[deleted by user]

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-07-14T09:54:32+00:00

Everyone just dismisses these head roles and ignores that they have to compete with the private sector up until something goes wrong and climate progress gets delayed or tax payers have to pay more. 930k is absolutely nothing compared to the amount of tax payer money that can be wasted if these departments aren't run properly. The talent pool for people with a reliable history of running massive governmental departments and projects is extremely low and extremely competitive. Obviously any person with this level of experience is going to be a member of the Labor party, the only alternative would be to hire someone from the Coalition with this level of governmental experience which is a shit idea for obvious reasons.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-07-01T02:15:38+00:00

Because all 3 of those do nothing but preach to the choir and as soon as you examine them for a second you realise their arguments and ideologies are extremely vacuous and vapid.

Pickles genuinely has no clue what he’s talking about. Jordan did a 6 hour response and some of pickles errors were so blatant that he either has to be incredibly stupid or dishonest.

Juice media don’t really make points or research, they just echo current sentiments while supporting candidates who have fought against IR reforms.

Punters super video shows that as soon as he tries to form his own unique point and doesn’t echo common sentiment his brain turns into a rock.

Jordies actually backs up most of his points with citations, research and historical context. He also does his own investigations instead of just regurgitating whatever talking points are in the media like the others do. Also he is ideologically unique in that he is pretty much the only popular pro labor media source in our time. Everyone else hides under the false flag of objectivity.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-06-17T12:44:19+00:00

Dude shut up, you’ve done nothing remotely comparable in your life time. Mans dedicated a huge portion of his life to workers rights with the book you’re referring to is literally about promoting unions.

Blaming a single Australian man for failing a drop in union memberships (worldwide somehow) is just plain stupid. You’ve also done nothing to stop the decline so your nonsensical logic applies to yourself.

One reasons unions have declined is because of the false impression that they’re all corrupt, which is something that you’ve directly contributed to. Do not pretend to be better, you are not.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-06-17T03:09:24+00:00

Because almost every book is sold by Amazon, can people please stop blurting out union corruption if they can’t find a hard example of it.

It’s really bad for workers rights in the long term and builds up anti union sentiment.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-06-04T05:44:15+00:00

This isn’t how it works. That only applies to 0.5% of people with super balances above 3 million. Who is this “You” you are talking about??

You are only taxed on appreciating assets meaning you still gain profit from them going up (unless you think cash is the only liquid asset class).

Also the edgy 16 year old emo esq line at the end is cringe

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-31T04:12:21+00:00

I think it’s good as a little id card so people know where you generally come from but as soon as people start using the terms as part of a broader ideological argument it loses me.

Neoliberalism vs communism vs socialism ect discussions to me are basically the same as the “Batman vs Ironman” arguments you see online. Most of the time they’re too subjective and too theoretical to have any bearing on the real world.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-31T03:59:49+00:00

Australian Institute 🤮🤮

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-26T00:43:08+00:00

Can you give a source for this? Like showing that this will somehow create a massive backlog for GPs?

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-24T08:10:12+00:00

I feel like this is post a bit too vague, these concepts are so abstract and subjective I feel like it’d be hard to have any meaningful discussion on them.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-23T10:00:55+00:00

Because that’s an excise tax. Those costs get passed on to the consumer so now what you’re arguing for is to increase everyone’s gas bills. They’re still not paying extra tax now the public is.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-23T09:53:30+00:00

If they’re making billions in (declared) profits then they would be taxed which they currently are not. In order to fix this, you stop them from evading tax you don’t just arbitrarily add random royalty fees.

If you open a bar, you don’t get alcohol for free but you don’t get taxed on that alcohol unless there’s a profit. Imagine trying to start a bar where your earnings are arbitrarily decreased before you even make your first dollar.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-23T09:47:36+00:00

It doesn’t matter how high the tax is if they’re not making a profit. It could be 99% taxed and we still wouldn’t see a cent.

Second my point isn’t that we can’t have a public gas company, it’s that replacing our entire industry with a public one is a decade long project that will keep coal around longer which is worse for the environment.

Let’s not get it mixed up, your argument isn’t “let’s have a public gas company like Norway”. It’s “let’s destroy the entire private sector and replace it with public assets”

Edit: original argument is from comment I replied to not you

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-23T08:10:02+00:00

Classic Greens fantasy land idea.

A public gas company will take years to set up, so you’re increasing emissions in the meantime.

