When the Coalition gained office in 2013 Abbott was quick to wheel out his signature policy of ‘Paid Maternity Leave for the Mega Rich’. Seeing this policy shot down in flames by the general community as out of touch and elitists, you would have thought the Coalition members would have learnt their lesson when it come to policy and opinion, particularly the front bench of ministers..
Seeing his first budget crucified as unfair and out of touch, the cigar chomping Treasure ‘Cocky’ Joe Hockey could have been expected to be circumspect when making public statements that affect the general community. Being a ‘Sydney boy’ himself it stands to reason Hockey should have sympathy for the tens of thousands of Sydneysiders, particularly young people, who are not just struggling to buy their first home in Sydney, but are finding them totally out of reach, despite historically low interest rates. As the median price in Sydney has sailed pass the million dollar mark, the Australian dream of home ownership is no longer a reality for so many, which are now forced onto the rental treadmill. What is Hockey’s solution to the terrible plight facing so many of our young folk, his advice “Get a better paying job!” I can only describe this “solution” from Hockey as another example of this government uncaring attitude towards ordinary Australians.

"I can only describe this “solution” from Hockey as another example of this government uncaring attitude towards ordinary Australians."

I agree in principal that Hockey's advice to get a better paying job is much easier said than done but I also find your comment a very big stretch.

Those like you and the ABC seem to just be hanging out for the next line you can use to express your disdain for the Coalition Gov't.

Why no criticism of Sarah Hanson-Young's recent wealth redistribution comments that are completely unworkable and will never get off the ground; or Bill Shorten's complete lack of ideas?

Dear ConservativeHippie,

Sarah Hanson-Young's wealth distribution ideas should be adopted, and Shorten is one of Abbott's few assets.

There is an unhealthy concentration of wealth created in part by the economic policies of past and present governments. Hanson-Young's policies would compensate for the present inequities. They should be praised.

Comparisons of politicians like Hockey and Hanson-Young are not helpful; both are idiots from different perspectives, but aren't all Australian politicians now idiots, interested only power?

Hockey's 'get a good paying job' should automatically get him removed from his job. But his boss, another idiot, will not get rid of him. Many people can't get any sort of job, let alone get a good one. On the other hand, calls for redistribution of well are also silly.It will never happen.

As usual the media is making the news. As well, the media is playing the public as ten year olds.

If he was cynical, Hockey would be indulging in the game of the professional politician and playing to the politically correctness of populist politics. Something that L'il Willie Shorten, career politician, does so well. Here is an example of Shorten in action,

"Labor leadership contest: Bill Shorten wants quotas to boost number of gay politicians in Parliament"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-28/shorten-wants-quotas-to-boost-number-of-gay-politicians/4987276

Returning to Hockey, there was nothing but honesty in what he said. Quite obviously if anyone wants to buy into the inner 'burbs of major metropolitan cities in any developed nation, one is going to be paying a premium and yes, a good income is a prerequisite for that.

I was reading about a couple of young professionals, both Bachelors of Business (dime a dozen) who were miffed that their lifestyle was suffering (fewer resort holidays in Coolum) since they built and fully landscaped their 30squares architect designed house. Their expectation, somehow realistic and deserved in their eyes, is completely unrealistic to others. Next they will want to be made partners. They are entitled you know.

That is a different way of describing what Hockey is talking about, however we all need to tailor our expectations and demands to what we can afford, and for that matter to our commitment to work and saving, doing without to get what we want.

Shelter is not always expensive. Go to RealEstate.(whatever) and there are plenty of cheap alternatives, many outside of cities. Otherwise, if you really must have a lifestyle that necessitates a suitable (?) home in a major metropolitan city like Sydney or Melbourne you are going to have to earn much more. Your parents had to save and start small, remember? That is what adults do.

What good can there be if even more people find jobs that contribute nothing to our overall happiness and in some cases even diminish it?

(that includes most public-servants (including marriage/divorce celebrants), advertisers, the gambling industry, the media, most lawyers and accountants, and managers and engineers who deliberately design cars and appliances to last only a couple of years so they can constantly be replaced with newer ones with newer gadgets)

If the idea is to allow the currently unemployed, as well as the above badly-employed who better would be unemployed, some minimum money to eat and pay off their bills, then let them have this money now without the hassles of a job which only makes them consume fuel, block the traffic and neglect their kids.

Dear Paul,

Our current treasurer is a bit of a concern.
His latest bit of advice - "get a well-paying
job," (when unemplyment is the highest its ever
been under the current government)
is about as good as his earlier comment
on poor people and cars. He is definitely out
of touch and shamefully in denial about the
housing situation especially in his home-state.

