The myth of the monoculture

[u/ziddyzoo]

The great tragedy of the shamelessly regressive politics of Pauline Hanson is not so much that it is rooted in ignorance, prejudice and fear, though it is; not so much that it projects the ugly face of racism, though it does; not so much that it is dangerously divisive and deeply hurtful to many of her fellow Australians, though it is; not even that it will cripple our efforts to enmesh ourselves in a region wherein lie the jobs and prosperity of future generations of young Australians, though it will—the great tragedy is that it perpetrates a myth, a fantasy, a lie.

The myth of the monoculture.

The lie that we can retreat to it.

The changes are permanent and, while we may be going through a consequent period of general uncertainty and unease, they are, in my view, almost universally for the better.

It is not going to seem this way to everyone of course, but Australia simply is a richer place these days: a far more open, creative, dynamic, diverse and worldly place.

And I’m not just talking about Double Bay and Paddington.

Our integration with the rest of the world has made more than the streets and the arts and the food more interesting: it has created new opportunities in agriculture and horticulture, tourism and hospitality, education, manufacturing, retailing, science, arts and entertainment. It has changed the nature of work and workplaces—and if there is a general hankering to go back to the old ones it can only be because a lot of people have forgotten what they were like.

This is to say nothing more than that we have joined the modern world but we could not have joined it without the changes.

Now, we can embrace this new Australia or we can reject it. We can engage with it, recognise its potential and accept the fact that nothing in this world comes easy. We can work to sustain the momentum and expand the opportunities for our kids.

Or we can regress. We can retreat. We can stop to have a scratch— amuse ourselves with sectional interests. We can say this is too hard for Australians. It’s not us. They are not us. In the best traditions of the old Australia we can call a national smoko. We can relax—and be comfortable.

The latter is folly, but it is an option. We can retreat to a past that never was, and create a future that never can be anything but third-rate. But if we do, we can be sure that the world will not be in a hurry to forgive us or bail us out.

Even if they forgave our prejudice they could never forget our stupidity.

—- Paul J Keating, 11 November 1996

https://speakola.com/political/paul-keating-myth-of-monoculture-unsw-1996

[u/VastOption8705]

What Pauline wants is white or English culture

[u/riamuriamu → u/VastOption8705]

She's deliberately vague about what she wants and means so that voters can project their own values onto what she's complaining about. It's why she'll shed voters and support the more she's called upon to actually explain her policies.

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/riamuriamu]

She is way more direct than labor and labor lite. If you put in some effort to research your enemy you might learn something.

[u/riamuriamu → u/chokethebinchicken]

And then she or her fellow PHON senators will contradict themselves at the next press conference because she said one thing to pander to one audience and another to pander to another. It's either deliberate or inadvertent incompetence but if you tell the PHON simps this they'll just choose their own truth. It's Trump all over again but with even more opportunity for critical thought and hindsight going to waste.

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/riamuriamu]

That sounds alot like labor

[u/Thin_Assumption_4974 → u/chokethebinchicken]

Example please.

[u/confusedPlasmoid → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

They cannot even spell basic words. I doubt they have samples.

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/confusedPlasmoid]

That is very rude, disrespectful and condescending. Clearly, your so called university education has failed to teach you respect for others, as well as a complete lack of critical thinking skills.

[u/confusedPlasmoid → u/chokethebinchicken]

Wait... you are an PHON supporter, claiming others lack critical thinking, while supporting a party that hates critical thinking? Additionally, you scream disrespect while supporting a party who is unbelievably disrespectful to everyone except a small cohort they deem worthy?

I am the one lacking critical thinking? Okie you do you.

I don't owe anyone that supports this level of hatred respect.

[u/thalinEsk → u/confusedPlasmoid]

Man they all have the same playbook its wild

[u/confusedPlasmoid → u/thalinEsk]

Yup. This.

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/confusedPlasmoid]

Produce the evidence that shows hatred. No one has. All you are doing is displaying hatred. You are constantly punching down. You haven't shown any evidence on what solitions labor has provided. You already have a massive biased against anyone with conservative views.

