“Plenty more third world countries we can steal workers from” Albo slams ‘train Australian nurses’ comments

PM Anthony Albanese has slammed comments made by International Nursing Union that Australia should train it’s own nurses and stop taking them from other countries with slave wages.

The comments came after Australia had done everything it could to steal other countries’ mediocre medical staff during a global pandemic, claiming it wasn’t our responsibility to provide for future generations and invest in local talent.

“We don’t do training in this country mate, unless it’s for real estate agents. We tell other countries to wear that cost for us and pass the cost of wage theft and everything else onto the Australian middle class. They’ve proven themselves worthy tax and debt cattle the past 40 years, why stop now?” Albanese said.

“There’s plenty of remaining third world countries we can sell Medicare and a passport to. I mean we’ve exhausted most of south-east asia, so Africa looks like it will be the next big boom. We can’t have this unemployment rate getting any lower.”

Albanese tipped that the pending Indian Free Trade Agreement could well and truly also fill the void, as a country that didn’t even have a university in the global top 300 ‘well and truly meets’ the standard of AHPRA.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
A fly in your ointment

the lack of interest for locals to work in professions like this is a system feature.
before one points the finger at jobs being stolen, remeber that jobd were made undesirable twofold: 1. overworking and paid peanuts, 2. when average RE can return $100k a year by doing sfa why should one overwork for peanuts.
to close the loop, the RE gains can be sustained only if new nurses come every year in planeloads every week… so everyone happy!


A relevant video in terms of the topic being posted too – overseas trained nurses:


We need to import nurses from other societies or cultures to care for our elderly and vulnerable…



The thing about common sense is that it is not that common 🤔


Jacinta Price…Great practical solutions…then goes into rants about fucking neoliberalism and small government.

WTF is wrong this country?

Am I so rare? A conservative that’s not super religious, nor wants small government.

Money has completely wrecked this country and it’s politics…we are doomed

Last edited 1 year ago by Totes

I am with you on this totes. Whilst Jacinta says ‘some’ sharp comments she is right at home on sky at night.

Cut teh tax, will fix thing.

Kinda ironic she says she believes in small government….🤣

Gruppenführer Mark

Not having a go at you, Totes, but how do you remain conservative AND want a big government (or not a small one)?

There are certain things that the government must do – natural monopolies like water/sewer, education, medical (excluding elective), borders, military, legislative, courts, but in what other areas do you see the government must have a role?

Am with you on the religion thing, separation of church and state is essential.


Currently the gov is stepping very rapidly out of or has already left many of those so is already very small.

Water and sewer are no more or less a natural monopoly than the other utilities like power, fixed line phones, Gas or toll roads.
And not all that surprisingly after a few decades all of those privatised markets are in the process of failing one way or another.

Gruppenführer Mark

I am seeing the opposite. Yes, the Government is selling off assets and services, but it is not really reducing the public sector workers, either Commonwealth or State.


You do understand that the workers are sold off with the assets.
Admittedly there aren’t many assets left they can get away with selling so they have slowed in the last decade.

Gruppenführer Mark

Yes, they do, in the short term, workers (blue collar). But then they tend to hire white collar / contractors who should “manage” those contracts.

Workers in my case are the total employed.


But then they tend to hire white collar / contractors who should “manage” those contracts.

Workers in my case are the total employed.

how many Government employed people do you think are managing the power network compared to how many once were government employees operating it? or the phone network?

You are looking at a very narrow view of what government is, both in scope and timeframe.

Gruppenführer Mark

I am not sure the phone network applies in this case. Technology does evolve.

On power, maybe you are correct and I do view it in a very narrow space of WA. But Western Power has lots of staff, plus contractors, and keeps hiring more.

Water Corporation – ditto, although they did outsource maintenance to an Alliance.

Main Roads WA are actually bringing all of their regional maintenance back in house.


Feel free to replace phone with NBN then.
There should have been a government fibre to every premises network equivalent to the copper one put in place generations ago, and it too would have lasted generations.
But we can’t have nice things…


I have always been a fan of Govts auctioning export volume licenses, where companies have to bid for the export quota…. if you are going to live by the neoliberal sword then you should expect to die by the neoliberal sword.

Market industry bodies can lobby to have the quotas increased, but efficient market pricing would suggest that companies would bid for the quota to the point where they were merely earning an economic profit – no more super profits from commodity booms.

A view such as this would ensure that no aspiring politician would ever see the light of day from the msm.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stewie
Gruppenführer Mark

Hell, introduction of mining resource tax, or a suggestion of upping the royalty from 25 cents to $5 per tonne of iron ore (see Brendon Grylls) were enough to end political careers.


