years IMO.

 

[sptrawler]

There is also a difference between a house and the concept of home.

I was at a function over Easter meeting up with a few people I hadn't seen for a bit. I was standing with a group which included a GP. Next to us was a group from interstate and one young fella was going on about the cost of houses and how oldies are stopping others from getting housing and should be encouraged to move to smaller places.

Anyways, when that group moved away the GP said, and I quote, "Great! More potential for elder abuse." She said she has patients who were encouraged (pressured?) to do that and, boy, did they regret it. Severed their social networks and easier access to medical care. And now reside in locations where even if they sold in order to move back they cannot as they have been priced out of the Canberra market.

Absolutely, that is exactly the sort of issue that has to be addressed and why the whole tax issue has to be looked at holistically.

That's also why useless politicians aren't going to cut it soon, the issues are going to get more complex and paying muppets to sit quietly in parliament for 3 years isn't going to work IMO.

I guess, what IMO is becoming obvious is, striving for mediorcity could well be coming to an end.

What you described, is the result of 20 years of striving for mediocrity and the participants now have achieved what the system asked for, nothing and that's what they achieved.
So what's next? Elder abuse.

 

[IFocus]

Future governments will have to address the younger generation being lockout of the property market and as its a base of wealth I am not sure how this can be achieved but at some point that group will absolutely spit it.

 

[sptrawler]

Future governments will have to address the younger generation being lockout of the property market and as its a base of wealth I am not sure how this can be achieved but at some point that group will absolutely spit it.

ABSOLUTELY.
In this country with all the land it has, a kid who works hard, should be able to aspire to get a house.
The situation we now have is the result of inflating away Govt debt, but how they readjust everything to the new cost base, is the real issue.

Also it's not just the younger generation, the three pensioners that are renting in the units at my complex, are actually becoming agressive with each other, with contractors and nearly came to blows when they met at the senior citizens club.

Let's be honest, this isn't good when pensioners in their late 70's can't afford to rent and the stress is resulting in aggressive behaviour.

 

[Smurf1976]

There is also a difference between a house and the concept of home.

I was at a function over Easter meeting up with a few people I hadn't seen for a bit. I was standing with a group which included a GP. Next to us was a group from interstate and one young fella was going on about the cost of houses and how oldies are stopping others from getting housing and should be encouraged to move to smaller places.

Anyways, when that group moved away the GP said, and I quote, "Great! More potential for elder abuse." She said she has patients who were encouraged (pressured?) to do that and, boy, did they regret it. Severed their social networks and easier access to medical care. And now reside in locations where even if they sold in order to move back they cannot as they have been priced out of the Canberra market.

I'll use the analogy of being overweight.

To a limited extent it can be hidden through choice of clothing and so on or even wearing tight fitting purpose designed undergarments.

Ultimately though that only works to very limited extent. If you're 5kg heavier than ideal then you can probably hide that but not if it's 50kg. A point comes where the problem's too big, any attempt to squash the fat in one location just makes it more obvious somewhere else.

Now applying that to Australian politics I see a very similar problem. The harsh reality is we've an assortment of serious structural problems that have grown to the point they're not easily hidden, indeed they're blindingly obvious.

Trouble is our politicians are prone to first order thinking. If the problem is people can't afford houses then their "solution" is as per your example or it's handing out stamp duty concessions and so on. Trouble is, that's really just swapping one problem for another.

If we step back one order then the problem is that we're not building enough houses relative to demand.

If we step back once more then we find the problem is the high cost of building a house in the first place, a rapidly growing population, and that we've only a small number of cities to which most people are moving.

If we step back once more then we get into issues of the funding basis of utilities and upfront charges on new properties, land release, land banking, tax collection on new homes, a lack of tradespeople, loose lending standards, and so on.

Step back again and we're now talking about the relatively shallow economic base with limited opportunities to raise taxation revenue, we're talking about the demise of those things that historically trained most trades people, and we're talking about an economic structure under which speculation has become a more reliable way to wealth than production.

Now if we step back even further we find ourselves looking at the education system, both tertiary and secondary, and we find ourselves looking at the structure of the tax system, the "hands off" approach to economic management that's seen the decline of secondary industry, and so on.

Now my point isn't on the detail but that we're not even looking at it. Our parliament seems to be filled with people who wouldn't, or even couldn't, join the dots on the above. People who don't grasp that telling ~13 year old high school kids it's uni or bust meanwhile losing our industrial base and handing out cheap credit has brought about the in practice impoverishment of a generation.

First order thinking isn't going to fix that or indeed any problem. It's trying to put a compression sleeve over someone's obese abdomen - either they can't fit it on in the first place, it rips open, or it ends with a trip to hospital (or worse). It's not a solution.

 

[farmerge]

Expect adoration of Dear Leader soon

Obviously just another piece coming from the "King" of the US POTUS just opening his mouth to change feet.
Oh just realised that POTUS has both feet firmly planted in his gob.

