Coalition's Proposed Plan To Enable First Home Buyers to use Up to $50k in Super Towards House Deposits

brendanm on 15/05/2022 - 20:30
Last edited 16/05/2022 - 15:11 by 1 other user

Well, another genius bit of vote buying responsible fiscal management has been announced. First home buyers will be able to withdraw up to $50,000 from their super, not to be confused with the FHSS scheme, where the money had to be voluntarily added to your super fund first.

So the price of housing increases purely because people will instantly have more money to buy with, same as it did with first home buyer scheme, covid building grant scheme etc. On top of that, we will have people taking out huge chunks of what is meant to sustain them in retirement, missing out on a tonne of compounded investment returns.

Do people actually buy this rubbish? So they actually think this is a responsible thing to do?

Link here thanks to Hybroid

Financial Federal Election First Home Buyer Superannuation

Comments

              • Miss B on 16/05/2022 - 20:40
                +2

                @markathome: There's no guarantees either way, but house prices just seem to keep going up and neither government wants to change that. Let's say in a few years I actually start earning $90k and the government's 30-40% is now worth considerably more than at the time it was when I bought, I either now need to significantly increase my repayments, to more than I would have been paying otherwise and for the remainder of the loan, or sell, but all houses cost more and I may not be able to afford to buy now, which is the reason for getting in early in the first place.

                Maybe it's just because I'm already about to buy in the next year. If prices are going down I'd prefer to just wait until then to buy. If prices are going up I don't want the risk of co-owning an asset with the government which could leave me stuffed later. Whether interest rates go up now or later it's still going to impact me.

                • markathome on 16/05/2022 - 20:51

                  @Miss B: Upvoted…and I agree that delaying a purchase in the off-chance you score a position in a Government scheme doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

          • 811b11e8 on 17/05/2022 - 19:58

            @SlavOz: Especially when they already took out 20k during covid. Liberals are emptying the retirement funds of millennials and pretending it's in there favor.

            It's nothing short of another attack on industry super trying to get money out of super to reduce the industry funds power.

            Super funds backed there own new source with the new daily expect liberal to keep attacking super and erroding others retirements.

          • surg3on on 19/05/2022 - 13:23
            +1

            @SlavOz: As usual you misrepresent the truth. Labor would literally own a portion of the home proportional to the money injected.

      • postform on 17/05/2022 - 11:27
        +2

        Labor's is completely different. It won't increase home prices much, just stabilise. Liberals is destroying wealth from both ends. Today and the future. Prices will raise, forcing people to buy at high prices with high debt, in a period of possible recession and high interest environment. And future.. it'll destroy everyones retirement who use this super scheme to buy a house, which generally would be the poorer side of society, which then affects everyone, cause their taxes would go up due to someone having to pay for pensions/healthcare.

        Side note - it'll also affect all of our super performance. Because if people remove 50k out of their super account, the super org needs to liquidate some of their portfolios to pay out money, this will change their performance negatively as they would not have considered this case in their "long term" strategies.

    • RefusdClassification on 16/05/2022 - 10:59
      +15

      Everything the government does (and the reserve bank is just a branch of the government) is designed to increase property prices and produce massive profits for investors.

      There are only 2 ways to make property more affordable: a) depopulation (no more immigration) b) release a lot more land for residential use and build a large number of new homes on that land.
      Everything else boosts property prices. Since the 1970s property has been appreciating at a faster rate than wages and government benefits. Once upon a time a single income middle class family could pay off a home loan in 5 years. I wish those days would return. People talk about progress, but in truth we are regressing and financial disparity is increasing.

      • rektrading on 16/05/2022 - 11:06
        +2

        People who don't buy a home now will "own nothing and be happy."

        WEF slogan.

      • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 09:19

        a) depopulation (no more immigration)

        lol is that why (during the pandemic when international borders were closed) that we saw insane property gains?

        • 811b11e8 on 17/05/2022 - 20:05

          Pandemic was its own craziness, but more immigration is more demand which drives prices up.

