Initial Victorian State Budget Thoughts

Aice on 23/05/2023 - 17:10
Last edited 23/05/2023 - 17:33

Interested to hear people thoughts on the few things been released from the state budget in Victoria so far

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/n…

Obviously not the most reliable news source but:
- new tax of minimum of $500 per investment property and up to $975 + 0.1% value of the land over $300k
- payroll tax increases by 0.5% for over $10M in payroll and 1% for over $100M

Now not saying landlords don't have a spare $500 per property per year but this will all but certainly be passed on.

Same goes with payroll tax, the 0.5% or 1% will just come off employee salaries in some way or another.

The government blamed this somewhat on their surprise on interest rate rises (which the everyday person is coping too) and their solution is to add to the fire of rising cost of living by just taking more.

Do you think this is going to become the new normal where government screw up and the people pay for it?

Poll Options

  • 252
    Yes, it's happening more and more the people in the government have no idea how to manage money
  • 30
    It's been happening for ages how have you missed this
  • 99
    No, you're making this bigger than what it needs to be
  • 14
    Send in the bikies
Financial

Comments

    • akashra on 24/05/2023 - 12:37
      +9

      Oh ffs. No. This is a problem with the system.

      I didn't vote "for Andrews". But I'm sure as hell not going to vote for a member of some of the opposing parties, and it were down to him or a number of other members of his own party for leader, I'd rather it not be Andrews. Our electoral and parliamentary systems have a serious problem with the way leaders are appointed. The only people who can truly be said to have voted "for Andrews" are the ones in the Mulgrave electorate - 19365 first-preference votes in 2022.

      To claim however that some of the alternatives are overall better is just laughable.

    • sajidmib on 24/05/2023 - 13:09
      +1

      He gave out $250 and everyone grabbed it by both hands, so he actually bought the vote of us and people fell for it.

      • bakemon0 on 25/05/2023 - 08:31
        +1

        wasn't that Scommo that gave us the cost of living $250?

        • markathome on 25/05/2023 - 14:02

          I have pretty strong opinions on this topic. And yet unbelievably I'm going to write something constructive:

          https://compare.energy.vic.gov.au/

          Do yourself a favour bakemon0 if you haven't claimed the $250 in this round (which began 24 March 2023) do it now! Either paid by cheque or straight to your bank account.

          Pro tip: Many banks let you cash bank cheques in their app (yes really!) - no branch visit required

    • dealsucker on 24/05/2023 - 14:57
      +2

      Exactly. Victoria's stamp duty is already one of the highest in Australia.

    • kaleidoscope on 24/05/2023 - 15:40
      +1

      I've had casual chats with folks I know who supported DA during last election and their justification was they handled the covid situation best they could and they handed over lot of relief funding during and after.

      It's laughing stock matter at this stage. But it is what it is…

      (i'm still not eligible to vote)

      Also, anything that they raise for LL's is going to get passed on to tenants through increase of rent. So I really don't understand what their point is.

      • entropysbane on 24/05/2023 - 19:40

        I thought it was the feds that handed out most of the relief?

        Actually it is not uncommon for people to not be able to tell the diff between federal, state or local government roles and rules.

        • smartazz104 on 25/05/2023 - 13:30
          +1

          Yes and it was also the feds who were responsible for the aged care facilities that allowed the spread of COVID where most deaths occurred.

    • Bullion78 on 24/05/2023 - 15:50
      -2

      I have spent the better part of the last 3 years letting all and sundry know that he is a belligerent corrupt madman drunk on power. Fat lot of good it did. You can't run up a states debt to the eye watering levels it has without extreme consequences.

      The chickens have come home to roost…and we all have to pay for his intentional mistakes.

      • orangetrain on 24/05/2023 - 16:04
        +6

        I have spent the better part of the last 3 years letting all and sundry know that he is a belligerent corrupt madman drunk on power. Fat lot of good it did. You can't run up a states debt to the eye watering levels it has without extreme consequences.

        If he is a belligerent corrupt madman drunk on power, what does that make Gladys, Scomo, Dom, etc with much higher debt than Victoria?

        https://images.jifo.co/2328195_1624427020183.jpg

        Sorry to ruin your anti-Labor fantasy.

