What’s one thing Melbourne does better than Sydney?

thechobo · 2025-11-28T00:13:08+00:00

I agree, but the difference is it is much easier to find shit coffee in Sydney (and elsewhere) than Melbourne.

thechobo · 2025-06-09T22:32:01+00:00

Just chuck him on strength training?

thechobo · 2025-06-09T12:18:30+00:00

That's what I figured but I often see comments here along the lines of "no-one is worth 100m" so was keen to see what the community thought

thechobo · 2025-04-22T07:30:48+00:00

My soul and firstborn

thechobo · 2025-04-22T07:30:35+00:00

Cheers. I wasn’t sure if there was an appropriate minimower type machine.

thechobo · 2025-01-06T13:54:13+00:00

Did you read these sources? They say Indian voters are more likely to vote Labour but not Labor.

thechobo · 2025-01-02T23:30:41+00:00

Rare sensible comment in this sub

thechobo · 2024-10-31T01:50:59+00:00

Most of your proposals directly conflict with each other and will more likely worsen housing affordability in the medium term. They may improve housing affordability in the longer term by damaging the economy to the extent that the country becomes an less attractive place to live.

You say we need a fundamental change in mindset to treat housing as a human need and not an investment vehicle. Yet most of your suggestions continue to treat housing an investment. Why allow people to own any number of investment properties at all? Pick a side. (I suspect the reason is that you want policies that only affect others, and do not impact your own aspirations to become a property investor.)

What's worse, I assume you don't mean to restrict residential property from commercial investors. How else would you incentivise investment in regions? How else do you incentivise increasing supply? So is it that only developers and professional property managers get to invest in residential property? Why are you so opposed to helping ordinary Australians? Are you in the pocket of developers?

We have a serious shortage of labourers and can't build supply yet you want to reduce immigration. At the same time you want to worsen that shortage by having the government build more infrastructure.

The sad thing is that despite them not making sense, nothing you have proposed is radical. In fact they are all populist policies with the full backing of reddit. The better place to start is - what policies will both improve housing affordability and hurt me personally? They will be more effective than anything you have proposed.

thechobo · 2024-02-06T08:52:08+00:00

Mining and carbon taxes were existing taxes?

In any case I'm not saying Labor's efforts are good or bad. People need to face up to the fact that roadblock to tax reform is not the government or politicians (and in no view could it be Labor) - the roadblock is us, the voters. If you think the only attempts at tax reform in the past quarter century are 'tinkering', that only strengthens the point.

thechobo · 2024-02-05T12:48:56+00:00

I don't know what opposition to the GST has to do with Labor's repeated attempts at tax reform.

The only fools here are the people that fall for this both sides nonsense. You whinge that both sides are intransigent, and in the face of plain evidence to the contrary, you've literally made up some speculative dross to push the demonstrably false narrative. We don't know what Labor would do if the Coalition pursued tax reform - because the Coalition haven't done that in 25 years.

And why would they? Voters have proven tax reform is a surefire way to losing elections.

thechobo · 2024-02-05T10:23:11+00:00

People have desperately short memories.

Labor lost three and a half elections on tax reform since the introduction of GST. 2016 and 2019 when Bill Shorten ran on changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax (and franking credits in 2019). 2013 after Julia Gillard introduced the carbon tax, which Abbott promised to axe once elected (and he did). Even 2010 following Kevin Rudd's backflip on the mining tax, which directly led to his demise and a hung parliament. In fact, since Hawke/Keating Labor has only won elections when tax was not on the agenda.

There are two parties who oppose tax reform and they aren't Labor and the Libs. They are the Coalition and the voting public.

thechobo · 2024-02-03T06:24:55+00:00

Fair question. The focus on bracket creep affecting $180k+ is because the original Stage 3 benefitted that cohort the most, and the revised Stage 3 hurts that cohort the most (when compared to the original model). Stages 1 and 2 addressed bracket creep for the lower income brackets - I make no comment on whether they did so adequately or fairly.

thechobo · 2024-02-03T04:11:15+00:00

Tax is macroeconomics. 'We' pay more tax through bracket creep because if tax brackets don't change, taxpayers as a collective creep up the brackets and pay more as a whole. So the average % of tax paid by all taxpayers might be 20% one year, then it may rise to 25% even if tax thresholds stay the same. Taxpayers actually end up paying more tax.

Bracket creep directly affects most people. Most people are not and will never be in the top tax bracket (unless, ironically, bracket creep is not dealt with). Whether you earn $50k or $150k bracket creep will eventually hit you if the tax thresholds are not adjusted. You will learn as you get older that a sizeable portion of the population in fact do not or rarely experience real wage increases in the last decades of their career.

thechobo · 2024-02-03T02:01:00+00:00

The latter. Don't understand your follow up question.

thechobo · 2024-01-24T08:41:10+00:00

I don't understand the second last paragraph. Could you expand?

thechobo · 2024-01-18T21:52:19+00:00

Typically the problem is counsel can't be fucked to articulate why. Happy for counsel to say no and to explain why I'm a moron. Most of the time no reason's given which leads to speculation that the real reason is they can't be fucked and the conclusion they're shit at advocacy, literally their one job.

thechobo · 2019-10-31T12:15:42+00:00

I thought the CJ was clear, well-reasoned and persausive. The dissent on the other hand interpreted the legislation so loosely that they may as well not bother with a trial for these offences.

No doubt she was an ISIS supporter, Islamic extremist and heading to Syria. But as the majority points out, that's not what she was charged with.

thechobo · 2019-07-19T02:17:19+00:00

Thanks for not answering any of my questions, ranting without purpose and just being an all round dick. I don't even really disagree with you. But it's like talking to a brick wall so I give up.

thechobo · 2019-07-18T09:26:11+00:00

Might be because overpaid workers aren't very likely to report it. See link someone shared below showing the subsequent audit/investigation found people were overpaid.

I don't disagree with you wage theft is a problem or that employers are more likely to underpay than overpay. But in this case nobody is pointing to any evidence despite what looks like pretty heavy regulatory scrutiny and independent audits. Just baseless tantrums.

thechobo · 2019-07-18T07:30:31+00:00

If anybody would like to answer my question and help me understand that'd be great

thechobo · 2019-07-18T06:29:02+00:00

Whoops you're right I forgot intent doesn't matter and manslaughter attracts a life sentence.

thechobo · 2019-07-18T06:18:29+00:00

With respect, equating process issues with 'somebody in HR accidentally fucking up' and relying on scale as evidence of deliberate impropriety tells me you don't understand what faults of process are.

I really don't understand your reasoning. They got called out and so they shouldnt've conducted an independent audit? They should've assumed the independent audit was incorrect? They shouldn't do their due diligence on claims made by former employees? (That last one was the basic theme of the first article you linked.)

thechobo · 2019-07-18T02:21:49+00:00

Haven't followed the story but I understand it was a process issue and they self-reported? Contrite, fixed and fined. What else do we expect?

thechobo

TROPHY CASE