Coronavirus update

Coronavirus update: Formula One Grand Prix called off, Trump announces travel ban, Tom Hanks tests positive

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-12/coronavirus-live-updates-mclaren-lewis-hamilton-travel-ban/12...

Message 1 of 3,689
Latest reply
3,688 REPLIES 3,688

Re: Coronavirus update


@imastawka wrote:

@*kazumi* wrote:

@bright.ton42 wrote:

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.  

 

 


 But of course, there is also bad luck greatly in play.  Thousands people returned from o/s and only handful turned out positive; it was a very bad luck that one of those infected could not survive 2 weeks without sex.  Hope both, the guard and the tourist will be charged with something and fined. 


I'm also waiting for news on that.   Will it happen?


was "customer service" part of the job description ? 

Message 2471 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update


@davidc4430 wrote:

Victoria records 394 new coronavirus cases and 17 deaths on Australia's deadliest day

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-09/coronavirus-victoria-394-new-cases-record-17-deaths/12539010


And now how many health/medical people infected ? Infection rates in decline ? 

Message 2472 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update


@rogevibe wrote:

@imastawka wrote:

@*kazumi* wrote:

@bright.ton42 wrote:

Yes, that's it in a nutshell.  

 

 


 But of course, there is also bad luck greatly in play.  Thousands people returned from o/s and only handful turned out positive; it was a very bad luck that one of those infected could not survive 2 weeks without sex.  Hope both, the guard and the tourist will be charged with something and fined. 


I'm also waiting for news on that.   Will it happen?


was "customer service" part of the job description ? 


OK - first LOL at humour. Robot Very Happy

Message 2473 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update

New houses, in estates miles out of the city are not too expensive.  The problem is that the jobs are not there.  When people have to spent 3 plus hours a day traveling, that makes it not manageable, especially if they have small children.  Not to mention the cost of travel, be it petrol or train fare.  

Investors, who already have other properties, can buy   another house with NO deposit, no money for fees, and even get bit extra on the housing loan.  Believe me we did that.  Bought an investment property with absolutely no cent from our pocket, plus $50 000 for renovation.  That was 20 years ago. 

 

Negative gearing does not mean subtracting your expenses from the rental income, it means subtracting the expenses from your total income, and therefore reducing or totally wiping off the tax you pay.  That was useful when we needed more rental properties, now we do not.  When the 10% of Australians who have investment properties plus overseas investors keep buying more and more, the prices of established homes in areas that are conveniently located near where the jobs are, become unaffordable. 

Message 2474 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update

Anonymous
Not applicable
So you're saying if someone has two businesses and one makes a loss, you shouldn't be able to take the loss off the profit that the other business makes? Owning a rental property is no different to any other business.
Message 2475 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update


@*kazumi* wrote:

New houses, in estates miles out of the city are not too expensive.  The problem is that the jobs are not there.  When people have to spent 3 plus hours a day traveling, that makes it not manageable, especially if they have small children.  Not to mention the cost of travel, be it petrol or train fare.  

Investors, who already have other properties, can buy   another house with NO deposit, no money for fees, and even get bit extra on the housing loan.  Believe me we did that.  Bought an investment property with absolutely no cent from our pocket, plus $50 000 for renovation.  That was 20 years ago. 

 

Negative gearing does not mean subtracting your expenses from the rental income, it means subtracting the expenses from your total income, and therefore reducing or totally wiping off the tax you pay.  That was useful when we needed more rental properties, now we do not.  When the 10% of Australians who have investment properties plus overseas investors keep buying more and more, the prices of established homes in areas that are conveniently located near where the jobs are, become unaffordable. 


I follow all of the points you are making, and some of it is spot on and makes common sense. The vital bit you are consistently missing or delibrately ignoring though is that by continually increasing our population every year WE ARE pushing people further and further away from their employment AND FORCING them into a 3 hour commute.

 

It is the government policy ( all colours ) of never ending, continual population growth ( through immigration ) to support ever increasing GDP and corporate profits that is to blame for people being forced miles out into suburban wastelands, with ever longer commutes and two partners working. This in turn forces very small children into expensive child care, fracturing family units at the critical early childhood stage. If population growth stopped tomorrow, suburban sprawl would stop tomorrow, regardless of whether it was investors or home buyers who owned the houses.