“…then goes into rants about fucking neoliberalism and small government.”

Truth is if she expressed any other viewpoint she wouldn’t get any airtime on Sky News.

The manufactured narrative demands that any politician with nationalist views or who espouses any economic views outside the mainstream orthodox, i.e essentially neoliberalism and market based solutions FOR EVERYTHING, get excluded. The only media attention they will get is a portrayal as looney fringe dwellers who deserve contempt and ridicule.

Jacinta is a politician, she knows both where her bread is buttered, Murdoch and Rienhart, and the limits of the Overton window that she must operate in.


Spot on.

Matt Taibbi speaks a lot about left-leaning people getting black listed on Liberal media when they don’t toe the line on certain pet issues, but try being a social conservative that doesn’t follow the small gov/neo-liberal agenda pushed by those you mentioned and see if the result is any different.

I’d love to see an election that came with massive plebiscite on all the contentious issues. My guess the results would show that country isn’t half as neo-liberal as Murdoch’s goons would have us think, nor would we be anywhere close to being as woke as the average twitter leftie.


On ABC Radio they mentioned there is a massive backlog of slave visas because Dept of Home Affairs cannot hire slaves to process them. That is a big lol.

Gruppenführer Mark

Saw your comment elsewhere. The issue with visa processing is not necessarily with low-paid positions. Commonwealth employment tends to have decent wages, as does State, in lower-level positions. Some (and I am judging by a certain State agency I am familiar with) have better pay brackets for lower-level grades, than the private industry.

Another example is WA Police: https://www.letsjoinforces.wa.gov.au/benefits/

Someone with 0 experience and no uni education can slide into a guaranteed $60K/pa job for training (6 months), and then nearly $80K/pa for the next 18 months. Plus guaranteed salary increases, overtime, etc. Not too many places you can do that.

Problem is, these low-level positions, both in immigration service, and in police force, have an added “benefit” of dealing with people, not all of them pleasant and nice, and knowing full well that the decision that you make might come back and bite you on the arse at any given time. With the deteriorating society of entitled people, a growing taste for a litigious method of resolving disputes, often coupled with claims for whatever pain and suffering the perceived victim may have due to their “oppressed” status, I would not get into these jobs. Mental stress of approving or rejecting any given visa application is not worth the pay.

Now, once you get to level 5/6 (generally 5 to 10 years of experience), the pay starts to even out with private. Level 7 or above, and private beats public, but those who spent 10 or more years in a public organisation would have lost, for the most part, the ability to function in a private world and its pressures and demands that command these higher salaries.

Backlog of slave visas is another subject altogether. There should be none, unless there is a guaranteed job with a minimum $100K salary, and there are measures in place to monitor and enforce this.

Last edited 1 year ago by Gruppenführer Mark

 slide into a guaranteed $60K/pa job

You make it sound like a reasonable wage. Try comparing it to unskilled baby boomers who were able to afford a house on quarter acre block, and raise many children on a single income.

Gruppenführer Mark


I certainly do make it sound like a reasonable wage for someone with zero skills and probably not very high level of education or intelligence (I heard that in the USA the cut-off for a cop is 100 or something like that on IQ scale – as in top level, they don’t want them any smarter). That is a median income with zero effort. Not bad.

Someone will be paying YOU a wage above minimal to train YOU, for six months, and then give YOU a ~30% raise for the next couple of years. Plus overtime, etc. That is not a bad deal, until you look at whet they expect YOU to do.

As far as baby boomers go, we are not in Kansas anymore (c). Yes, we live under a different set of conditions, and wishing those conditions away ain’t gonna happen. Adapt. Change the condition, if you can. But looking back and reminiscing that someone had it easier will not change a thing. You lost the lottery, whether it is time you were born, or the family you were born into. Them are the brakes.

What I would be interested in discussing, though, is the reason why baby boomers were able to raise a family on a single blue-collar wage in their own house, but we are not. What was the cause of our society going from a one-wage household to a two-wage household? Who was behind that cause (who benefited)? Why was this reorganisation of societal norms and values necessary?

And looking further back in history, who (not what) was the driver of emancipation and original feminist movements? Who was financing these movements and why? What were the benefits received?

And looking through an even wider lens, who was the driver of the suffrage movement, what were the benefits and why?


I still don’t like your comparison. Cadetship was very common even in the 90s. Employers are not doing you a favour. That is not how capitalism works. They are investing in you and getting a return on that investment.

As for you Kansas comment. We could be back in Kansas if they let wages rises. All the capitalists who like to scream supply and demand to justify high prices, want to kill demand for workers to suppress wages. It is not complicated.


Nostalgia just ain’t what it used to be, eh?

Gruppenführer Mark


I am not the one setting the scene, so to speak.