        • CommuterPolluter on 24/05/2023 - 22:56

          None of them made anybody choose between the ability to put food on the table and not getting a (now shown to be) unnecessary medical treatment.

      • smartazz104 on 25/05/2023 - 13:31
        +2

        I have spent the better part of the last 3 years letting all and sundry know that he is a belligerent corrupt madman drunk on power.

        Should’ve gotten a job instead /s

    • caitsith01 on 26/05/2023 - 11:26
      +1

      Wow, I'm shocked to see this cliched 'aspirational' LNP take on Ozbargain.

    • Chandler on 26/05/2023 - 13:50
      +2

      unfair considering the steep cost of stampy duty investors paid at price of purchase

      Oh no not the stamp duty! Cost of stamp duty just goes on the loan and it's the renters who are paying for it.

      People are now discovering how skewed the classes have become - the lower/middle class are paying for the upper class who have the income/cash to throw into property. As Aice said in their OP - increased costs are just going to get passed on.

      The upper class are "getting slugged" these increased taxes, but they're not the ones paying them.

      What are people going to do? Not have somewhere to live when the rent goes up because their landlord needs to pay more tax?

  • Gnilgorf on 23/05/2023 - 17:42
    +6

    Reading up on this and…well…not surprised but dayam.

    Hope the wording get's clarified for the Land tax bit but if i'm interpretting it correctly: (Seriously the wording is a bit ambiguous depending on which article one reads)

    • Total landholding value <$50k are still exempt. So those who have a single apartment investment might skirt under this.
    • The additional flat rate + levy applies to the the total value of all landholdings. So its a 1 off, not per investment.

    Land tax as far as I'm aware has always been calculated based on the total value of all land owned.
    And applying the fixed rate to each property would be absolutely insane. And it would be the equivalent of a weeks+ rent for some investments.
    Wishful thinking to believe this wont be passed on.

    Really hope I haven't misinterpreted this one…

    • jv on 24/05/2023 - 00:32
      +5

      So those who have a single apartment investment might skirt under this.

      Which apartments are < $50K ?

      • Aice on 24/05/2023 - 06:32
        +6

        Its the land component of your investment

        So you can have a $500k apartment but the actual land component might be $25k

        • kyle on 24/05/2023 - 08:37
          +1

          That has to be a huge apartment block. I was looking at the land value of a client's apartment the other day. Apartment is worth $600K and land is $135K!

          • Gnilgorf on 24/05/2023 - 09:31
            +1

            @kyle: It all depends~ Funnily enough OPs example is very similar to my situation.

            As of 22's valuation, $30k site value, $475k capital improved value.
            It's a ~80sqm apt + 10 sqm balc. But further out in Melbourne so lower site value.

      • lostgoat on 24/05/2023 - 10:32
        +2

        I'm going to stack some containers on a property and get within the exemption .

    • Wallyt99 on 24/05/2023 - 10:21
      +2

      Huge disincentive to own your property in a single state.

      • JimB on 26/05/2023 - 11:22

        It's always been like that, this just takes it to the next level.

  • orangetrain on 23/05/2023 - 17:43
    +14

    There should be higher investment property tax instead of payroll imo.

    Too many investors happy to sit on empty airbnb properties after outbidding home buyers.

    Those investors need a real job.

    • jv on 24/05/2023 - 00:33
      +2

      Those investors need a real job.

      If they take your job, how will you pay your rent ???

      • orangetrain on 24/05/2023 - 09:35
        +8

        There's a shortage of truck drivers. The property investors can hit the road. Or they can contribute property capital to Australia's economy.

        • jv on 24/05/2023 - 09:41
          -2

          Or they can contribute property capital to Australia's economy.

          Why?

          • orangetrain on 24/05/2023 - 12:28
            +12

            @jv: Because investors buying old existing houses from older generation and renting them out isn't what I call productive use of tax concessions or helps society.

      • smartazz104 on 25/05/2023 - 13:32

        Why wouldn’t they take one of the vacant jobs that are apparently so readily available?