Melbourne also has a housing problem. Foreign
investment is pricing younger people out of
the housing market. It will be interesting to see
what the Foreign Investment Review Board which is
investigating nearly 200 cases of suspected unlawful
purchases of property will find. Two hundred cases
according to experts - is only the tip of the iceberg.

DavidF,

Although I think Hockey is a wealthy boofhead, insensitive to most people who do have money worries, I firmly believe in the capitalist system. It has been proven to work, just as the options have proven NOT to work.

That's historical fact, not opinion, so your comment that Hanson-Young's "wealth distribution ideas should be adopted" is astounding.

There is a concentration of wealth in relatively few hands. Your are right about that. The relatively few who are richer than the rest of us all have something that we do not have. If we, say 80% of the population had whatever it takes to get rich, we would all be rich; but we do not have what it takes, and most of us have to get used to the idea of being happy with what we have.

Short of bloody revolution, there will NEVER be a re-distribution of wealth in a democracy. If there was a revolution, it would not be long before we were all poor, including the erstwhile rich. Even the 'socialist' Labor MP's (the party is socialist, but the hierarchy is not) will never fall for re-distribution of wealth. They are in the rich group themselves, not our lot.

And, just how much of her more than adequate salary and savings (including superannuation) do you think Hanson-Young of the extreme Left would be prepared to have distributed among the rest of us?

The whole idea is stuff and nonsense, David, and you should be very pleased that it is. Without the wealth of the few, the rest of us would be much, much worse off than we are.

ttbn wrote: "Without the wealth of the few, the rest of us would be much, much worse off than we are."

That sounds crazy to me.

Why am I not surprised at your ignorance of financial matters david f.

You would of course be amazed to realise 60% of tax is paid by the top 15% of income earners. The bottom 50& effectively pay no tax, the government spends more on us than the total tax paid.

Stop bitching, or those high income earners might decide they have to keep too many, & stop working so hard/smart.

Hasbeen wrote: "Why am I not surprised at your ignorance of financial matters david f.

You would of course be amazed to realise 60% of tax is paid by the top 15% of income earners. The bottom 50& effectively pay no tax, the government spends more on us than the total tax paid.

Stop bitching, or those high income earners might decide they have to keep too many, & stop working so hard/smart."

I am not ignorant of financial matters although you sound quite ignorant. You think those who make a lot of money work hard/smart?

I probably have worked much harder in my life than James Packer with his yacht and his father's billions. He has managed to lose a couple of the billions because he isn't nearly as smart as his father. Vast sums are made by financial manipulation and a tax system which is set up to favour the rich. Some of the people who work the hardest such as hospital orderlies are the lowest paid. Earnings are not proportionate to effort.

The rich pay a large proportion of taxes. They also avoid a lot of taxes. It is nonsense to say that 50% pay no tax. With the GST everybody who buys almost anything pays taxes. The GST makes sure that the bottom 50% pay taxes.

The Catholic bishops were set to write a pastoral letter on the regressive nature of the GST. Howard announced 400 million more for Catholic schools, and the letter never went out.

Hasbeen, it is not a good way to argue to call other people ignorant because they disagree with you. The GST is a device to avoid a comprehensive income tax system which would be based on ability to pay. I'm calling it like it is. The income tax is too low, and the GST should be eliminated.

I was not commenting because I disagree with you david f, but because of the total foolishness of your previous comment.

Meanwhile it was nice of you to confirm my opinion of your understanding, of financial matters.

Dear Hasbeen,

I accept that you regard disagreement with you as total foolishness.

That means that there is no point in exchanging views with you.

Let me fist say, as a Sydneysider I am not bitching from a personal sense of entitlement. In fact, under the Abbott and Hockey ideal I am a Sydney property millionaire, owning my own home and all.

Beach, are you slipping? No reference to the Lefty/Progressives/Trotskyists/Greens. Nothing more that a half heated shot at Silly Billy and gays, In my day the catch cry among the unintelligent was "The wogs got all the houses!" has that in someway shifted to "The gays got all the houses!" or have you just mellowed in your old old age?

The conservatives on the forum will simply back Cocky Joe, of course he could have just as easily said "If you want a house in Sydney or Melbourne why not buy a Lotto ticket and chance your luck." One can not see a better system than Capitalism, something akin to the joys of 19th century England, I'm sure. Fortunately we ditched the ideal of pure capitalism some years ago and mated it with Socialism to produce a hybrid system, which I am happy to support, as is the majority of Australians.

Foxy, I totally agree, Hockey like Abbott, suffers very much from a bad case of 'Foot In Mouth' disease, it can prove fatal for an idiot politician like Hockey. Good point about foreign investors, they thumb their noses at our laws, and in reality the conservatives in power as did Labor, do jack about it.

davidf, you are failing to understand the totally discredited economic theory of Trickle-Down Economics' or "Reaganomics" for short, as expounded by that famous economic expert and Bozo The Clown impersonator, Ronald Reagan. This is how it works; The Billionaire employs you to wipe his ass, and pays you a penny. Eventually, so the theory goes, with hard work, and a lot of wiping, you too will become a billionaire. So if there is no Billionaire to start with, then there is no ass to wipe, and therefore no penny for you. And to expand that to encompass "Hockeyomics" no house in Sydney or Melbourne either.