Point is, you cannot compare what was to what is.

The society, as a whole, evolved, and not to the good. There is a good book, “Fourth Turning”, while voluminous, covers that angle.

In short, after WWII, the western societies were winners and grinners. They have defeated the greatest evil on Earth. Social, economic and societal benefits were rained down on them. They took over the political class, and passed their spoils onto their children, the Boomers.

The Boomers are not to blame, hell, if any one of us got to that position, we’d all say, give it!

Point is, what was, isn’t here. It is an easy cop-out, comparing how good it once was with how hard it is. That is what I tried to convey, albeit poorly. We have a different situation, and reminiscing about what was doesn’t get you to what is.

Fair/unfair is another subject, and I’m not engaging here. I act and see what what it is. Australia is not the only locale that had this experience.

And for my Kansas comment, see above. We, and our children, get to deal with a different set of rules. Are they unfair? Yes, if viewed from a perspective of the last 70+ years. Can they be made better, if the same or similar policies were implementer years ago? Yes.

But are these expectations realistic? Plaguerat has alluded to this in their commentary wrt: rose-coloured glasses. We must live in the now!

My point was that society today has it’s own set of rules that make it into what it is, history be damned. And that is going to be the downfall of our society, as we know it.

I had a curious conversation today with some people in the office, where I challenged them with some preconceived notions of budget split vs. political spin. The point of discussion was the spend of the Commonwealth budget on social support. Every one of them picked dole bludgers as the largest welfare spend.

Truth is, pensions, and middle-aged support schemes take up ~70% of all taxes paid in this country. The two largest voting blocks, being led blind to the slaughter. You should have seen the short-circuits in their brains, when the maths, backed by official numbers, confirm this.

One was flabbergasted. Other was “meh”. Third was “where do I find more?” All three were “progressive” women who fully subscribe to the party line. I’ll keep my job, thankfully, as they look up to me. Or so I hope.


I am well aware of the Fourth Turning. I do have a chuckle when Conservatives bring it up because the main thesis is a gradual shift from collectivism to individualism.

When you say we can’t go back, that is a copout. Australia has all the resources it needs. We absolutely can create enough jobs at a reasonable pay, with a genuine safety net, affordable housing, etc.

We just don’t have the political will because there are too many selfish cunts who are predominantly Boomers. If you have any doubts about that ask yourself who voted against the Franking Credits. Because it is only fair that poor old people who still have to work pay taxes whilst rich retirees living off dividends receive taxes.

Gruppenführer Mark


This has nothing to do with political will. It has everything to do with vested interests and ownership of vast resources of this (and other) country (ies).

Short of a revolution and redistribution of wealth there is no way to go back to a system you aspire to have. Unfortunately, a full-blown revolution is not in the cards, not here, not now.

To bring the change you are talking about peacefully, we first must have an educated society able to think logically. This takes at least a generation, maybe two. 20 to 40 years, and a will to invest in this change. That will not happen. Revolution will not happen, until people have nothing to lose, and right now they do.

Is there another way?


Revolution will not happen, until people have nothing to lose…….

And therein lays the (evil) genius of the Powers That Be and their compliant minions, the Vested Interests.

Make sure that just enough crumbs fall off the table, such that any attempt to buck the system by the proletariat carries a personal price.

Also, foster an environment, by creating copious quantities of readily available debt, that encourages said prols to play pass-the-parcel with a limited range of assets, creating the illusion of wealth, and encouraging further aspirational participants.

And, just to ensure that the prols remain firmly fixated on their own navels, lay the seeds of division within their ranks, to ensure that any rage that might otherwise be directed upwards is directed inward and outward.

You know, things like intergenerational warfare (check out this comments section), gender diversity, multiculturalism, political correctness in general, and the many international villains who hate us for our freedoms……such freedoms which can only be safeguarded and guaranteed by the aforementioned Powers That Be.

And whilst the entire population is totally occupied and distracted, busily gouging and hating one another, make off like bandits into the night with the wealth of entire nations.

If you ever hear one of the elites comment that the peasants are revolting, rest assured that he/she/they is not expressing any concern about an armed uprising.

Last edited 1 year ago by plaguerat

It doesn’t need to be a revolution. The last Fourth Turning Neil Howe refers to was resolved by the New Deal and it’s equivalent policies all around the world. Roosevelt got all the rich people together and warned them they would all eventually be lynched if they didn’t cough up to pay for the New Deal. And so we ended up jobs with minimum wages, free education, free healthcare, a safety net, land releases to keep house prices linked to income, etc. It was the threat of a revolution.

