Who's Going to Run the Country???

[silentC]

The point is, it's the wrong reason to vote. You're basically saying that you want someone else to have a go, and anyone will do. The fact that we only have two parties to choose from means you really only have the choice between what we have now and something different - you don't get to choose what type of "different".

One of the mistakes (in my opinion) that people make is to judge Labor on it's track record in government. It's a bit like choosing a football team based on your opinion of players who left the game years ago. Everything is different now, so all bets are off. There is so little difference between Liberal and Labor now in terms of political alignment that it just doesn't matter. Boiled down, what most are doing when they vote Labor is voting against John Howard, not for Kevin Rudd.

The problem is that as a country we are actually doing quite well at the moment. Yes there are a few problems, but seriously how many people feel they aren't better off now than they were 20 years ago?

So the concerns are related to the environment and our interactions with the rest of the world. How certain are we that Labor will deliver to promise on these matters? Take Peter Garret for example. Ten years ago who could imagine him supporting a pulp mill? I think when ideals clash with reality, reality often wins.

I think I personally will be worse off under a Labor government. I think they will wind back some of the advantages that have accrued to people in my demographic. Whether that's a bad thing in general for the country remains to be seen.

It will be close but I think that a lot of people currently p'd off with Howard and co. will find it less clear cut when it comes time to put pen to paper. One thing about Howard, he's a survivor.

[prozac]

sorry big shed, but which generation.?
people in the 50's had 5% fixed interest, poeple in the 80's had high interest (for a couple of years in the life of a loan, but had job security and protected wages.
People in the noughties have neither and the boomers (of which I am one)
have pushed prices sky high with their super investment.

This generation also starts off their life with a HEX debt, somthing that the
X gen and boomers like Costello never had to worry about. My partner included.

This youngest working generation has to worry a lot more about providing for their kids higher education as well as paying health insurance and a host of other stuff that used to be universally available through taxation.
All courtesy of Howard and Co (and ok, labour introduced HEX but it was controlled at a realistic level).

Astrid

I bought my first house in 1978 at the age of 23. The bank rate at the time had a ceiling (Govt. regulated) of 11.75%. However the banks were only allowed to lend to 70k max (Govt. regulated). I ended up taking an interest only loan from a solicitor at 12.5% because the banks would not lend to me. Not long after Labor got in and rates went up a lot.

Now you can borrow as much as you feel you can risk, or get your hands on. This freely available money has helped fuel housing prices. So has cost of Labour. That's right, in 1978 the average wage was around $12,000 and tradies did not earn the proportional rates that they earn now. These days tradies live in all the best suburbs! Cost of materials has risen dramatically as well. As an example a car I bought new in 1979 for $12,500 had the lot, air con, tint, etc. Same sort of thing today would cost me $60'ish.

Cost of land. There are a number of taxes that add to the cost of providing land in the Labor state of NSW. Stamp Duty on the purchase, Developer Infrastructure Levy ($50,000), Section 94 Contribution (around $43,000), Sydney Water Infrastructure charge ($10,000), Interim Transport Infrastructure Levy (about $15,000).

Before you include the cost of the land itself the Labor state government charges, levies and taxes amount to around $130,000. I say Labor because most of these were added under Labor governments. Regardless these are State costs and have nothing to do with a Federal Government. It is drawing a very long bow to say that John Howard had anything to do with this situation.

When I started investing in real estate I bought where I could afford. This meant buying in suburbs that I did not grow up in, and buying property that required extensive work. It meant rolling up your sleeves and getting dirty. Today people in their mid-twenties are buying 5 bedroom McMansions as a first property. Then they furnish it on credit and complain when it all turns to ????. What's wrong with starting out small with 2nd hand furniture?

I'm getting off track but essentially the cost of housing is not the fault of the Federal Govt. Most of the costs related to developing land are slated back to state govt. Believe me it was a lot harder to buy property when the government regulated the maximum size of your borrowings.

[prozac]

My big worry is that when we have voted all the minor parties will give their preferrences to other parties. This means that some one will get the power to make changes which was not why they were voted for. I feel strongly that there should be no preferrences given to any party. If you vote for A then all the votes stay with A and so on. Have similar feelings about voting above the line. You should vote for the representative you feel can do some good for you, not the party as a whole. Vote below the line and make it count.

Ernknot, the system we have does not seem ideal. However having the party with the most votes win is not ideal either. If a party gets around 40% of the national vote then you say they should win right? This would disenfranchise the remaining 60% of the country who did not vote for them nor want them to win.

As you say though a party can win on preferences. These preferences may not fit with ideals of the winning party so you ask yourself if the preferences are being "prostituted" just to get a polie a job. Can't trust any of them.

[Gryphon]

Quote:

Today people in their mid-twenties are buying 5 bedroom McMansions as a first property. Then they furnish it on credit and complain when it all turns to ????. What's wrong with starting out small with 2nd hand furniture?

I hope that you mean that as a generalisation. I don't want to buy a McMansion not am I afraid of a bit of work to fix a house up. I am looking at a house of a decent standard so that my family won't freeze during winter and have at enough space for everyone. But even that is a struggle (For the record I can't get the first home owners grant). Small houses in crap condition are going for a lot of money. The mortgage repayments on a smallish house in a less than desirable part of toen will be almost twice what I pay in rent for a four bedroom house in a nice suburb with a rumpus room.