    • JimB on 26/05/2023 - 11:24

      I believe there should be a higher tax on properties that are rented short term eg. airbnb but no increase to properties leased to longer term tenants, e.g. 1 year minimum.

  • Ocker on 23/05/2023 - 17:50
    +25

    Rents will now doubt be raised.

    • orangetrain on 23/05/2023 - 17:55
      +7

      Renters will no doubt move out at rent increase notice. Place get listed. No one applies. Now the landlord is paying far more.

      If renters could have afforded it, then rents would have been higher.

      What's next? Selling to home buyers?? Oh no, think of the plummeting rental demand!

      • tsunamisurfer on 23/05/2023 - 18:08
        +8

        I hope renters put this to the test. I really do.

        • orangetrain on 23/05/2023 - 18:10
          +3

          Rents plummeted due to less demand during covid. It is possible

          https://www.prosper.org.au/2023/05/pandemic-rental-dynamics/

          • tsunamisurfer on 23/05/2023 - 18:13
            +1

            @orangetrain: I don't dispute it.

            Renters keep telling us they are sick of rent increases.

            Well, please show us you are willing to vote with your feet.

            • orangetrain on 23/05/2023 - 21:09
              +2

              @tsunamisurfer: You say it like renters can afford the increases?

              • tsunamisurfer on 23/05/2023 - 22:00
                +1

                @orangetrain: I say it like I said it.

                I want renters who believe their rents (and commensurate increases) are unjustified to leave, and let's see if 'No one applies' as you put it.

              • cloudy on 24/05/2023 - 00:34
                +1

                @orangetrain:

                You say it like renters can afford the increases?

                maybe yes or maybe no, but faced with a choice of homelessness i'd choose to cut netflix or cut heating and throw on a extra blanket or something else

          • dave999 on 24/05/2023 - 09:22
            +3

            @orangetrain: Rent went down because the number of people went down - no immigration, no foreign tourists. Rent immediately went back up to pre pandemic prices after the borders opened.

            Rising rent doesn't reduce the number of people therefore demand will stay the same.

        • Ghost47 on 23/05/2023 - 21:20
          +2

          Why do you hope that? So they get kicked out and then struggle to find a place and end up in a worse situation compared to if they just accepted it?

          • tsunamisurfer on 23/05/2023 - 22:05
            +4

            @Ghost47:

            Why do you hope that? So they get kicked out and then struggle to find a place and end up in a worse situation compared to if they just accepted it?

            I said nothing about evictions, Orangetrain suggested renters will leave of their own accord and no one else will rent said property(ies).

            I simply support their choice to vacate the property given they believe they deserve better.

            I am a strong supporter of the market, and therefore I support a buyers (or renter's) right to not participate at certain price levels.

      • Protractor on 23/05/2023 - 20:09
        +10

        Won't plummet. There's a gazzilion students coming(who rarely complain) and then a trazillion more migrants. Rents are heading north as far as the eye can see. Which means if the feds rescue steep prices it means tax payers sponsoring RE investors profits. The recession is coming. The winners list will shrink dramatically

      • frewer on 24/05/2023 - 11:25

        My landlord already increase the rent to $80/week, received the writting letter 3 days ago. This is $%^#$

      • akashra on 24/05/2023 - 12:50
        +1

        It'll happen eventually. While yes, right now it's damned near impossible for people to get a rental, it moves in cycles. All it takes is for IP owners to have three or four weeks with a house being empty and they lose all the extra they make up by increasing the rent.

      • aekt on 24/05/2023 - 13:28
        +1

        What seems to happen around here (South Sydney ~5km from CBD) is the landlords now go straight to not renew the contract, then relist at a higher price rather than giving rental increase notice.
        I am neither a tenant nor a landlord, but there are a lot of posts on local Facebook group where the tenant appealed to rental tribunal, which then placed the rental increase on hold. I guess just not letting the tenant renew the contract eliminate that risk.

        FWIW, I last rented in the same area in 2012. The rent people were paying last year for the same type of property was the same as what I paid back then. 50% increase in one go may seems a lot, but appears reasonable to me considering what it costed ten years ago.