And on that point. Note that Neil Howe’s thesis is a generational shift from Collectivism to Individualism. We now have HECS, high house prices, no genuine safety net. All voted away over the years.

And don’t be fooled by the LGBTI etc. They are all distractions to keep the game going a little longer. Much like Obama being helicoptered into the presidency in the middle of the GFC and all the idiot lefties thought to themselves how wonderful the world is with our first black president. Meanwhile Obama’s first policies were to let all the banksters walk free with trillions in tax payers money.

Last edited 1 year ago by Freddy

Freddy, you’ve been coming across as a bit grumpy and embittered lately. Is everything OK?


I am fine Peachy. I even gave BJW a +1 yesterday.

It is the topic. The most prosperous generation in human history believing they did it tough. Conservatives who voted away all the social contracts looking to blame someone else other than themselves.

Reus's Large MEMBER

Well said about the BB’s and the state of the world, once you begin to see the truth it gets harder to not see it, and how /what they are doing to get total control.


Everyone always thinks they did it tough, and that they aren’t wealthy.

See comments here and emmmbeee from people all most likely on well above median salaries.


This has nothing to do with political will. It has everything to do with vested interests and ownership of vast resources of this (and other) country (ies).

These two are intrinsically linked and always will be. Vested interests can only get away with what the politicians allow.


Vested interests can only get away with what the politicians allow.

Just a teensy edit there, bj 🙂

Vested interests can only get away with what they pay the politicians to allow.


The WHY they allow it is a whole other discussion…


Good subject for discussion, mein Gruppenfuhrer!

Every time I ponder these questions, I can’t help but think of this, and ask myself “cui bono?”:

Last edited 1 year ago by plaguerat
Gruppenführer Mark

Yeah, I’d tag that! And explain how her strong background contributed to the cancer stick consumption equating to the early diagnosis of nasty stuff.

And then switch her to menthol, because safer.


I must get me a pair of those special rose-coloured glasses that seem mandatory in order to reminisce about the baby-boomer era.


It must have been tough getting the wife to work part time for a few years when interest rates rose. Maybe had to sacrifice having that 7th child. Unlike today’s young with their zero interest rates, iphones, and toasted avocado sandwiches living it up in their 50 sqm apartment.

Gruppenführer Mark

Both of you’se are missing the point.

It was never about the working wife back in the day, the wie worked because she wanted to.

Today, there are both partners working because they have to. What was the driver for this?


Today, there are both partners working because they have to. What was the driver for this?

Society fell for the two income trap.

Gruppenführer Mark

No, two income trap came later. The90kwbeast’s suggestion that it was a massive asset price inflation also came later. These came as a result of the two income families, but were not the causes.


This article views it from a monetary perspective, measured in year 2000 dollars. But there must have been a period of time when it became a social norm to have two incomes. It was not the norm in the 50’s. It became the norm in the 70’s. So was it the sixties? The sex, drugs, rock & roll, flower power? The era when feminism became fashionable, and drove progressive women from homes to a workplace en masse.

And, of course, then the industry got clued in, marketing firms started targeting this new consumer group who were now independently earning and spending money, and a consumer society was born. And then came the inflation (with stagnating incomes), asset price increases, etc.

Or at least that is my theory.


Long brewing feminism became a useful tool to undermine the unions.


What you have described is essentially a premeditated and incremental process that has been pursued for some time…..probably from around the 70s, as you suggest.
Prior to that, there were two significant obstacles to the further unfettered propagation of the capitalist/consumer system.
One obstacle was the concept of “community”.
The other was the existence of the “nuclear family”.
Both of these obstacles had to be methodically dismantled…..broken down into their constituent parts, or, even better still, sold off to the highest bidder.
The first assault was on the nuclear family….the female partner had to be persuaded to disavow the drudgery of parenting, such as mothering the children, and take on the cool, exciting new activity called paid work.
This had two immediate advantages.
First, it created a whole new cohort of financially independent consumers, and, second, it dramatically increased the available pool of workers, thus creating additional competition in the jobs market.
Next came the assault on the concept of community.
This assault was multi-faceted, and involved the dismantling of cooperatives like Incitec and NRMA, and the full privatisation of hitherto publically-owned organisations like Qantas, Commonwealth Bank, and Telstra.
On a micro scale it also involved the destruction of small local cooperatives like child-minding centres and produce markets, and even some local sports clubs, which were slowly strangled to death by ever-increasing regulation, insurance, and licensing requirements.
Having privatised just about everything that wasn’t nailed down, attention has now turned back to the nuclear family, and, in particular, the children in that unit.
We now see blanket marketing that sexualises and targets children, convincing them that they are really “little adults”, and encouraging them to challenge the primacy of the family unit and its attendant duties, obligations, and discipline.
Children are persuaded that they have “rights” that over-ride the wishes and guidance of their teachers and parents….that they are free to identify as whatever gender they prefer, and that, in order to be cool members of society, they must join in with whatever consumerist binge is currently under way.
This process of reducing society to its smallest constituent parts is still taking place, as can be seen in the growing acceptance, and even encouragement, of single-parent families.
Like snipers, the system has been picking us off, one by one.
What was once a society bound together by mutual undertakings and shared resources has now been reduced to individual consumer units, each requiring their own shelter, transport, entertainment, consumer goods, and resources.
The transformation is almost complete….and there is no going back….short of a complete reset.
And, no……it’s not all the Boomers fault.