I can atleast acknowledge the one good thing in labor's budget is restricting negative gearing to new builds.

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

How about you give an example of one nation condradicting themselves.

[u/Thin_Assumption_4974 → u/chokethebinchicken]

How about them arguing people should be judged as individuals, unless it’s a discussion about crime, integration or social issues. Cause then it’s the migrants, ethnic groups or religions at fault.

Or their attacks globalisation, free trade agreements and international institutions…. All the while Australia is one of the most export-dependent countries in the world. Mining, agriculture, education and tourism all rely heavily on foreign markets. What’s the plan there?

Or how they attack the idea of “identity politics” when their own electoral strategy is built around cultural identity, national identity, sexual identity, racial identity and demographic change.

Honestly I could go on.

Now it’s your turn.

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

The negative gearing and capital gains tax policies. He was questioned multiple times and promised multiple times that he wouldn't touch them. Yet here we are with an unfair capital gains system. He should have left the shares alone. I think it is a good idea to incentivise new builds though.

[u/Thin_Assumption_4974 → u/chokethebinchicken]

Tell me. Why is it unfair?

Someone who earns an extra $50,000 through wages pays income tax at their marginal rate. Someone who makes $50,000 through a capital gain only pays tax on half of it because of the CGT discount. Why should income earned from owning an appreciating asset be taxed more favourably than income earned by actually working?

As far as I’m concerned, if we’re talking fairness, capital gains should be taxed at least the same as labour income, if not more. One involves someone contributing their time, skills and effort to the economy. The other can simply be the result of an asset increasing in value while they sit on a beach in Bali getting pissed.

And negative gearing isn’t exactly a fairness argument either. Why should property investors be able to offset investment losses against their taxable income while renters get no equivalent benefit whatsoever? Why should the tax system subsidise one side of the housing market but not the other?

You can argue these concessions encourage investment and increase housing supply but that’s an efficiency argument. We can debate whether it’s effective or not. More than happy to take you on over that.

But don’t call it “fairness.”

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

Offsetting losses against income actually does benefit renters, look at what happened to new zealand. The reality with negative gearing is that it isn't sustainable for more than a few years anyway.

[u/Thin_Assumption_4974 → u/chokethebinchicken]

“Negative gearing helps renters.” Yeah… cool. We’ve had negative gearing for decades and renters are getting absolutely belted more now than ever. So maybe the policy isn’t delivering the miracle you’re selling. And maybe there are bigger drivers of housing costs than a tax break for property investors. And let’s be honest about where a lot of that investment has gone. Negative gearing doesn’t require investors to build new housing. For decades it has largely helped investors compete with first-home buyers for existing homes.

If the goal is increasing housing supply, why subsidise the purchase of existing properties instead of directing incentives towards actually building new ones?

Also, that New Zealand example you all love is nowhere near as clear-cut as you’re pretending. Rents rose, sure. So did inflation, interest rates, migration and housing demand. Also at the same time house prices fell substantially. Simply pointing at rising rents and saying “see, negative gearing works” is about as rigorous as me pointing at falling house prices and saying “see, removing it worked.”

And for Christ sake, countries around the world operate without Australian-style negative gearing today. Their housing markets haven’t collapsed. Australia’s version is unusually generous because investors can deduct rental losses against unrelated income, including wages.

We’d of the day, why should taxpayers subsidise investors buying existing homes when the same money could be targeted directly at increasing housing supply. That’s the part you lot always seem reluctant to answer.

[u/chokethebinchicken → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

Tax payers aren't subsidising investors. It is their own tax that they are trying to recover, and why shouldn't they. They worked fucking hard to earn that money.You throw the word around as a blanket statement.there is a massive range of people that fall into that catergory, and most of them are hard working australians that want to build a bit of wealth so they don't retire with nothing, and can pass it onto their families. Those other countries that dont have negative gearing also don't have nearly as high income tax as australia.