          A lot of the pandemic prices where city dwellers moving regional as they now work from home. City appartment rents are still lots cheaper now no doubt the prices in the city would drop if immigration didn't open back up. Mates where able to score rent reductions anywhere between 15% to almost 40% off in city. One literally moved next door do an identical appartment for a 2 year lease at 40% off his previous rent. Those reduced rent prices would have eventually flowed through to sale prices if not for migrants starting to come back in.

          It's pretty simple economics more demand higher prices.

      • Shorium on 17/05/2022 - 17:23
        +1

        Maybe, tax landlords that have more than 3 houses to the point where it becomes more cost than you can make as a landlord. This will mostly affect leaches landlords that own massive amounts of houses.

    • cashews on 16/05/2022 - 14:39
      +4

      The thing is any party taking policies that will reduce house prices would be decimated at the polls.

      Personally I'd like to see more public housing built.

    • iDroid on 18/05/2022 - 12:26

      And it's so obvious. Yet the public keep sucking it up..

  • djones145 on 15/05/2022 - 20:51
    +50

    it's not my job to care about your long term future

    all I care about is votes today

    the advertising has worked hehehe
    and love that liberal ad with the catch tune lol

    • MrThing on 15/05/2022 - 22:07
      +11

      Liberals must be worried as I am not seeing many layyburrr advertising material, but far out liberals, its like someone has vomited all over Sydney with their signage

      • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 07:41
        +16

        You should see Kooyong in Melbourne. The Libs bought every single square metre of leasable signage available, as Joshy is in serious trouble according to individual seat polls

        • DemocracyManifest on 16/05/2022 - 09:16

          Sounds like the teal independent stuffed up already so he might get in, her how to votes accidentally told people to vote improperly because they can’t read instructions

          • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 09:26
            +5

            @DemocracyManifest: That's not correct. Her how to vote cards suggested to voters they number the boxes however they like.
            That said, I reckon she should have done it like Claire Ferres Miles in Casey, where she printed party numbered preferencing according to how their policies aligned with the key principles/issues of her campaign.

            • MrThing on 16/05/2022 - 14:21

              @Boogerman: Not having preferences on your how to vote cards is a rookie politician error.

              I agree with your suggestion, they should have done that

          • Big Willy Style on 17/05/2022 - 09:52
            +1

            @DemocracyManifest: Not really, it is common for independents to not list preferences in the HTV cards. If they put Labor above the LNP on the HTV card that would put off traditional Liberal voters who think politics is sport and could never possibly support Labor in any way, for example.

        • smartazz104 on 16/05/2022 - 09:58
          +5

          And someone is spamming WeChat with positive Josh propoganda.

          • Miss B on 16/05/2022 - 18:12
            +4

            @smartazz104: It's Josh. The ads I saw on Facebook were actually sponsored by him, not LNP generally. He really desperately wants to keep his seat. I really hope he doesn't, whatever else happens.

      • yokel on 16/05/2022 - 14:07
        +1

        Labor have chucked it all into Facebook adverts, source Casey Briggs on ABC Insiders yesterday. Outspent Clive Palmer on FB even.

        • DemocracyManifest on 17/05/2022 - 19:16

          To be frank with Clive already have bought the billboards, makes more sense

  • Caped Baldy on 15/05/2022 - 21:07
    +46

    Terrible and short-sighted idea which is typical of the limited thinking of the current government. How are those people going to retire with a significantly lower super balance?

    • [Deactivated] on 15/05/2022 - 21:15

      As at 26 March 2021, around 2.6 million people received Age Pension, equating to over 3 in 5 (62%) of the population aged 65 and over. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/age-pensi… A further 4.5% on other forms of welfare. So two thirds.

      People are just going to roll the dice, work longer, and get welfare, like the majority of old people do now.

      They have to live somewhere, and this gets them that somewhere sooner. Of course by the time they are old, they might sell up, for a huge profit, and get a caravan, or go cruising, or play bingo, or what ever old people will do in the future.

      • Caped Baldy on 15/05/2022 - 22:34
        +15

        That's one of my big frustrations. Current age of retirees have the big houses that were cheap, and pensions. The younger generations have to buy expensive housing and pay for the oldies' and our own retirements.

        • ghoulie1 on 16/05/2022 - 07:28
          +13

          That's what this 'policy' is designed to do. Transfer wealth from the young to the old.