The 60s was when America’s “Neo” elite arose and finally came to claim power and leadership in their own name.

Following the slow march through US institutions following WW2 they achieved real political and economic power and influence through “Neo” liberalism in terms of economic and monetary theory and “Neo” Conservative in terms of geo-political viewpoint personifed by Kissingerm, while cultural marxists in the form of Derringer and Foucault dominated the social sciences.

Collectively they repointed our social decision making away from value based priorities, e.g. ensuring our children could access affordable housing, to market based pricing and allocation. While handily redefining our societies as ‘post-modernist’ being that we had now supposedly moved beyond Western Christian cultural leadership to a secular multicultural viewpoint.

Essentially our societies and identites redefined as economic zones populated by atomised individuals of no particular cultural origin, detached from our roots and values, living in a secular godless age.

With out cultural norms destroyed feminism, anti-white racisim (MultiCult) and homosexuality consequently blossomed, delivering us the ripe fruit we are all suffering under enjoying today.


Massive asset price increases i.e. Real estate, driven by ever decreasing interest rates, requiring more debt to be burdened by the working class.


Boomers didn’t have 7 children. They chose en masse to reduce their fertility. It was under them that fertility dropped below replacement.

Reus's Large MEMBER

That was because kids infringed on their lifestyles.


What was the cause of our society going from a one-wage household to a two-wage household? 

That does deserve more discussion. Was it all feminism? When I speak to my boomer aunties and mother it largely came down to rising interest rates requiring supplemental income for a few years until wages caught up. Some remained employed out of greed. They all retired in their 50s so it was not out of necessity.

What has happened since then is largely a gaming of financial and political system, and forcing couples to work even harder to obtain a house and raise a family.

And to be balanced and give the feminism aspect some weighting. A few years ago I decided to stop dating women in their 30s. I lost count of how many of them fell for the better life, professional, see the world, etc. Then getting to their late 30 and desperate to hook up, have children, and probably run off with half my money. They have definitely been socially engineered but I believe that to be more relevant to later generations.

Last edited 1 year ago by Freddy

largely came down to rising interest rates requiring supplemental income for a few years until wages caught up. Some remained employed out of greed. They all retired in their 50s so it was not out of necessity.

but that be unpossible, because they had no sUPEraAnNuAtiON!

hrmmmm… I now wonder – could it be, perhaps that we have it all upside down?

so rather than asking “how come the current mob have to work so hard to acquire less while the boomers retired in their 50s?”
…. maybe we have to ask:

“do the current mob have to work so hard to acquire less because the boomers retired in their 50s?”

anyone care to venture an explanation along these lines?


Here’s a couple of other questions for ya, Peachy:

  1. Did the baby boomers really retire in their 50’s? Presumably there is some accurate government data to support this contention?
  2. If the baby boomers (and let’s remember we are talking about a generation spanning 1946-1964) did actually retire (en masse?) in their 50’s, could it possibly have had something to do with this?

Millennials, Gen Xers to baby boomers: Can you retire so I can get a job promotion?

There’s a multigenerational traffic jam on the upper rungs of America’s career ladder.

As more baby boomers put off retirement, millennials and Gen Xers are finding it harder to move up into middle- and higher-level jobs, according to a USA TODAY/LinkedIn survey and interviews with recruiters.

Partly as a result, many younger workers are job-hopping as they seek bigger titles and higher pay. That’s making it tougher for companies to hold onto promising employees and hurting their businesses in some cases, the survey shows.


3. Regardless of the age of retiring baby boomers, or the alleged perks and benefits that were showered upon their most fortunate lives, what is the relevance of any of this to the existing reality of the world as we know it today, and how might it effect change to such reality?

Last edited 1 year ago by plaguerat

Anecdotal Ly they have held ownership of companies hired some yes man even better yes women to carry out their deeds. Enact flat company structure and pander to gen X with important titles without the pay or responsibility. I enjoy it when I join a firm as a senior guy asking for more then their pleb manager’s.