 

And as you rightly point out, Australians are voting with their feet and not increasing our population naturally, so it is the direct government policies of continual increases in population through migration that are causing all of these very serious social problems  for people.( as you have identified in your post ) 

 

Dramatically reduce our immigration intake and a lot of the issues for existing residents would stabilise and not continue to get worse. The Current government knows this. That is why they have continually resisted providing any financial support to foreign visa workers, instead telling them to go home.l The Government understands this will free up employment opportunities for the Australian residents who have lost their jobs due to COVID 19.

Message 2476 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update

@Kazumi...........

 

We seem to be having some kind of role reversal here. 

 

I,m the one who is arguing the socialist mantra of looking after our fellow citizens, making sure they have affordable access to  housing and reasonable employment prospects and you are the one who is arguing that peoples lives should be trashed with poor housing options, reduced wages and poor employment options in order to feed the continually growing appetite of corporate profits and continual GDP growth. Not to mention trashing our natural environment in the process through over population.

Message 2477 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update

Anonymous
Not applicable
I suppose we could build a lot more towers so we can stack more people in the inner cities close to their work. Don't worry about their living conditions and that the kids have no backyard to play in - just stack 'em upwards!

I'm sure a lot of people would dispute your idea of "not too expensive".
Message 2478 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update


@chameleon54 wrote:

@*kazumi* wrote:

New houses, in estates miles out of the city are not too expensive.  The problem is that the jobs are not there.  When people have to spent 3 plus hours a day traveling, that makes it not manageable, especially if they have small children.  Not to mention the cost of travel, be it petrol or train fare.  

Investors, who already have other properties, can buy   another house with NO deposit, no money for fees, and even get bit extra on the housing loan.  Believe me we did that.  Bought an investment property with absolutely no cent from our pocket, plus $50 000 for renovation.  That was 20 years ago. 

 

Negative gearing does not mean subtracting your expenses from the rental income, it means subtracting the expenses from your total income, and therefore reducing or totally wiping off the tax you pay.  That was useful when we needed more rental properties, now we do not.  When the 10% of Australians who have investment properties plus overseas investors keep buying more and more, the prices of established homes in areas that are conveniently located near where the jobs are, become unaffordable. 


I follow all of the points you are making, and some of it is spot on and makes common sense. The vital bit you are consistently missing or delibrately ignoring though is that by continually increasing our population every year WE ARE pushing people further and further away from their employment AND FORCING them into a 3 hour commute.

 

It is the government policy ( all colours ) of never ending, continual population growth ( through immigration ) to support ever increasing GDP and corporate profits that is to blame for people being forced miles out into suburban wastelands, with ever longer commutes and two partners working. This in turn forces very small children into expensive child care, fracturing family units at the critical early childhood stage. If population growth stopped tomorrow, suburban sprawl would stop tomorrow, regardless of whether it was investors or home buyers who owned the houses.

 

And as you rightly point out, Australians are voting with their feet and not increasing our population naturally, so it is the direct government policies of continual increases in population through migration that are causing all of these very serious social problems  for people.( as you have identified in your post ) 

 

Dramatically reduce our immigration intake and a lot of the issues for existing residents would stabilise and not continue to get worse. The Current government knows this. That is why they have continually resisted providing any financial support to foreign visa workers, instead telling them to go home.l The Government understands this will free up employment opportunities for the Australian residents who have lost their jobs due to COVID 19.


The upside of this pandemic is that it allows Australia to enable consolidation of the population and so create a more universal natural cyclic environment or dynamic - population expansion - population consolidation - population expansion - population consolidation,   with resultant improvements in quality of life for vastly more citizens

 

This consolidation phase should encourage more effective usage of national human resources - as for example the additional funding for vocational qualifications and also other new projects and changes in attitudes towards local assets , community based enterprise etc 

 

With this accidental consequence , we as a nation might be able to enhance all positive aspects of society 

Message 2479 of 3,689
Latest reply

Re: Coronavirus update

We might even be able to do that in normal English.

 

But it won't happen. All governments' priorities, post-COVID, will be to get that GDP kicking upwards. The easiest way to do that is to increase the number of consumers that the GDP is defined by.

 

Noting that the G in GDP means Gross. Not per head, nor taking environmental concerns into account.

 

There was a documented spike in GDP after the Newcastle earthquake. It didn't relate to new activity, just the replacement of existing assets that were no longer viable. But it kicked GDP along, without actually producing anything.

Message 2480 of 3,689
Latest reply