    • freefall101 on 23/05/2023 - 21:25
      +4

      Probably, but there is a limit. Landlords haven't exactly held back on raising rents so far, they can't just be raised infinitely (otherwise I'd just rent my house out for $100k a year and retire). Housing prices are dipping and the deposit needed to buy a house is small with the various first buyer incentives (particularly for the under $600k market).

      Many people simply won't be able to afford it and others will see how much better off they are owning a house. Those who have banked land are now sitting on high interest rates and property taxes, they'll be willing to sell more than they have in the past, we might see falling land prices and more opening up for development. Unemployment is slowly creeping up, hopefully that means more tradies to build.

      Costs can't just be passed on infinitely, it will hurt landlords more than it hurts renters.

      • jv on 24/05/2023 - 00:35
        +4

        and others will see how much better off they are owning a house.

        except the won't be able to afford it because they spent everything on rent and have no deposit and interest rates have not yet peaked.

      • dave999 on 24/05/2023 - 09:28
        +2

        "Costs can't just be passed on infinitely, it will hurt landlords more than it hurts renters." - Unfortunately that just isn't true. Renters only have two options, pay rent or buy a house. If rent increases so much that it is cheaper to buy a house, then demand for houses goes up, house prices go up, and the house is bought from a landlord.

        In the end taxing something more never makes it cheaper.

        • jv on 24/05/2023 - 09:44
          +5

          In the end taxing something more never makes it cheaper.

          Correct.

          This budget will just increase inflation.

          What Dan needs to do, and he won't because of his humongous ego, is to cut spending on billion dollar projects we cannot afford and do not need.

        • freefall101 on 24/05/2023 - 19:51

          Except I never said it made it cheaper. It'll definitely make it more expensive in the short term, it just depends on who wears the cost.

          The government can have the power to deflate asset prices, just like they triggered a boom with first home buyers grants and the like. And there are limits to how much people can pay in rent. It does ultimately come down to supply and demand of houses but the government just made owning a house that doesn't derive much revenue a lot more expensive and increased the appeal to sell it and move to other investments.

          If houses, in general, come down in price then so does interest costs, land tax and - in turn - rent. It's not impossible. There's just zero political will to do it.

        • greatlamp on 25/05/2023 - 09:08
          +1

          The price of rent and landlord costs are not directly related.

          Rents have not kept up with increasing house prices for the past 2 decades. They each operate in their own market.

          Even though renters feel like 'rent always goes up' it has been actually decreasing year over year in comparison to property prices. In the coming years rents will go up while prices will stagnate, and this new tax will accelerate that.

          The only way to slow the pace of rent increases is through more regulation, making property ownership cheaper isn't going to help tenants at all.

          • dave999 on 25/05/2023 - 14:56

            @greatlamp: "The price of rent and landlord costs are not directly related." - They are ultimately linked, they can deviate from each other but not forever, and you basically say that in your next sentence.

            They are related because when they deviate far from each other people are either incentives to either buy a house, or rent a house, depending on which ways it has deviated. The only way for property to reduce in price is to increase supply so there is more competition for selling/renting out instead of intense competition to purchase/rent. It is very much a sellers market because demand is greater than supply.

            • greatlamp on 25/05/2023 - 15:18

              @dave999: If something can continue to deviate for 20 years, that link is pretty weak.

              The only way for property to reduce in price is to increase supply

              No, I think you missed the point entirely. Increasing taxes will reduce yield, which will reduce demand. You are approaching this with the mindset that all taxes can be passed onto the tenant. If price rises over 100% could not be passed onto the tenant why would a $500 tax be passed onto the tenant?

    • smartazz104 on 25/05/2023 - 13:32

      Oh no a new excuse for landlords to raise rents.

    • OzzyOzbourne on 26/05/2023 - 21:52

      Dan said there's no way landlords would pass on the costs to tennants, so yeah, you're right, rents will increase

  • Kramo on 23/05/2023 - 17:54
    +16

    Considering the freedom to just raise rents to cover it, I don't know if it achieves the goal, but something needs to change so that property is just not a good investment compared to other assets. Otherwise the problems around rental availability and cost of homes will never go anywhere.