Gruppenführer Mark

Oh, they get plenty or responsibility with their important title, but no authority.


do the current mob have to work so hard to acquire less because the boomers retired in their 50s

I would be leaning more to the wealth being largely misappropriated via failed government policy. What I mean by that is very high wage inflation created the opportunity to pay off mortgages in quick time, and accumulate multiple properties. This was ultimately at the expense of future generations.

The other issue is free healthcare. Why the fuck is someone who will never be able to afford a house of their own paying taxes to provide free healthcare to their wealthy landlord?


I would be leaning more to the wealth being largely misappropriated via failed government policy. What I mean by that is very high wage inflation created the opportunity to pay off mortgages in quick time, and accumulate multiple properties. This was ultimately at the expense of future generations.

yeh, that’s probably largely right. They’re were in the right place in the right time.

  • they had the “happy” kind of inflation which saw wages rise together with prices.
  • they had access to 100% of their earnings at the time (no super).
  • population growth was slower plus land release model was different (not monopsonised/oligopsonised), so housing shortage tended not to develop
  • lending was regulated, so extra earning & borrowing capacity (including thru spouses going to work) was reflected moreso in additional houses that they accumulated, rather than each house being bid up.

of course as all of the above things eroded or reversed, this was to their benefit and at the expense of the future.

  • inflation and wages were brought under control and so interest rates fell for decades
  • super was brought in, so following generations lost access to a bunch of their own pay PLUS had to provide for boomer retirements
  • population growth stepped up
  • land supply/release became privatised and monopsonised
  • Lending was deregulated which allowed more leverage in each existing house

The other issue is free healthcare. Why the fuck is someone who will never be able to afford a house of their own paying taxes to provide free healthcare to their wealthy landlord?

Free healthcare is a good thing.
This issue is why isn’t the wealthy landlord paying enough tax to cover their own health care.

Don’t really want to get into an argument regarding privatised health insurance but the simple fact is all those private companies have operating,advertising and profit costs that come out of money that could be used to provide health care in a free public system so will always cost society more for the same level of care. You do get to go the US route and just reduce care levels with less outcry at the gov though…


Yes. Dump negative gearing is the obvious answer to that but look at how that played out the last time Labor tried that…


Anyone not earning wages is probably not neg geared anyway.
Super is the big rort. Gotta love being able to take money from super tax free to live on and then put the same amount in from wages tax advantaged to reduce your tax payable without any actual change in your super balance.
Bet that isn’t around when I get there.


You missed out on Transition To Retirement. That was the biggest rort of all time.


With their poster boy Paul Keating annually whingeing about higher rates of compulsory Super, not even the Libs have realised what a massive rort Super is, for the Unions…
Just like Paul Keating’s daughter’s many visits to and close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the media dare not mention the money funnelled back into Unions like the CFMEU from Super funds like CBus. Without his pushing Super, unions (should) would have been irrelevant when the first Tradie bought a JetSki.
Keating too should be as irrelevant as his antique clocks and daggy Zegna suits, but media refuse to call him on his constantly false and off-target claims about him being the architect of the modern Australian economy.
PS Homelessness is far more important issue than culture wars or the great green grift, supply side measures are the best way to solve this. No one would seriously suggest a government should be given the cash to provide it, so why not responsibly facilitate the private sector to provide housing. Hate on Negative Gearing sure, but what’s your alternative?


I don’t understand why people love Keating. He is the architect of neoliberalism in Australia. Under him, we sold CBA, Qantas and other assets. He privatised the pension system, introduced HECS and had a general disdain for manufacturing and for workers in general. His CV reads like he is hardcore LNP, yet the inner city wokesters love him. Most odd.


Homelessness is far more important issue than culture wars or the great green grift, supply side measures are the best way to solve this. No one would seriously suggest a government should be given the cash to provide it, so why not responsibly facilitate the private sector to provide housing. Hate on Negative Gearing sure, but what’s your alternative?

To solve the supply shortage all you have to do is release the restrictions on land use.
Currently perfectly good houses are regularly knocked down to be replaced by new ones because land without a house on it that you are allowed to put a house on is difficult to get and in very short supply.
It won’t be an overnight fix but nothing will.


Really don’t understand dumping negative gearing

would you deny it to businesses as well ?

it makes sense to deduct costs from investment – too unfair not too

the CGT discount is the problematic one after 12 months

the interesting thing will be if inflation exceeds 50% over the term of holding the asset


Businesses don’t get negative gearing. Losses accrue and can only be offset against profits when they are made.

You are right, the bigger issue is CGT. House prices rose rapidly since Howard made changes to CGT in September 1999.