          • Boshait on 16/05/2022 - 08:54
            +8

            @ghoulie1: As if young people have any wealth.

            • afah0447 on 16/05/2022 - 10:29
              +9

              @Boshait: True but they are the ones working and paying taxes yet cannot afford a house. Whilst the old who have big house don't work, need healthcare and pensions paid for by the young via taxes who cannot afford a house.

              The system is completely rigged towards old people. I guess that's the way they designed it.

            • pais on 16/05/2022 - 10:47
              +4

              @Boshait: They have a bit of wealth, in super. Oh, wait..

      • Caped Baldy on 16/05/2022 - 10:27
        +20

        I haven't seen any announcements from Labor to raid super balances. We've had two from the LNP by my count.

        We've had heaps of inflation under the LNP and next to no wage growth…

        From your past post history it's evident you've got a lot of bias already.

          • Drakesy on 16/05/2022 - 14:05
            +9

            @SlavOz:

            Labor has very similar policies in other areas and people don't even realise it.

            like what?

            • Caped Baldy on 17/05/2022 - 09:32
              +3

              @Drakesy: I swear that guy is pam's partner or something. Absolutely nutty post history.

      • IM-Cheap on 16/05/2022 - 14:08
        +3

        But giving people a wage hike would not increase prices/inflation by the same % as the wage rise - because wages are not 100% the cost of producing products/services.

        Saying a 5.1% increase to wages will result in 5.1% higher cost is wrong when wages are on average about 1/4 the input to businesses. Yes there will be some cost increase but not the size businesses make out. (Also I believe some increases recently are just opportunistic and way above the real increase to costs - experienced this happen first hand)

        • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 14:24
          -4

          Prices are a free market which are set by businesses. There is no way to predict this. The countries with the highest minimum wages also have the highest cost of living, so go figure.

          Keep in mind that if wages went up, many smaller businesses would close down because they can't afford to operate. This creates less competition and gives corporations even more pulling power to raise their prices.

          • ProlapsedHeinous on 16/05/2022 - 19:54
            +4

            @SlavOz: When people have less money they also spend less. this also hurts small business. Inflation is outpacing wages, so they need to be adjusted at least for the same purchasing power.

    • bman20 on 16/05/2022 - 14:23
      -1

      How are those people going to retire with a significantly lower super balance?

      The question to ask is what makes you think anyone is going to have a lesser super balance as a result? The outcome of a 30 year old taking $50k out of their super to get in to the property market is far more likely to result in them being better off in retirement than if this scheme was not available to them. Residential property in Sydney and Melbourne has outperformed super funds over the past few years and overall the performance is comparable. Therefore, the investment return at retirement is likely to be at least the same HOWEVER you have likely saved money by paying debt repayments instead of rent.

      • Caped Baldy on 16/05/2022 - 14:32
        +4

        Past performance is not indicative of future performance.

        In super, the money has the power of compounding. Property will not increase on the current run of the past 30 years for new buyers.

        This policy is only to keep property prices high. It would be better for prices to drop so the younger generations can buy and not raid their superannuation.

    • Scantu on 16/05/2022 - 18:11

      House will appreciate, sell when you are downsizing and old, gains are forced back into your super - real estate being a good asset to invest in. Sounds alright to me.

      • Caped Baldy on 16/05/2022 - 19:11
        +1

        The point of super is that the money compounds over decades. Property prices have outgrown wages by ridiculous rates and it won't realistically in the same rates in the past 20-30 years.

        • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 11:21

          This is called: Gambling, and it's why most people don't make money actively trading or investing in property.

          You have no facts to back up your assertion. Just how you feel about it.

          • Caped Baldy on 17/05/2022 - 11:40
            +1

            @Scantu: Wow. Putting money into a diverse portfolio is not gambling. Really poor take there, buddy.

            Do you have your money underneath your bed or in a drawer?

            You have no facts to back up your assertion. Just how you feel about it.

            Pot meet kettle. Oh, the irony. Where are your facts?

            My super balance at the end of FY1819 was $48k and it's currently at $91k. I think it's working…
            Keep in mind that that I've done some voluntary contributions and there are fees but I'm ahead since it gets taxed at 15% rather my nominal tax rate.