    • Ade99 on 24/05/2023 - 08:07

      Rents will increase in line with Dan the Man's new tax. That way desperate Dan can keep his hands clean to ensure his rusted on voters don't work out the real source of their pain.

  • TheMindsetTraveller on 23/05/2023 - 18:09
    -3

    Chump change to be honest. If an owner has an investment property where the land value is $1,000,000 - remember this is just land value, then these new/proposed taxes are around $2,000 extra per annum. Pass it on to your tenants if it is rented - if not change the title and put the property in your kid's name or whatever and use the tax rules to make it work in your situation.

    • AustriaBargain on 23/05/2023 - 19:53
      +3

      But if we tax property investors then no one will buy houses to rent out, all those houses will just sit empty while regular folk live on tents in the street.

      • orangetrain on 23/05/2023 - 21:02
        +7

        This. Properties will disappear from Australia when investors sell to the void and the economy will go weird with investors putting it in productive investments!

        How can Dan do this to Victoria?

      • freefall101 on 23/05/2023 - 21:27
        +11

        How on earth does that work? They just don't rent it out and still pay the taxes? Or they abandon it rather than recover the costs via selling it? And the new owners will either have to pay land tax or they'll be owner occupiers.

        I dunno why people are upvoting you, the entire concept is ridiculous.

  • brendanm on 23/05/2023 - 18:22
    +3

    Do you think this is going to become the new normal where government screw up and the people pay for it?

    Isn't this how it's always been? How much has dan budgeted for puffer jackets?

  • tsunamisurfer on 23/05/2023 - 18:31
    -5

    The Victorian government should be sacked.

    Victoria :

    • Gets more than $17b in GST receipts.
    • Representing the second highest of all states.
    • Their GST in take is more than WA, SA, TAS and ACT combined.
    • They have the largest per capita gambling state revenue of all the states $350 per adult (which really should be taken into consideration in GST calculations), further more they intend to increase the tax rate by 50%.

    Although I do agree with the absentee owner surcharge doubling.

    I also agree with the public servant cuts. Public servants wanted to play up and demand more money with no added productivity, you start to kill off the golden goose, you wanted this Public Servants and Unions of Victoria. A wage freeze is also required here.

    Victorian public debt will be at $116.7 billion in June 2023 and grow to $171.4 billion by June 2027. The interest repayments alone will be just under $8b a year! Some one needs to be held accountable for this immediately.

    Even if Victoria were to get back its share of 'Greedy' WA's GST floor boost (which it hasn't even kicked in yet), it would make exactly SFA to Victoria bottom line.

    Why isn't the media asking these searching questions?

  • lostgoat on 23/05/2023 - 18:32

    Time to move to QLD . Last choice on the states and territories is WA .

    • djones145 on 23/05/2023 - 18:41
      +9

      nah tassie
      thats the last lib state for this lib fanboy

      • jv on 24/05/2023 - 00:38

        nah tassie

        As long as they get that footy team.

        That may be an option.

    • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 07:35
      +2

      No, Qld is terrible, stay away from here.

      • serpserpserp on 24/05/2023 - 17:57

        The people are just so welcoming there….

        • brendanm on 24/05/2023 - 18:11
          +1

          No, they are horrible, and the snakes! So many venomous snakes, I trip over them every time I walk outside. More Victorians should definitely not come up here.

    • Poor Ass on 24/05/2023 - 08:56

      stay away and keep ya coffee in vic

  • Protractor on 23/05/2023 - 18:37
    -5

    Another anti Vic govt FWittery rant. Lib hacks and slobbering citizens have no imagination. This thread is a waste of oxygen

    • Ghost47 on 23/05/2023 - 19:33
      +9

      And of course plenty of people happy to chime in despite not even living in Victoria.

      • Protractor on 23/05/2023 - 19:48
        +2

        Strong argument.