It is a dangerous thing stereotyping people and the supposed actions just because of their age.

[dazzler]

Of course hes making a generalisation........

Thick skins required here gryf...

[prozac]

)Small houses in crap condition are going for a lot of money. The mortgage repayments on a smallish house in a less than desirable part of toen will be almost twice what I pay in rent for a four bedroom house in a nice suburb with a rumpus room.

It is a dangerous thing stereotyping people and the supposed actions just because of their age.

Gryphon, did I say that you bought a McMansion?

I am not saying that you give up your rental accomodation. Live where you enjoy living by renting. Buy an investment in an area where your research indicates a good rental return but also good growth prospects. This will get you on the roundabout and give you a credit history with lenders. I rented for 12 years after I bought my first property, and before I could afford to buy one to live in.

We are getting off-topic but I am happy to discuss off-line if you want to pm.

Point is, Howard didn't make housing unaffordable, but I think you will rue the day you get Kev into power...I mean Julia.

[TEEJAY]

Silent, I think you have to see a party based upon it's history each time it was given the opportunity whether or not it is 2, 5, 10 or 15 years ago. I expect if Labor get in a repeat of history.

Personaly I have never been worse off financially than with the GST, but I have learnt to live with it. I can control my spending to manage with this tax where as a big hike in home loan interest is not an easy dodge - either way I am not over commited and will survive it - many won't and I think it will worry them.

Woodbutcher if you think Peter is a verbat prat, it is a shame you haven't the luxury of eloquence of the greatest from Bob and Keating who both found their dear wives past their used by dates shortly after losing the Prime Ministership - what gentlemen. The term "recoucertrant and scum of the earth" spring to mind - not sure why.

[silentC]

But everything has changed since then, not just the personnel. You can't expect Labor to come in and just roll back the clock to the pre-1996 way of doing things as if 'the Howard years' never happened. I think it's pointless comparing things like inflation and interest rates then to what you might expect them to be under a future Labor government. Both sides of the fence do that, but they are making assumptions based on conditions that existed over a decade ago.

[TEEJAY]

No worries - I have a great memory - so in a couple of years time I will say "I told you so "

New front face doesn't make a new machine.

[silentC]

From its formation until the 1950s Labor and its affiliated unions were the strongest defenders of the White Australia Policy, which banned all non-European migration to Australia. This policy was partly motivated by 19th-century theories about "racial purity" (shared by most Australians at this time), and partly by fears of economic competition from low-wage labour. In practice the party opposed all migration, on the grounds that immigrants competed with Australian workers and drove down wages, until after World War II, when the Chifley government launched a major immigration program. The party's opposition to non-European immigration did not change until after the retirement of Arthur Calwell as leader in 1967. Subsequently Labor has become an advocate of multiculturalism, although some of its trade union base and some of its members continue to oppose high immigration levels.

This is one example of how the same party can have a different face AND a different machine

[TEEJAY]

No worries - I have a great memory - so in a couple of years time I will say "I told you so "

New front face doesn't make a new machine.

AND to quote a famous writer - see post 69 above - in a couple of years time I WILL say " I told you so " - if they get in

[OLDPHART]

Two years,!!Being exceedingly generous aren't you

[dazzler]

Point is, Howard didn't make housing unaffordable, but I think you will rue the day you get Kev into power...I mean Julia.

The other day an economist was saying that the baby boomers are responsible for the blowout in prices due to high disposable incomes purchasing lots of investment properties and negative gearing before retirment.

Got no idea if he was right .

PS: He said it....he said it.....he said it......he said it......not me

I love all you baby boomers......your bloated beer bellies are so nice to cuddle

[astrid]

I would like to address the furpht that we are all better off.
I left my job in 1993 to raise start my family.
my salary at the time was 43,000.plus super, flex time, maternity leave (3 months) long service leave after 10 years.
have just returned to the same job, different employer, thats 14 years later
$40,000 pro rata inclusive of super!! on 3 month contracts, no security, no long service, no flex,
no overtime.no casual loadings.
they tell me I'm fortunate to get a job 3 days per week as they are rare.
This is the way they exploit return to work mothers on a work choices contract.
This would not have been legal 11 years ago
so please dont tell me we're better off

and if we dont reply nicely the mad axe weilder will lock this thread
and we are all being very polite and respectfull arnt we

Astrid
and PS this is one of austrailas biggest insurance companies

[silentC]

I didn't say we are all better off - I asked how many people seriously feel they are not better off now than they were 20 years ago.

So that's one.

Maybe at 43k 14 years ago you were overpaid, if you are doing the same job now for less. 14 years ago I was a senior computer programmer earning about $38k, working 5 days per week. I couldn't live on that now...

But the point I'm trying to make is that it's hard to argue that Australians as a whole have it tough. If you have a few bucks worth of loose change in the ashtray of your car, you are in the top 4% of the wealthiest people in the world. Or something like that.

So are you ready to risk that for a change of government?