Should our intake of migrants change, and if yes to what extent?

Oh I see, you not interested in finding some sort of consensus but would rather try subterfuge to continue to support a premise of failure.

Yes, personal consumerism is a failing. You point the finger to demonise others who have done well risking their future, demanding that those who sit on their freckle should be provided with everything.

Take the ALP's new climate change policy. Just one, the electric car policy. 50% of cars electric by what 2030??? 2025??? totally devoid of infrastructure to support such a huge undertaking Labor plans to provide tax relief for company cars that are electric. Let me get this right, ALP wants to give tax payers money (from lower to middle class) to companies that buy electric cars with the fully tax deductable purchase of an electric car... talk about taking form the poor and giving to the rich... So how does the lower and middle class benefit from such a policy??? Paying more for fuel, being unable to buy a mode of transport so dependent on government just to go down to the store to buy milk imported to the nation. Since the ALP are intent on removing negative gearing the poor will be living further from the shops so that bus or train they need will be fewer. And since the demand for power is going to increase hugely the prices will increase hugely so they might to be able to go down town anyway. Maybe they could grow their own produce to feed themselves but then, they cannot go looking for a job… ALL for a thoughtless policy that does nothing but take opportunity away from the people who really need it.

The fact is, they are lucky that they can grow their own food, many around the world cannot…

 

No, wrong, of course. She is discussing the community, it's very hard to see the lucky country when you see hundreds of thousands of people displaced by progress, technology and evolving economic and trade practices.

It is easy to call it a lucky country from your home in Warringah or even Cronulla. It's easy to call it a lucky country as you flush out the salt water from your jet ski while the wife drops the kids off at a private school in the Jeep.

It's harder for the single mum laid off from the Bonds factory at Rooty Hill because the company could produce cheap jocks in China.

It's hard for the 18 year old in Broken Hill as he waits behind 50 others in a job search office when they know their isn't enough vacancies.

It's easy to call it a lucky country when you have made millions from land stolen from it's traditional owners, deforested, over stocked with inappropriate animals, over fertilised and plagued with feral animals, pest and diseases.

It's a lucky country for someone who through genetics or position and yes some hard work has a degree in medicine, it's a little harder for the mum working as a stock filler or check out operator at Woollies.

It's easy as you sit in a French restaurant as some people wonder about a different way to cook mince.

 

My god you are so brain washed it's a joke. You talk about people who need a hand like criminals, they can't afford food so your answer is for them to grow it. Sounds a bit like "can't afford bread, well let them eat cake" in my opinion.

No one is accusing you of anything for what you have achieved. No one is jealous of you for earning good money or wanting to steal your home.

They are just arguing for a fair go, remember that, it was the words that built Australia. It wasn't the company directors or the investors, most using stolen money. It was built by workers swinging picks and axes, wielding shovels and wheel barrows.

Your mother probably gave you milk from my father's farm, he had no opportunity or desire to become wealthy as he was on a fixed income from the milk board to ensure you had your milk.

Everyone has the opportunity in Australia to achieve wealth and power that's true but firstly it's not EQUAL opportunity with a heavy bias towards the rich.

An even playing field is the last thing on earth that liberal supporters want, it reduces the opportunity for their children and god forbid they one day may have to be treated by a doctor from some common family.

Your sooks, you are greedy, you are self centred, you're un Australian.

Fair suck of the sauce bottle that's all we ask.

 

I like the hint towards electrical cars.
One day, and it won't be that far in the future, petrol and diesel motors will vanish, only replaced by electric or hydrogen (I hope).
And what have we done in the lucky country? Seized production of cars, which means we have to buy what others produce.
Stick with Libs/Nationals, and the green future never arrives.
Whether the goal of 2030 is achievable (electric cars), is only in part debatable, as it has more to do with the cars the global market is producing, and guess what?
We won't have a say in it....
Reg.

 

Hmmm,
I still believe we can take more migrants, but need more water.
Desal is an option, powered by solar, only operable during day time.
Then farming becomes a much safer option.
Cats

 

End all migration due to refugee status completely. Withdraw from all relevant international treaties. The asylum seeker system as it stands is a scam to launder economic migrants into refugees. Only permit the entry of refugees who have taken the shortest route to safety, and only those facing threat of violence due to political views. In practice this means nobody can currently migrate here due to refugee status. Perhaps in the future.

As far as economic migration goes, I would permit migration of those with a proven track record of business success, entrepreneurs only. I would also cap total migration for any reason at 10% of the annual native birth rate. That is currently approximately 30,000 individuals per year to be let in.