  • DingoBilly on 23/05/2023 - 18:37
    +49

    What a weird group of posts. Vic is definitely one of the better and more progressive states to live in, and they're doing a good job IMO. This feels like a planned post with a concerted effort to whinge as I can't imagine most Ozbargainers are actually this silly.

    I'm a landlord and I don't give a (profanity) about this extra amount of money to pay back. Seems fair, as someone who owns properties I'm doing fine and have no issues giving back more. This is just a dumb hit article for people who over-leveraged themselves or people who just like complaining about lefties/woke people because they are uncomfortable with them.

    The sort of person to link a news.com.au article would be the sort of person to complain about this though.

    • plmko on 23/05/2023 - 18:50
      +16

      The sort of person to link a news.com.au article would be the sort of person to complain about this though.

      We should pray for the people who still reads news.com.au in 2023…..if you can't learn to better yourself by now then you are forever trapped in your own mental loop.

      • Binchicken22 on 23/05/2023 - 19:08
        +10

        I'm yet to find an un-bias "news" source, journalism as a whole seems to have lost it's way in the last 20 years and news is more about pushing whichever side of politics you align with and/or gaining as many clicks as you can just to get that ad revenue.

        • bamzero on 24/05/2023 - 18:43
          +1

          I thought news these days was summarising a facebook/tiktok post then listing some of the comments, making sure to include a "run, don't walk", "I'm definitely going to try this" or "how am I just learning this?" somewhere.

    • Binchicken22 on 23/05/2023 - 19:06
      +2

      A planned post? planned in what way exactly?… take the tin foil hat off mate.

      • Protractor on 23/05/2023 - 19:59
        +16

        You don't need a tin foil hat to see the wave of political and social agenda based threads lately.(leaning right)
        All seem to be anti establishment,anti govt bla bla Trump pawns bla bal bla, freedom of speech bla bla, why I oughta bla bla bla.
        Happy to chip in.

        • Binchicken22 on 24/05/2023 - 10:02
          -1

          "Freedom of speech blah blah blah"… See, this is exactly what's wrong with the left side of politics these days.

          Freedom of speech shouldn't be a left/right issue, if you can't see that then you are way too far down the political rabbit hole. And yes, freedom of speech does include "hate speech", whatever that means on the day. As soon as you let the group in power start defining what "hate speech" is, and therefore prohibiting it, you no longer have "free speech".

          • Protractor on 24/05/2023 - 10:20
            +5

            @Binchicken22: you and your rabbit hole.
            You 'rabbit' on about why both sides should value freedom of speech, and then rant from your right wing high horse about it.
            When you figure out why you need the ability to use hateful speech to ostracise,isolate,denigrate,attack,vilify and dress it as free speech, get back to me.
            People with real values went to war NOT to give ppl the ability to rekindle the flames 70 years later.
            History is repeating. I'm not the one needing a visual aid.

            • Binchicken22 on 24/05/2023 - 11:26
              -1

              @Protractor: It's not about using speech to ostracise etc, it's about giving the people in power the chance to determine what you can and can't say.

              I'm sure you are very supportive of "hate speech" laws now, but let's hypothetical say Australia ends up being led by the Palmer United party in 10 years time, will you still be happy for the government to deem what is and isn't "hate speech" then?

              • Protractor on 24/05/2023 - 12:09

                @Binchicken22: Both sides of govt already dog whistle. Sport has never had more race hate speak than since the voice referendum was announced. What is ASIO saying about the rise of the right??
                Do you enable all speech dressed as 'free speech'?

                In the absence of a voluntary moral line in the sand socially and politically, we need a better social media usage law set. people should not be allowed to attack others as they currently do simply to express their race,gender and ideological hate. Online anonymity has failed the broader community.

                • Binchicken22 on 24/05/2023 - 12:30

                  @Protractor: Sport has never had more "race hate speak"?

                  Let's start with this comment.

                  What do you mean by this? Do you have some examples? Do you mean the sporting bodies themselves? Or just one or two random people (out of the hundreds of thousands) that attended their games have said some mean things that then got them life bans?

                  How else do you propose this is dealt with? You want these people taken through the criminal justice system and charged with saying something bad?