            • Scantu on 17/05/2022 - 12:22

              @Caped Baldy: Your statement:
              "Property prices have outgrown wages by ridiculous rates and it won't realistically in the same rates in the past 20-30 years."
              My answer:
              This is called: Gambling, and it's why most people don't make money actively trading or investing in property.

              You suggested you have information about a future market that, if verifiably true, would be worth millions, if not billions of dollars. I do not believe that you possess such information.

              Your statement:
              "Putting money into a diverse portfolio is not gambling. Really poor take there, buddy"
              Is
              1) Entirely misrepresenting, to the point where it does not remotely represent what I said, and is a gigantic strawman.
              2) You top it off with a strawman, likely because you know what you said is false and you have no bonafide argument to back it up

              Where are your facts?

              You can use google. See why peoples "guesses" and "oh mate the PROPERTY market is so X right now" has never worked.

              My super balance at the end of FY1819 was $48k and it's currently at $91k. I think it's working…
              Keep in mind that that I've done some voluntary contributions and there are fees but I'm ahead since it gets taxed at 15% rather my nominal tax rate.

              This is a ridiculous assertion to make in support of your argument, I can't even.

  • bobbified on 15/05/2022 - 21:21
    -5

    I'm not going to be able to withdraw my super but I think it's a good idea for everyone else. The fact that they also have to have at least saved another 5% means that it's those that are already on their way to ownership that can access their money earlier - and not a free-for-all for everyone to just dig into their super.

    Plus a home isn't just a "want" - it's a necessity.

    • smartazz104 on 16/05/2022 - 09:59
      +15

      Plus a home isn't just a "want" - it's a necessity.

      Tell that to the people with 5+ houses.

      • bobbified on 16/05/2022 - 10:03

        The targets for this policy are first home buyers.

        • r3dfusi0n on 16/05/2022 - 23:10
          +4

          First home buyers who will be rewarding property investors who own 5+ houses and were waiting for policies like this to push the prices even higher. They'll sell up and move their from their PPOR into a bigger house/better suburb/install a pool or whatever rich people do with their money nowadays.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 15/05/2022 - 21:50
    +4

    this is a shit policy imo

    however his policy to support older Australian downsizers is a really good idea

    so take from that what you will

    • TooSerious2 on 15/05/2022 - 22:02
      +24

      Fix the housing boom by giving more money to Boomers?

      • MrThing on 15/05/2022 - 22:06
        +24

        Ding ding

        Give more money to the people who fuked it all in the first place and continue to fuk it by thinking "layyyyybour" are communists because #advertising.is.red and "reds under the bed" so they vote liberal

        • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 07:44
          +7

          You get that too do you?
          And yes all, people do actually shriek "Labor are communists" - my dad is a prime example.
          Their brains are stuck in the 1900s.

          • MrThing on 16/05/2022 - 08:14
            +6

            @Boogerman: my grandparents still think layybour are communists and so are the greens (watermelon party).

            if you can use that sample size of 4 people over the age of 80 think that, id hate to see what the rest of that age group think

            • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 08:58
              -2

              @MrThing: Its part of the reason why people over 65 or have retired shouldn't be allowed to vote

              • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 09:07
                +3

                @Boogerman: Hate to see how our Government would treat a group that can't now or in future vote.

                • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 09:14
                  +3

                  @tonka: 15-17 year olds who have a job can't vote.
                  Why should over 65s no longer working, & in objectively mental decline, get to vote?

                  • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 09:23
                    +6

                    @Boogerman: Why should stupid people be able to vote? Speaking of which I wrote 'now or in future', teens can vote in future.

                    • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 09:28
                      +1

                      @tonka: It would be nice if voting was weighted by age, education & IQ

                      • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 10:39
                        +4

                        @Boogerman: That doesn't sound like a democracy. And really it sounds more like you'd prefer voting to be restricted to those that agree with you.

                        • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 10:42

                          @tonka: Not allowing people under 18 to vote doesn't sound like democracy either, especially when brain volume is far greater at age 17 than age 77 (an objectively verifiable neurobiological fact)

                          • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 10:48
                            +8

                            @Boogerman: Of course mate, that's why we give 17 year olds free reign to do all our brain surgeries and economic planning etc. That brain volume just gives them so much more capability than education or life experience. In fact we should make all children have to line up and vote and take responsibility for our countries governance.