Absolute nonsense

losses are offset against profits

that’s a basic principle of taxation laws

you are a single tax entity – if you have one arm of your operations making a loss and the other making a profit , they cancel each other out

similarly a business can make a loss in one division and a profit in another and they offset

why should individuals be disadvantaged ?


why should individuals be disadvantaged ?

So should I be able to claim all expenses related to my car and residence against my income? Businesses are allowed to.
That seems to be the point you are arguing although I bet you are talking your own book. How neg geared are you?
At this point I’m positively geared even after capital deductions so really don’t care all that much either way on a personal level.

Edit: The logical conclusion of this argument is people should be able to claim ALL expenses therefore most people will have no actual income to tax at all.

Last edited 1 year ago by bjw678
Gruppenführer Mark

bjw678, spot on!

Income derived from labour should be separated from income derived by capital. It is in every case except negative gearing.


It’s a bit shit when your interest on savings is taxed. In the UK they had Every basic rate taxpayer in the UK has a personal savings allowance of £1,000. This means that the first £1,000 you earn from savings interest a year is tax-free. If you exceed your £1,000 allowance, then you will be taxed 20% on any interest you earn after that.


So blackstone could buy houses with borrowed money, and “negative gear” them

but individuals shouldn’t be able to ?

ok then

Gruppenführer Mark

If Blackstone buys a house and makes a loss on it, it is offset against capital gains it made on another house. Blackstone’s CEO doesn’t get to write that loss off his income.


I like to research fancy cocktails at inner city wanky joints. It’s a loss making endeavour, yet I still pay shit tonnes in tax.


why should individuals be disadvantaged ?

When you say being disadvantaged. How does a young couple wanting a home to raise a family compete with an investor who gets to claim interest, depreciation, and use rental income to get an even bigger loan? They can’t. That was the premise of Shorten wanting to abolish NG.

It comes down to whether a house should be a financialised asset, or whether it should be a place to live. IMO they should tax the fuck out of everything except PPOR and new builds.


Problem is, these low-level positions, both in immigration service, and in police force, have an added “benefit” of dealing with people, not all of them pleasant and nice, and knowing full well that the decision that you make might come back and bite you on the arse at any given time.”

We should be importing poor white trash South Africans by the plane load to fill these positions.

Gruppenführer Mark

Tried this with the police force. SA, UK white cops were all keen to come, but when the rules of engagement were explained, they bolt.


dude, he’s right, they’ve outsourced visa processing last I read.


has coming left us for macro


If you love someone, let them go!


Maybe he finally understands the disaster that the wax was and offed himself out of guilt.


While Csollany had, according to the publication, expressed anti-vaccination views on social media, the six-time World Championship medallist had been vaccinated to allow him to continue to work as a gymnastics coach.
However, he contracted the virus soon after receiving his jab

Sounds like a vax death to me that they’ve convieniently blamed on the rona (this is on old report btw)


Sounds like a vax death to me that they’ve convieniently blamed on the rona (this is on old report btw)

not just a jab death, but a jab mandate death.


Damn, those vaccinator zealots are fucking crazy, aren’t they?!

Angus Jung

O/T Lena Dunham Is “Just Stunning”.
I’m stunned, I can tell you that much.


…stunned that she hasn’t got type 2 diabetes.

I’m all for not judging people for things they can’t change, but the body positivity movement is full of lazy slobs who are perfectly comfortable being that way . What they aren’t comfortable with is other people being fit. They want to normalise being unhealthy so they feel better about themselves. Turn the world into 5s and suddenly being a 4 isn’t so bad anymore.

A fly in your ointment

…They want to normalise being unhealthy so they feel better about themselves. …

not all the times but sure often enough to be prevalent. Combine with woke and it fits the description immaculately

Reus's Large MEMBER

Stunning looking potato …

Aussie Soy Boy

She’s revolting at least have some modesty when you look like that. Or at least take a dip in the water then put something over your body when you get out.


Yeah, but you know you would. 😊

Angus Jung

I saw the photo last night and I’m still disturbed by it today.
The random ugly tattoos, the weird black bruising near her armpit, the dimply odd shaped fatness.
I dont think my pee pee would work to be honest.

Max Payne

The random ugly tattoos all over the body seem to be par for the course with these types of women, I don’t get it though. It’s like they have an inverse sense of beauty so they think getting random sh!t drawn all over their body makes them even more ‘stunning’.


Dear god no. Not even with a paper bag…

Unless lots of alcohol was involved. My standards go way down when lots of alcohol is involved.

Lots of alcohol.

A fly in your ointment

LOL, how about the body bag then?