      • cloudy on 24/05/2023 - 01:07
        -1

        Dingo is insinuating that OP works in the labour machine and saw the budget coming and had this post ready to trash the labour brand.

        Or I could be completely wrong and Dingo is just another Dan fan

    • jv on 24/05/2023 - 00:39

      Vic is definitely one of the better and more progressive states to live in

      Not since Dan took over.

    • Aice on 24/05/2023 - 06:28
      +10

      A planned post?

      Like I created an account 12 years ago, went to uni, got a job at News.com.au wrote a biased article (even though the 2 facts I mentioned were accurate) and then posted on OzBargain to change the world!!!

      I love it when a good plan comes together

      • [Deactivated] on 24/05/2023 - 18:19
        +1

        You'll be scamming GCs in the classifieds next with your appropriately 'aged' account!

        ;)

    • smartazz104 on 25/05/2023 - 13:34

      Well it’s given people like jv a chance to parrot simple slogans and give his bolding skills a workout.

  • big1964 on 23/05/2023 - 18:48
    +21

    Victoria had a debt problem before covid it also was the worst state to be affected by the covid pandemic!
    News Corp sky after dark 3aw the usual right wing people will go after this conveniently forgetting that the libs left a $1trillion debt to pay for Harvey Norman people in a job!
    Melbourne is also on its way to be the biggest city by population and it needs infrastructure etc etc.
    Sure they haven’t got “Everything “ right no political party will do that!!
    The liberal party here is in shambles and after all that went on in the last few years they don’t look like getting voted back in anytime soon!
    The libs need Millennials on their side to gain headway at the next election in 2026 they need to be more centre and less conservative and keep Peter Dutton far far away!!

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 23/05/2023 - 19:04
      +5

      shouldnt matter the libs are a shambles'vote independant' or a different party if you dont like libs the Victorian voters went into the last election full well knowing this guy wasa giant liability

      im laughing becuz this shafters inner city rich people who vote and renters the most who are the primary voter basis for the ALP and Greens

      • orangetrain on 23/05/2023 - 21:05

        Renters who can afford the rent in the city will snap up those investment properties. I'm sure they are crying and will be anti-Labor in next election.

      • try2bhelpful on 24/05/2023 - 01:19
        +5

        Really? This inner city leftie has no problem with it. Then again I only have one property. However, the rich inner city people are likely to vote Teal rather than ALP. The best outcome is more properties come onto the market for people who want to buy a home. Housing prices have skyrocketed recently. There is something, seriously, wrong with our housing prices.

      • ThithLord on 24/05/2023 - 08:47
        +3

        lol dude, which party do you think built this nation? Maybe the political party that is for the workers?

    • jv on 24/05/2023 - 00:41
      +2

      and it needs infrastructure etc etc.

      Not a rail loop costing billions that doesn't take people where they want to go.

      • Ade99 on 24/05/2023 - 08:10
        +1

        whilst cancelling the airport link which may get some use….

    • akashra on 24/05/2023 - 12:53
      -3

      Oh pull the blindfold off. Victoria's issues during the pandemic were largely due to NSW allowing free movement of transport and other passengers in to Victoria, and Victoria Police's complete unwillingness to enforce the public health directives except where it suited them. We had a state police force actively working against the state government because the elected police officers chose… wait hang on a second…

      • Danstar on 24/05/2023 - 12:58
        +3

        It’s NSW fault for Victoria being in the shit? That’s a new one

  • plmko on 23/05/2023 - 18:55
    +34

    And conveniently no body talks about Qantas doing a massive share buy back on the back of massive profits leveraged by the free loans given to them.

    That's Alan Joyce not even Golden parachuting out, he's diamond gliding from tax payers money, the everyday man wearing the inflation and the thousands of workers he used free money Covid Jobkeeper to sack and pay the redundancy.

    But yep classic shit news attacks and divides the people against each other via the property "mum and dad" investor angle.

    • orangetrain on 23/05/2023 - 21:06
      +1

      Feel free to make a post but what can be done with the taxpayer handout to a private company? What do you expect with a right wing Federal government that's committed to copying LNP?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join