Find the 30,000 best and brightest from all around the world and bring them in. If they become destitute at any point within 10 years they get deported. During this period you are not eligible for any government assistance at all. You must pay for public schooling, medicare, etc. For 10 years they must check in and show integration within the community and culture. You must learn English and demonstrate competency. If, after this 10 year period, you have become properly integrated into the culture, you will be allowed citizenship for you and your immediate family, provided they also meet these requirements. The family is included in the 10% cap.

 

And come from Norway?

 

Come from anywhere, but have a preference for compatible cultures. Less from Islamic nations, more from everywhere else.

 

Asylum seekers should have to apply for asylum, not just show up at our border. Especially when such a small percentage is actually found to qualify. With such a backlog of asylum seekers the law needs to change and require a Judge to make an immediate decision at the border. And those not approved should be denied and required to return to the Country they came from.
We should not have to build housing for them, feed them and so on; because our own young people and families do not get this.

I am sorry for these people, but their Government should care for them.

If we were seeking asylum in another Country we would have to present ourselves to an Embassy. not just show up at their border.

 

Well after that preach, let me point out. Claiming that because you cannot buy what you want does not detract from the lucky country.

 

Err way to go there, try misrepresenting what is said. I am not providing answers I am pointing out what can be done. I am not even talking about welfare recipients I talking about the concept of what Makes Australia the lucky country. But hey, you just show my point in two preachy posts.

What I truly love about your claim is that in no way do you reflect on the point made in the post. BUT hey, build a strawman and you can argue it to the heavens.

LOL… let me get this straight, Belting the poor with greater taxes forcing them to pay more to put a roof over their heads, more to feed themselves and even restricting their movement so you can give tax deductions to the rich corporates to buy their high paid executives and managers to buy an electric car with their 100% tax deductable car allowance to portray your doing something for climate change is giving people a fair go??? I love that, again Argue the strawman you build not the points raised.


But I have to say, clearly the person brainwashed is the person defending a policy that proudly states will make the poor pay for their ideals just to get in the job.

What a load of rubbish, all you want to do is find a way to attack and insult posters. You did not even address any points raised yet you want to lay claims on the poster. What a poser.

Talk about selfish, clearly you don’t understand the concept that consumerism is subjective making it a failing. Since the point was about what makes Australia the lucky country your attempt to insult just show the failure you are… And that is what is UN-Australian, not your belief of what others opinions are…

Fair suck of the sauce bottle??? Go back and read the post you claim is selfish attack on poor Australia, it is not me condemning them it is you who is defending attacking the poor to support your ideals. Unbelievable

 

It isn't the push to electric that is disgusting, it is forcing the poor to pay for it. Tax deductions so 100% tax deductable asset can attract further income tax reductions if they buy electric. Cut franking which hits self-funded retirees so they can tax their capital gain before they get it and after. But give corporates Australia MORE tax cuts to make a policy that in entirety is unachievable…

However, Electric cars in Australian cities should have greater uptake, Since the average distance travelled on a daily basis is very small then it becomes reasonable sustainable at a reasonable price. Again Arguable but reasonable.

Problem is that while you artificially support an industry that cannot or will not (take your pick) compete, the people who pay for it the most are the poor. You have to remember, Renewables are subsidies by a renewable energy policy that hit the poor harder than most. Since the policy is to change 10million cars to electricity, I think one of the major issues is increasing the power grid to support the influx which of course costs money. Now considering it is strained to the limit now, the question comes to how much more will it take.

Just watch, when they price these policies it will be done in isolation of direct policy statement, not the true complete cost. Because the point is not to actually achieve this policy but to make the voters think they will.

But hey what would I know, after all now they want Australian’s to sponsor a poor Australian kid to go to school… Me thinks there is some major primacy concerns here and what is it people want to address??? No poverty that is for sure.

 

we have a Commerce Clause and should be making money not losing money public policies.

 

SP,
sounds like a true blue policy.....
Reg.

 

Our problem is time.
Combustion engines are on their way out, nothing we can do. The longer we wait however, the more expensive it gets. As we are not a leading nation (in technology), we are lacking behind and have to buy what others offer.
I think we should get involved rather sooner than later. There are countries making money out of modern technologies, but our government, especially Libs/Nationals, play the game of we stick to our coal and don't wana hear.
Things will become even more expensive, if we don't act.
Reg.

 

Let's look at the garbage you wrote a bit at a time, when you post such flagrant liberal propaganda in one post it's hard to wade through crap up to your neck.

So senior executives and high paid employees will get 100% tax deduction on electric cars? Why is that different from this. ... https://www.googleadservices.com/pa...=2ahUKEwjKpLfEn93hAhUYbn0KHWTQAPoQ0Qx6BAgPEAE

Negative gearing, it is labor removing that that you and the liberals are lying about.