                            • Boogerman on 17/05/2022 - 07:51

                              @tonka: "That brain volume just gives them so much more capability than education or life experience."
                              'Education' & 'life experience' to become more staid & bigoted, rather than supposed 'wisdom' - here's some 'wisdom' - "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"

                              • tonka on 17/05/2022 - 15:27

                                @Boogerman: Mate, just because your dad is like that doesn't mean everyone is. Different gene pool means different capability, it's not really about age.

                                • Boogerman on 17/05/2022 - 20:10
                                  -1

                                  @tonka: Aging strongly correlates to lower IQ. Lower IQ correlates to racism & bigotry (actual research on this). Additionally, older people tend to be less educated because, well, the jobs of their youth were on average cognitively ‘simpler’ & consequently didn’t require tertiary & post grad education

                                  • tonka on 17/05/2022 - 21:14
                                    +1

                                    @Boogerman: Lol. OmG. None of us are as skilled as our grandparent and their grandparents etc. Do you understand the variety of tasks they could complete. My great grandfather built tallships by hand and could navigate the world, my grandfather was a spitfire and Lancaster pilot and mechanic by age 22. My dad could build anything and wired up the concord, I can operate a computer, order food and need a degree before anyone will let me author a letter, yippee.

                                    • Boogerman on 18/05/2022 - 01:02

                                      @tonka: The plural of anecdote is not data,
                                      That said, your ancestors mindlessly connected widgets on assembly lines, whose tasks are now undertaken by robots designed & engineered by your daughter

                      • MrBear on 16/05/2022 - 14:22
                        +3

                        @Boogerman: I love how you are slowly moving away from a democracy to an autocracy with these comments.

                      • DarwinBoy on 16/05/2022 - 19:29

                        @Boogerman: My thoughts are you need to be working to vote. If you are not contributing funds tnat make these promises happen then you dont get a say.
                        If you want a say then start contributing.

                        • Boogerman on 17/05/2022 - 07:53
                          +1

                          @DarwinBoy: Hence why over 65s/retired shouldn't get to vote
                          Plenty of under 18s do have jobs, hence should get to vote

                        • MrBear on 17/05/2022 - 08:52
                          +2

                          @DarwinBoy:

                          My thoughts are you need to be working to vote. If you are not contributing funds tnat make these promises happen then you dont get a say.
                          If you want a say then start contributing.

                          Our society is made up of more than just money and people can contribute in multiple ways (other than taxes).

                          • DarwinBoy on 17/05/2022 - 12:19

                            @MrBear: All the promises made by the politicians cost money that come from taxes.
                            Happy for you to tell me all the other ways politicians do things without money.

                            • MrBear on 18/05/2022 - 16:04

                              @DarwinBoy:

                              My thoughts are you need to be working to vote

                              Your comment clearly states only the working person should be able to vote which has no bearing on what the politicians promise. One has nothing to do with the other.

                              Also, many people who work don't pay taxes (or the correct amount of taxes), so by your definition they are allowed to vote even though not contributing.

                              Just pull your head out and declare your vote for UAP publicly.

                              • DarwinBoy on 19/05/2022 - 09:11

                                @MrBear: You never answered my question so I remain unconvinced by your point and now random claims about the UAP

                      • Plug on 16/05/2022 - 20:13
                        +2

                        @Boogerman: Try not to be ridiculous.

                        • Boogerman on 17/05/2022 - 08:06

                          @Plug: Try not to settle for an ignorant voting populace

                  • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 09:27
                    +5

                    @Boogerman: btw, your assertation that everyone over the age 65 is incompetent is a bit distasteful. I'm betting most of them would kick your ads in knowledge and reasoning tests, just based on how ignorant that is.

                    • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 09:29

                      @tonka: A bit like your implied assertion that everyone under the age of 18 is too immature/incompetent flies in the evidence of neurobiological evolution (or just to be cliche, 'distasteful')

                      • tonka on 16/05/2022 - 10:31
                        +1

                        @Boogerman: Nothing at all implied in my comment about under 18's,. No idea where you are getting that from, unless maybe you identify as under 18.

