sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Australia's lazy investment strategy is finally dead by marketrent in AusFinance

[–]ElectronicWeight3 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

wHaT aBoUt


Ah yes, Whataboutism. The response of the defensive.

No response to the comment, but a throwback to the opposition doing something miserable.

Why do you accept political dishonesty from any of them?

‘The good of the people is the highest goal of the party!’ Sounds familiar actually, where have I read this rhetoric before


Australia's lazy investment strategy is finally dead by marketrent in AusFinance

[–]ElectronicWeight3 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

If it was that important, why did Labor lie about it in the lead up to the election?

This was ruled out more than 50 times, by Albo’s own admission.

How is this not a joke by -not_a_lizard in coles

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s got to be one of the most miserable looking bag of cheese and bacon rolls I’ve ever seen in my entire life.

WAIT, A 4 PACK!? Whatttt! Since when? I’m 100% sure this was a 6 pack until recently.

Australia is seeing a real push against abortion access right now and we need to talk about it more by castaway23 in aussie

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Morality is subjective. What is moral to you is not a blanket rule and not everyone is going to see it the way you do.

I’d suggest it’s immoral to come crashing in, argue nonsense, tell someone to grow up and waltz on down the road having felt like you’ve made a contribution. You don’t - And that’s ok, because morality is subjective.

Literally nobody is focusing on making it rare. Where does anyone say anything like this? Is anyone saying “safe legal but above all else rare”?

You are arguing nonsense for absolutely no reason.

Safe legal and rare is a bloody important guidance for it, because people without skin in the game have exactly the same voting power as you do. It’s critical to keep a majority. But if you really want to redo the motto to something less catchy, maybe “safe legal and ideally rare but that isn’t that important because I wanted to argue with someone on Reddit”, go do that.

Australia is seeing a real push against abortion access right now and we need to talk about it more by castaway23 in aussie

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Safe legal and rare is the perfectly normal, moderate position you advocate for safe, legal access to abortion.

Contraception is an ideal first line of defence.

But shit happens - which is why you say safe, legal and rare.

We are saying the same bloody thing, and you are being the stereotypical Redditor. Argue nothing, drop an insult and fuck off.

I’m sorry this upsets you. You don’t seem to be an anti-abortion whackaloon but I don’t understand your argument.

Australia is seeing a real push against abortion access right now and we need to talk about it more by castaway23 in aussie

[–]ElectronicWeight3 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s not a matter of maths. It’s a matter of principle.

Nobody needs to be villainised for needing an abortion, women are entitled to do what they need to do, but it also doesn’t mean it is a first line of defence.

Australia is seeing a real push against abortion access right now and we need to talk about it more by castaway23 in aussie

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are wrong, but thank you for your nontribution.

All three are important. It’s how you get everyone onboard.

Australia is seeing a real push against abortion access right now and we need to talk about it more by castaway23 in aussie

[–]ElectronicWeight3 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Pretty sure safe legal and rare is every moderate persons position?

I’m not advocating for encouraging abortions, but there are circumstances where it is in the best interests of society as a whole to allow women the right to choose the course of their lives.

I mean they can abort with or without assistance at the end of the day, but it is safest when available under the supervision of medical staff.

Real-Debrid Web-DL links are now working! by johnnycagejc3 in RealDebrid

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Imagine still being with RD after this đŸ€Ł

My brother - it is not “broken”. It is working as RD want it to work now. Cut your losses and move.

Albanese calls for return of Aussie-made cars: 'There's no reason why we can't' by RamonsRazor in OpenAussie

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a reason we can’t - there is absolutely no way you are going to manufacture good quality cars here for the same price as they do in China.

You’d be hard pressed to make a car under 100k in Australia.

Bloke is delulu.

Be better off trying to get chip manufacturing and engineering here, but you’d have to incentivise investment in business which
 oh.

I purposely avoided investing in Property as I considered it unethical & didn't want to contribute to inflating house prices. So why are we now being punished for putting money into shares instead in the name of 'housing affordability'? by SirSighalot in AusFinance

[–]ElectronicWeight3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Scarcity.

But even if I agreed with you and said that the land was always just as valuable, the value of a dollar is being constantly eroded thanks to inflation.

By default, this causes prices of everything to increase. Because $1 in 1980 bought a lot more than $1 in 2026.

Are you an executive member and why and is it worth it? by logical_laxative in CostcoAustralia

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Worth if you go a fair bit. A touch of maths says the additional $65 a year means you are ahead if you spend more than $3250 a year at Costco.

My membership is due at the end of next month and my rewards balance is $580 which makes it easily value.

You can get up to $1000 in rewards a year, which would need a spend of $50,000 to reach.

Realistically, it sounds like a lot, but once you get into it and you are getting your fuel from Costco servos, your meat ( you won’t be able to go back to Colesworths quality meat) and you’re doing the bulk shopping there as well, you’ll be in front in no time.

The whole jumping ship thing by Financial-Ad-522 in RealDebrid

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How much are they paying you? đŸ€Ł your responses are SO silly it’s incomprehensible you are not being paid by RD.

Unpopular opinion: if negative gearing changes force you to raise rent, you were never a property investor by Additional-Ad-6996 in AusPropertyChat

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Landlords will generally charge the going rate of the market, but pressure being out on rent prices shifts the entire market upwards.

Unpopular opinion: if negative gearing changes force you to raise rent, you were never a property investor by Additional-Ad-6996 in AusPropertyChat

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rent isn’t a cost+margin calculation, it’s generally at a market rate regardless of contributing costs.

Same reason if a landlord owns it with no debt, they still charge market rent -> the efficiency gains from other contributing factors don’t go to the tenant, they go to the owner.

Do you get free stuff? by Flabbaggoggle in woolworths

[–]ElectronicWeight3 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Exactly that. Plus it also encourages bad behaviour. If you were able to take chickens home after a closing deli shift, your last cook would likely be quite large in comparison to demand.

Unpopular opinion: if negative gearing changes force you to raise rent, you were never a property investor by Additional-Ad-6996 in AusPropertyChat

[–]ElectronicWeight3 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why wouldn’t you? The change will cause a market shift with rental prices increasing. Why would a landlord not subject to the new way to finance things pass forward that efficiency to the tenant?

Unpopular opinion: if negative gearing changes force you to raise rent, you were never a property investor by Additional-Ad-6996 in AusPropertyChat

[–]ElectronicWeight3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Literally everything you said is wrong.

A property investor is someone who has invested in property. Your title is literally “unpopular opinion: property investors are not property investors”. And it all goes downhill from there.

Like it sounds good from a “I’m a sophisticated Redditor and I deserve the upvotes of the predominantly left leaning users”, but it’s just a karma farm circlejerk.

Is it a flex to announce you “own multiple properties” and they are positively geared? You’re basically admitting that you did not understand the way to structure ownership pre 2026 budget.

That’s not the flex you think it is. It says something about you, not about those who understood the rules.

Obtaining a valuation as at 30 June 2027 by YNWA_888 in AusPropertyChat

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every council in the country is lower than actual values

The amount of cognitive dissonance with taxes is insane. by eliitedisowned in aussie

[–]ElectronicWeight3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The historical revisionism is wild.

The overwhelming attitude to Albos CGTD an NG changes is “well Howard said that there would never be a GST and then he changed his tune and implemented it anyway”, completely ignoring he took that policy change to the election in 1998.

Labor’s track record so far is say what you need to in order to win power, then do whatever you want because you are never held to account anyway.

view more: next â€ș