Negative gearing doesn't save the person money unless the price of the property goes up consistently each year. I forget the actual time frame but it's something like it has to double every 8-10 years. If you honestly think that this is not putting pressure on the rental market and pushing up rents you are delusional.

A home has until recently been the Australian dream. 50 or so years ago just about anyone could and did buy a home, today it is only possible on family incomes of over a 100k or so.

Yes this is a lucky country, but it's more luckier for some (excuse grammar) than others.

And yes luck does play a part in it. I was lucky enough to grow up in a relatively poor household. We grew our own food for the most parts and I never knew what a family vacation was, but I learnt to look at things from a different perspective.

My parents could never have sent me to university so I was an unskilled labourer for many years until Whitman made university accessible to everyone.

As a biochemist I went from one side of the track to the other and it was then that I saw the discrepancy.

 

It's adjusted given population aging.

 

The problem isn’t time, it is how it is expected to be driven. The many questions in this area remain unanswered and due to the fact people are more interested in preventing degradation to their own position while ignoring everybody else they are willing to force others to pay for their ideals…

The truth is, if there was a more competitive production of electric cars the uptake would be way above where it is now. Just ask yourself, WHY don’t you have an electric car??? Don’t point the fingers at others for until YOU have done what you demand of others.

Australia should be active in trying to lead the world but first you have to hang onto your intellectual property. I don’t care what party you want to champion about such NONE do anything to attract, build or invest in Australian intellectual property. Oh they make all the rhetoric but when it actually comes to it…

Things will continue to rise, but if you allow government to artificially support change of such, things will increase FAR above the cost of doing nothing or just allowing market forces change. Before you jump up and down, it is simple fact. ALP introduced a carbon tax and clean energy subsidies projected to increase the cost of power ALONE by 10%. They presided over 100% increase…



Again, it isn’t time, it is the way. Australia resided over 8% real reduction on CO2 production by simple stroke of the pen. Costing nothing to the Australian population. Not by taxing, but by forcing reductions in new vehicle emissions in less than 10years.

Sure it will cost money to meet reduction targets but it shouldn’t just cost the poor, while removing the opportunity to advance themselves in a nation that stands supposedly proud of “fair go”.

 

republicans and democrats will never be able to agree on a immigration bill and if they did, Trump would probably veto it anyways

Trump has himself in a tough spot, his base doesn't want him to compromise, yet Trump doesn't control the House, so has to compromise to get anything done

 

Well back at building your strawman I see.

That is not what was said. I stated that executives and corporations will get further tax deductions if the 100% tax deductible corporate vehicle is electric.

Now in case your hard of understanding (which I gather is the case) corporates Australia buys a corporates car it is 100% tax deductable. If they make it electric more tax deductions on top…

Umm do you know what negative gearing is??? Sounds to me like you’re talking about capital gains tax. Negative gearing has nothing to do with the price of property it has everything to do with the costs. But hey, your building your strawman, go for it.

GARBAGE.

just as you continue to misrepresent my comments to try find insult you now try to associate consumerism with opportunity.

I once met a fellow, an immigrant, who came to work one day and was extremely happy he just purchased his first house. We all congratulated him and went on with work. Two years later he came in happy he paid that house off.

We were amazed, “how did you do that”

He said. “I brought a big house 5 bedroom for over 500k and rented every room out bar 1.And that is EVERY ROOM“
Asked how he could live like that he pointed out he came from Vietnam, where he grew up in a cabin of one room. “****” he said “we only had a dirt floor. Living in a house with floors was a luxury”


IT just goes to show, YOUR perspective is subjective…

No you didn’t, your simply trying to find objection and insult. Again, go back and read what is stated, stop making the **** up to suite your agenda…

 

Oh and where is the lie I told??? or is that just your progection again???

 

i feel the same way on a lot of issues, and am grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers, in most cases.

 

I think we need to focus less on cities and welfare and more on the GREAT AUSSIE OUTDOORS and ensuring opportunity with land ownership.

We are a big country. We can afford to give the destitute a fair go on a 20 acre farm, subject to success after 5 years that land becoming theirs in freehold.

Cities and city slickers will be the death of this nation.

 

It may not be THE solution to the problem but it is an idea.

 

I have for years been thinking of a similar idea, I have not had the time or inclination to investigate the details.

Every Australian citizen upon reaching 21 years of age is given a block of land, a house size block. Where and how we give one of equal value, not just dollar value but location etc. Would have to be worked out, but within the local community.

This would curb the urban drift looking for a better opportunity etc. This would provide a giant leap in community building, something that we desperately need.