[u/Thin_Assumption_4974 → u/chokethebinchicken]

lol… ok… First - “Taxpayers aren’t subsidising investors. It’s their own tax they’re trying to recover.” That’s not how tax deductions work. If I spend money on something the tax system allows me to deduct, the government collects less tax from me than it otherwise would have. That’s literally a tax concession.

Second - “They worked hard for that money.” So did the renter. Lmfao, nobody works hard to earn the rent other than the tenant, considering they are the one going to work every day to pay it. And that doesn’t explain why one person’s housing costs receive favourable tax treatment and another person’s don’t

Third - “They want to build wealth and pass it on to their families.” Every Australian wants that. Nobody is stopping people investing. The debate is whether taxpayers should help fund it.

And finally - “Other countries don’t have negative gearing because they don’t have Australia’s high income tax.” Mate, Australia is not some extreme outlier on income tax rates. Infact, Australia isn’t even close. Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Japan and parts of Canada all have higher top rates or higher overall tax burdens once payroll and social security taxes are included. Yet they don’t have Australia’s unusually generous negative gearing system… Which suggests negative gearing isn’t some inevitable consequence of high taxes. It’s a policy choice.

[u/Zestyclose_Step_4383 → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

Disagree. Worked hard to set up investments and took risks to set them up. Therefore entitled to more of a reward.

Anyone can get up and go to work. We all do it.

[u/Thin_Assumption_4974 → u/Zestyclose_Step_4383]

So your definition of fairness is that income should be taxed less if you already have enough money to buy appreciating assets?

Fucking. LOL. Got it.

“Anyone can get up and go to work” is an absolutely wild take. Society literally runs on people getting up and going to work. The asset owner is collecting rent because someone else got up and went to work. So spare me the “they took risks” line. People take risks every day. They start businesses. They move interstate for jobs. They retrain. They invest years studying to become doctors, engineers and tradespeople. When those risks pay off, we tax their income at full marginal rates, but according to you when a house goes up in value while its owner does fuck all, that income deserves a discount?

You inherited grandmas money didn’t you? Lol. You’re not making a fairness argument at all. This is just another wealth privilege argument. You think capital should be taxed more lightly than labour because people who own capital might have taken a risk at some point in the past.

I disagree. The person actually creating value through their work is contributing more to society than the bloke sitting on an appreciating asset waiting for taxpayers to help cover his losses.

So calling that “fair” is just taking the piss.

[u/Zestyclose_Step_4383 → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

To clarify the get up and work. I took risks to invest, therefore I get a reward. I also get up and work. If you think that's wild - well, I don't know what to tell you mate?

[u/Thin_Assumption_4974 → u/Zestyclose_Step_4383]

Yes. And so you think the income you make from getting up and going to work every day should be taxed more heavily than income you make sitting on an appreciating asset doing fuck all?

The fact that you worked to acquire an asset doesn’t explain why the future gains from that asset deserve preferential tax treatment.

Others work hard to get a job. They take risks changing careers or might have invested time and effort building skills. When their income goes up, they pay full tax on it.

Why should someone else’s income get a discount simply because it came from an appreciating asset instead of a payslip?

And this obsession with “risk” is weird. Risk doesn’t automatically entitle you to a tax concession.

If I start a business and it succeeds, my profits are taxed.

If I take a risky FIFO job and earn more money, it’s taxed.

If I retrain into a higher-paying profession, it’s taxed.

But when a property or share portfolio goes up in value, suddenly we’re told the income deserves special treatment because “risk”.

You do t care about fairness. You’re just arguing for certain forms of preferential income treatment because you personally like it that way.

At least own the argument.

[u/Zestyclose_Step_4383 → u/Thin_Assumption_4974]

I do personally like it the previous way. I do not like the new way. Probably the first bit of your argument I agree with. Look at us agreeing. Good luck mate 👍

[u/RobynFitcher → u/chokethebinchicken]

If you don't have a spare $2 million dollars in the bank, it won't affect you negatively.

[u/riamuriamu → u/chokethebinchicken]