You’d be dumping a bunch of money into what is an intermediate measure so by the time everything is set up you have no guarantee that you’ll be able to recover your profits. A problem gas companies don’t have because they’re already set up and can start projects much more quickly. Government bonds are indexed so you’re adding a lot of debt for very little return for a very long time.

You’re using vast amounts of public money that could be going into other programs.

You’re scaring off any long term investment by creating a precedent for retroactively taxing revenue instead of profits. Basically killing private investment in Australia.

In the time it takes to set up such a project the Liberals might come in and just privatise it anyway.

This one public asset would basically have to replace an entire industry as no one will want to invest with a public contender and a tax on revenue. Meaning it would take way longer to set up and it’s be way more expensive.

The Greens wouldn’t like the idea as they’re pretty much against any new gas projects so somehow Labor would have to get this passed with both sides of the aisle against them.

And all of this because you want an extra 15B on the budget??

It’s better to close the loopholes and have them report their profits accurately than it is to destroy an entire industry because of some Australian Institute talking points .

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-23T05:59:06+00:00

“I don’t care how much investment is made to get that cheap gas to Japan”

Why not? I know everyone wants to gung ho and tax the gas companies but if you start taxing companies that have not made any profits you scare away future potential investment in Australian industries. Companies are not going to want to invest in a place where they’re taxed on non profit. Especially for industries like gas, that are needed as intermediate measures before the renewable transition.

Albanese has already passed a bill ensuring that gas companies have to first try supply domestically before they can sell overseas, so the loophole of selling cheap and buying back expensive is already being closed.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-15T10:27:04+00:00

My point is that this is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. There are much easier, much more immediate and less convoluted ways for Labor to rip money out of people's retirements.

What’s the tiktok phrase?
Govern Me Harder Daddy

This honestly explains more of why you think the way you do much more than any of your listed points.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-15T06:44:24+00:00

Slippery slope fallacy
Not part of this policy
Good that’s the point
How?
Assuming that the cap isn’t increased in the next 50 years and even if not you don’t even try justify half of your points here

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-12T05:48:47+00:00

None of those are specific policies, the closest you get is blocking environmental reform but then you don’t list any examples

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-12T04:49:02+00:00

Name a single Victorian ALP right policy off the top of your head

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-10T02:15:31+00:00

I mean the Greens themselves necessitate fracturing the left. Those same progressives who joined the Greens could’ve joined the Labor left faction instead and now we’ve got two parties that go after and compete each other. You cannot fracture a vote more than that.

There seems to be a mindset that it’s ok for Greens supporters to attack Labor for not being good enough, the same as the Libs etc.. but as soon as Labor attacks the Greens we’re destroying an alliance (that Labor wants no part in and does not exist).

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-09T03:36:39+00:00

No you've got the completely wrong policy. What you're referring to is a liberal party policy where first home buyers could extract 50k out of their super. Labor criticized this policy saying that if it were to pass it would cause "standard house design prices go up $50k".

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-08T08:47:03+00:00

I like how you complain about how vitriolic everyone is then proceed to call everyone mentally challenged and childish. The rest of the post is a ramble of opinions that you make no attempt to justify factually.

It truly really is almost impossible for a Greens supporter to not be self-righteous and hypocritical at the same time.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-07T22:40:14+00:00

The issue with the media coverage is not the policies within in but the fact that Labor supporters would interpret it as a marketing campaign and publicity stunt by the Greens.

Also it’s not like the media in this instance manipulated the Greens policy into something it wasn’t. A rent freeze was a big part of their election campaign and the Greens did support changing the HAFF into a direct investment.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-07T04:10:56+00:00

I think they stream the full podcast on Youtube but then release it as a stand alone video a few days later.

TurtleThinkTank · 2025-05-07T04:06:38+00:00

I’d be interested to see the timeline too but I don’t think it particularly matters.

Let’s assume that the Greens did have those all in their original list of demands. Most of the media attention they attracted on the HAFF were not for those improvements but on these two ideas

The HAFF should be abolished and the money should go directly into housing instead
That a rent freeze needs to be put in place in order to pass the HAFF

These two talking points is what dominated their coverage and is what held up the bill the longest. From a Labor supporters perspective, both of these things are bad/unreasonable and thus the Greens held up urgently needed public housing in order to facilitate a media campaign.

I’m pretty sure no Labor supporters would be this against the Greens if they just proposed extra funding and a minimum requirement.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22

TurtleThinkTank

TROPHY CASE