 

[farmerge]

Absolutely, that is exactly the sort of issue that has to be addressed and why the whole tax issue has to be looked at holistically.

That's also why useless politicians aren't going to cut it soon, the issues are going to get more complex and paying muppets to sit quietly in parliament for 3 years isn't going to work IMO.

I guess, what IMO is becoming obvious is, striving for mediorcity could well be coming to an end.

What you described, is the result of 20 years of striving for mediocrity and the participants now have achieved what the system asked for, nothing and that's what they achieved.
So what's next? Elder abuse.

Well the bum polishers for many years of doing nothing but fill a seat, will be able to retire on a very generous tax payer funded pension, and still get another job elsewhere after they leave Parliament.

 

[Bellcose]

Well the bum polishers for many years of doing nothing but fill a seat, will be able to retire on a very generous tax payer funded pension, and still get another job elsewhere after they leave Parliament.

Stop with the pension mantra. That system was closed in 2004. Only those who were elected before then e.g. Dutton/Albenese, will receive a pension under the scheme.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'll use the analogy of being overweight.

To a limited extent it can be hidden through choice of clothing and so on or even wearing tight fitting purpose designed undergarments.

Ultimately though that only works to very limited extent. If you're 5kg heavier than ideal then you can probably hide that but not if it's 50kg. A point comes where the problem's too big, any attempt to squash the fat in one location just makes it more obvious somewhere else.

Now applying that to Australian politics I see a very similar problem. The harsh reality is we've an assortment of serious structural problems that have grown to the point they're not easily hidden, indeed they're blindingly obvious.

Trouble is our politicians are prone to first order thinking. If the problem is people can't afford houses then their "solution" is as per your example or it's handing out stamp duty concessions and so on. Trouble is, that's really just swapping one problem for another.

If we step back one order then the problem is that we're not building enough houses relative to demand.

If we step back once more then we find the problem is the high cost of building a house in the first place, a rapidly growing population, and that we've only a small number of cities to which most people are moving.

If we step back once more then we get into issues of the funding basis of utilities and upfront charges on new properties, land release, land banking, tax collection on new homes, a lack of tradespeople, loose lending standards, and so on.

Step back again and we're now talking about the relatively shallow economic base with limited opportunities to raise taxation revenue, we're talking about the demise of those things that historically trained most trades people, and we're talking about an economic structure under which speculation has become a more reliable way to wealth than production.

Now if we step back even further we find ourselves looking at the education system, both tertiary and secondary, and we find ourselves looking at the structure of the tax system, the "hands off" approach to economic management that's seen the decline of secondary industry, and so on.

Now my point isn't on the detail but that we're not even looking at it. Our parliament seems to be filled with people who wouldn't, or even couldn't, join the dots on the above. People who don't grasp that telling ~13 year old high school kids it's uni or bust meanwhile losing our industrial base and handing out cheap credit has brought about the in practice impoverishment of a generation.

First order thinking isn't going to fix that or indeed any problem. It's trying to put a compression sleeve over someone's obese abdomen - either they can't fit it on in the first place, it rips open, or it ends with a trip to hospital (or worse). It's not a solution.

How does that translate to practical taxation policy?

 

[PZ.]

"Donald Trump is making the centre left great again" , Malcolm Turnbull

 

[Dona Ferentes]

It's fascinating in many ways. These oldies sitting in the expensive properties getting benefits and having a tax free home. So unfair.

This is some details of the property I sold (I have only ever had two homes) in order to move to my current residence due to an expanding family. Having kids can cause that.

Three bedroom dump in what was viewed as the lower undesirable part of the suburb. Yeah, did some work to improve it but no extensions or anything like that. Block size, 934 square meters. I remember that when we sold in 1996 the UV was $48k. Current UV is $944k. You cannot improve the actual dirt the property sits on so the cause can reasonably be assumed people now want is viewed as a good area in which to live (or invest). It was last sold in 2021 for $1.542m. It's still a three beddy.

Type of place close to where we lived but 572 square meter block. A three beddy sold in March 2025 for $1.0725m Previously sold for $675k in 2016. Yeah, an absolute mansion with SWF done to it over 9 years. Probably bloody boomers. The greedy so and so's,

He he.

View attachment 199117

48 Warramoo Crescent, Narrabundah ACT 2604

The quintessential timber cottage perfectly positioned in one of the best tree-lined streets in old Narrabundah..

... always thought you were 'inner south'

 

[Bellcose]

48 Warramoo Crescent, Narrabundah ACT 2604

The quintessential timber cottage perfectly positioned in one of the best tree-lined streets in old Narrabundah..

... always thought you were 'inner south'

Now for sure but then? Nah, viewed as the lower socioeconomic area at the time. Public housing, workers cottages, etc. Upper Narrabundah looked down and declared "Meh, only the poorer buy there" With a sneer stressed on the word "there."