        • Caped Baldy on 16/05/2022 - 09:33
          +2

          It's a bit f'd and ironic. Speaking to my Chinese mum and dad lately about the election. They were surprised that I pre-voted for labor, saying "aren't they bad?"

          The misinformation and manipulation that is going on is crazy

          • smartazz104 on 16/05/2022 - 10:01
            +1

            @Caped Baldy:

            They were surprised that I pre-voted for labor, saying "aren't they bad?"

            You mean they say this after all the news about how the Feds have flushed our relationship with China down the toilet?

            • Caped Baldy on 16/05/2022 - 10:14
              +1

              @smartazz104: The news they receive is really limited so their views are highly influenced by the LNP and Chinese media in Australia.

          • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 10:23
            +1

            @Caped Baldy: Labor = bad is not misinformation. It's an opinion. You might not agree with it, but that doesn't make it false or misleading. It just means you're willing to put up with Labor's flaws while other people aren't.

            Don't be like CNN and ABC. Political opinions that challenge your view are not misinformation.

            • Boogerman on 16/05/2022 - 10:34

              @SlavOz: As a right winger, shouldn't you like the ABC?
              An investigation into them a few years ago found that, if anything, they have a slightly right wing bias

              • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 10:38

                @Boogerman: I don't think I've ever read an article on ABC that isn't a woke commentary on why Trump is bad, white people are bad, or the omnipotent Left is never wrong.

                They do sometimes prefer one party over another in certain segments, but that party is not right wing. Right wing parties don't introduce gender fluidity in schools, legalise gay marriage, or destroy the free market with welfare pumping - all of which have proudly occurred under ABC's (supposedly) preferred government.

                • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 09:34

                  @SlavOz: Can you please, for the love of god, show me ANY pro-Labor ABC bias?

                  • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 09:59
                    +1

                    @ThithLord: Here's one where they repeatedly defend and undermine the fact that a Labor candidate displays the hammer and sickle symbol in her office. Link

                    For those who aren't aware, this is the poster symbol of communism used in the Soviet Union, which enslaved, tortured, and killed some 60 million people. The ABC apparently thinks this is no big deal. Something tells me if a Liberal was caught with the Nazi symbol in their office, they wouldn't be so forgiving.

                    Are you also aware that public polling consistently shows the majority of ABC's employees and readership are firmly left-wing Labor voters?

                    • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 11:06
                      +1

                      @SlavOz: Is that the best you can do? Something from the ACT State elections, two years ago? Anything from, I dunno, this election?

                      Seriously grasping at straws with that one, dude. I don't even know how you can claim that article is pro-Labor, or excusing Labor.

                      I'll do you one better - the ABC literally adorning LNP props during their broadcast the other day.

                      Yeah, sure, Labor bias lmao.

                      ABC presenter ‘takes a break’ after accusations of bias.

                      Ibrahim, one of the hosts of the ABC TV news program from 7am on Saturdays and Sundays, was absent from the show at the weekend following revelations that her personal Twitter account contained a couple of so-called “shitlists” that appeared to indicate disdain for some of those on the Labor side of politics.

                      I actually launched a complaint against this broadcaster sometime last yr after she conducted an atrocious interview with the Opposition Leader - ABC responded with their usual defence of anti-Labor sentiment within the ABC by saying there's nothing to see here. Only to be caught with their pantsdown after this faux-Journo didn't realise that Twitter Lists are public.

                      You know Ita Buttrose is an ex-Murdoch hack and also was hand=picked by SloMo - he sidestepped all due process instated to pick this hack.

                      • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 12:12
                        +1

                        @ThithLord: What difference does the timeframe make? They blatantly tried to undermine the fact that a Labor candidate follows one of the most dangerous and vile ideologies in history.

                        Although I will admit, this is probably because the ABC are just Marxist quacks. As per my original post, I did recognise that they are often biased towards one party over another. I suspect the Liberal bias is due to the fact that the Liberals are in power and have repeatedly threatened to defund their echo chamber.

                        In any case, the Liberals are not right wing. They're simply right of Labor, who are quite far to the left. The Libs are centrist at best.

                        ABC is ideologically aligned to the left and they will push that bias through any party that's convenient.