I’ve done worse

Angus Jung

You should change your nic to Cumming


We certainly live in an age of ugliness – our disgusting elites have been sure to destroy aesthetics around the concept of ‘beauty’ completely…. 1980’s was the high point with Amazonian Ayrans goddesses like Elle McPherson and Claudia Schiffer. Now we’ve got squat, hairy semites and gap toothed flat nose Africans.

Last edited 1 year ago by Stewie


Mate… I’ll be kind and just assume he’s talking his book.

Bugger all wage growth because productivity growth is buggered because our investment dollars go straight into buggering our youth out of housing. Letting inflation run hot in these conditions will cause a consumption downturn, possibly a recession, and the RBA will have no power to loosen without making it worse.

The Lunatic Deflation Imaginarium needs to lay off the magic mushrooms.

I can’t even anymore.

I got to the second sentence and gave up.

Most of the inflation is in imported goods, so we should cut back to ZIRP while the rest of Bretton Woods is hiking to tame inflation. And then when the AUD has a 4 handle, all those imported goods will be cheaper?

i think the Embee brains trust must be bitter that nobody bought them out for some stupid inflated value when debt was free. Sorry boys, that ship has sailed and she ain’t coming back.

Last edited 1 year ago by canuckdownunder

I cant believe how dumb these cunts are that keep bleeting about interest rates not helping with imported inflation.
And business cash grabs! they can only grab the cash because theres so much demand …my functionally illiterate gardener has a better idea about exchange rates , energy prices and demand than a lot of MB


“And then when the AUD has a 4 handle….”
they would have it that the AUD with a 4 handle, is the magic sauce to see oz manufacturing phoenix from the ashes…

no fkn chance with the perverse incentives built into this fucked out economy. none


a 4 handle, is the magic sauce to see oz manufacturing phoenix from the ashes…

If sustained for years or probably decades it would.

Gruppenführer Mark

We are already well on our way to importing the workforce from third-world countries, might as well have the manufacturing, too!


i think the Embee brains trust must be bitter that nobody bought them out for some stupid inflated value when debt was free. Sorry boys, that ship has sailed and she ain’t coming back.

What people buy is your audience. Embee actively hated and destroyed theirs. No one was ever going to buy them out.


Yep, it’s the eyeballs – not the authors – that are valued in an acquisition.

Aussie Soy Boy

If they’re not going to hike rates with the highest inflation in 40 years (and those are BS fudged inflation figures), then when are they are going to raise them? Still the rate rises are inadequate real interest rates are still -5%.


Hes definitely talking his book and leith seems incredibly desperate one wonders what bets have been placed with the macro fund…
On top of that the RBA did exactly what MB was calling for with yield curve control etc and it was a fckn disaster..doesnt do there credibility much good on the interest rate issue. There busy destroying whats left of it with unhinged rants daily about interest at 1.85% and the real rate well in the negative.
Anyway im sure APRA can fix it for them.


Lunatic , coward , huge, crash , destroy, funeral , blah blah blah. 1.85 fucking%.

They are unhinged.


Of course they are talking their book. The stuff they write went downhill with the EmBee fund.

Low interest rates have been fantastic for equities. Inflation is really bad for the working class and less of an issue for the asset owning class, they even had an article on it.

They spent years writing articles about the Pascoemeter and also about people lobbying their own books. Yet, here we are, EmBee have become the things that they said they despised.

Aussie Soy Boy

Poofterpox is not a poofs disease but the vaccine rollout is specifically targetting poofs specifically the biggest degenerates within that cohort lol.

NSW Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant said the state’s targeted monkeypox vaccination rollout would prioritise gay and bisexual men who have sex with men who are homeless, sex workers or drug-affected, as well as HIV-positive and immune-suppressed people and close contacts of cases.


what does monkeypox even do, why is it such a ‘crisis’ given its not fatal

Aussie Soy Boy

It gives poofs big red sores around their bums which puts them out of action for several weeks, their boyfriends lose their hard ons, etc.

Angus Jung

If gay men had a “No Jizz July” we wouldnt have a problem.
But noooo. The lifestyle is one big fuckfest


Large agonising weeping blisters and giant zits that become infected and can permanently erode the skin. On the mouth, and face. And on the anus and buttocks of course. And inside the rectum.

If you like the idea of weeks of agony leaving you with a permanently scarred and corroded arsehole requiring the use of adult nappies, why, monkeypox is the disease for you!

Aussie Soy Boy

I think most of them would be used to adult nappies from middle age onwards

A fly in your ointment

Rough rectum could come as one of those gherkin skin shaped condom… “for her extra pleasure”


“Less Drag Queens, More Chuck Norris”: Orban Rocks CPAC Texas

After watching from 17 mins to the end, you’ll find yourself asking “Is it possible to clone this bloke?”



Last edited 1 year ago by Stewie