                        • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 12:33

                          @SlavOz: But … but where in the article does it prove that the ABC are pro-Labor? You have just put forth an argument, provided an article as evidence, but have no sentences or paragraphs that correspond with your assertion?

                          I provided you with evidence of the ABC literally supporting the LNP.

                          In any case, the Liberals are not right wing. They're simply right of Labor, who are quite far to the left. The Libs are centrist at best.

                          I refuse to get into who is Left/Right regarding these two parties because I simply do not give a flip in the slightest. That's just pure identity politics. And again, no point was made and it has zero to do with ABC.

                          It feels like you seem to think that because the ABC does irrelevant puff pieces that are seen as political correctness sob stories (they bore me to absolute tears as well, mate), you assume they're pro-Labor? That's your link?

                          • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 13:12
                            +1

                            @ThithLord:

                            It feels like you seem to think that because the ABC does irrelevant puff pieces that are seen as political correctness sob stories (they bore me to absolute tears as well, mate), you assume they're pro-Labor? That's your link?

                            Yes, because Labor's entire premise is on politically correct sobbery, just like the US Democrats. "Vote for us or the evil white Christians will get you! You are a victim, we can help!!"

                            Glad you admit that the ABC engages in this trash. Do you not see how those trash views are more closely aligned to the Labor ideology than the Liberals?

                            When's the last time the ABC took a religious or conservative stance on an issue? Almost never. Everything they produce is from a firmly progressive point of view - and since Labor is the more progressive party in Australia, its easy to see the link. That's why the majority of ABC's readers and employees are Labor voters. The link is there mate. It's not imaginary.

                            • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 13:14
                              +1

                              @SlavOz: Man, you're asking me to just assume because they do PC bullsh!t that they're obviously Labor supporters. Righto. That's Mrs Incredible level stretches.

                              • SlavOz on 17/05/2022 - 13:28
                                +1

                                @ThithLord: No, I'm telling you that they're Labor supporters based on their own damn public polling. You keep ignoring that for some reason.

                                Every readership poll the ABC conducts leads to a pro-Labor result. It's also understood that their employees mostly support Labor. Is this just supposed to be a coincidence?

                                It's really not hard to apply some critical thinking here. The ABC pushes the same political view that Labor campaigns on.

                                • ThithLord on 17/05/2022 - 13:51
                                  +1

                                  @SlavOz: I wasn't intentionally ignoring it - I just fail to see the relevance. You are equating PC bollocks as being aligned with Labor. It's basically only conservatives that see the ALP as "lefties", plenty of far more progressive parties see Labor as conservative.

                                  You are aware that Kevin Rudd, Mr Albanese, Mrs Kennealy are all religious, yeah? Plenty more I am sure, that's just off the top of my head

                                  I dunno, SlavOz. I have provided actual evidence of ABC bias to the LNP - yours is based off fantasy. We're done here.

          • MrThing on 16/05/2022 - 12:32
            +3

            @Caped Baldy: I too was brought up in a liberal enclave of sydney and parents always vote liberal.

            I still went to uni and work in a professional environment, but I will be voting labour for the first time this election, just like I did for the local gov election last time

        • RefusdClassification on 16/05/2022 - 11:08
          +2

          So ironic, associating Labor with communism. All the rich capitalists here vote Labor and Greens, and in America they vote for the Democrats. Conservatives have become the party of the proletariat. For instance, the ALP wants to extend child care subsidies of 90% to families earning $500,000 a year. Toffs shouldn't get a cent in welfare.

          • pais on 16/05/2022 - 11:10

            @RefusdClassification:

            Conservatives have become the party of the proletariat.

            Said unironically - amazing.

            • SlavOz on 16/05/2022 - 11:54
              +2

              @pais: You do realise conservativism is overwhelmingly popular in poor, rural areas, whereas progressivism is dominant in Hollywood and other rich parts of the world?

              Literally every corporation or institution pushes left-wing ideas. You think they're doing that to help the working class? LOL

              • smartazz104 on 16/05/2022 - 11:57
                +5

                @SlavOz:

                You do realise conservativism is overwhelmingly popular in poor, rural areas

                And yet these areas remain poor…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join