Of course we shouldn't be surprised at such a comment from this L-plate treasurer.

He's the guy who claims $270 travelling allowance every night he spends in his wife's house in Canberra to pay off her/their mortgage.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-10/hockeys-housing-comments-prompt-call-for-mp-rent-transparency/6536146

He's also rented rooms out to other pollies. Nice little earner if you can wangle it. He should have mentioned that when he was giving advice to aspiring Sydney homeowners - try and wedge it so the taxpayer pays your mortgage.

Perfectly legit you realise - legally if not morally.

Here's some of those high end earners - whoops! - they paid no tax!

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140513-zr9o3.html

"The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip.
Advertisement

Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each.

The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance.

The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each."

And again more recently.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tax-office-statistics-reveal-the-55-millionaires-who-paid-no-tax-20150429-1mw2zp.html

"Fifty-five of Australia's highest earners paid no income tax at all during 2012-13, not even the Medicare levy.

All earning at least $1 million, they managed to write their taxable incomes down to below the $18,200 tax-free threshold, although for most the exercise was expensive.

Tax statistics released Wednesday reveal that 40 of them claimed an extraordinary $42.5 million for the "cost of managing tax affairs" meaning they each paid an average of $1 million to an adviser prepared to help to bring down their taxable income, which is itself a tax deduction.

Between them they reported earning $129.5 million, an average of $2.3 million. By the time their accountants had finished with them they reported losing a combined $12.8 million."

DavidF,

It should make sense to you: no big money, no investment - no jobs.

As Hasbeen pointed out, the rich do pay most of the tax. A few try to, and sometimes do, avoid tax. But the number who do is highly exaggerated by the Left (who also do very well from the rich, and many of the Left are also rich) and the envious who think someone else should do for them what they cannot do themselves. I think you will find that most of the tax avoiders are tradies, taxi-drivers, the self-employed etc. Not all of them, of course.

You were right to mention the GST as a tax paid by the rest of us as well as the rich. Apart from the necessities of life, we do have some control over what we spend, so we can 'avoid' some of that tax. Unfortunately, it is the not so well off who are the big spenders on luxury goods - general on the never-never.

Nevertheless, I will repeat my feeling that Hockey is an insensitive rich man who should not be treasurer, or a politician of any kind. There are better men and women than he is who cannot afford their own home. I will also say that, as a conservative, I will not be voting for the coalition next election for various reasons; one of which is my opinion that the Abbott/Hockey government has been be hard on less well off Australians. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Most Australian politicians are good for nothings interested only in themselves.

ttbn,

"Nevertheless, I will repeat my feeling that Hockey is an insensitive rich man who should not be treasurer, or a politician of any kind. There are better men and women than he is who cannot afford their own home. I will also say that, as a conservative, I will not be voting for the coalition next election for various reasons; one of which is my opinion that the Abbott/Hockey government has been be hard on less well off Australians. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Most Australian politicians are good for nothings interested only in themselves."

Interesting - and a further attestation that this particular govt has overstepped the bounds of decency, and is in fact a rabid outfit of far right wing ideologues.

When we read articles like this from Amanda Vanstone, titled "Lazy, sneaky or both: what were you thinking, Prime Minister?":

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lazy-sneaky-or-both-what-were-you-thinking-prime-minister-20150607-ghho0v?skin=smart-phone

And even more notable is this from the IPA:

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jun/09/right-wing-thinktank-ipa-denounces-coalitions-sole-citizenship-proposal?CMP=share_btn_tw

"Libertarian thinktank IPA denounces Coalition's sole citizenship proposal"

"The Liberal party’s ideological allies in the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) have called on the government to rule out a minister stripping sole nationals of their Australian citizenship, saying this would be “an outrageous attack on the rule of law”.

Simon Breheny, director of the IPA’s legal rights project, also called for the coming legislation dealing with dual nationals to include a comprehensive judicial review process so that a person could challenge the case."

Let's hope that when the detritus of this govt is finally swept away, the right can get back to its solid foundations and produce a crop of pollies less extremist.

Most jobs in Australia come from business not trickle down money from the rich. The rich could be taxed much more and not suffer.

Like Paul1204 I am a property millionaire living in our mortgage-free house amid some beautiful acreage. We have parrots, kookaburras, butcher birds, koalas, dragon lizards and other wildlife to enjoy on the property.

I get US dollars from the US government, the US military, Philips Corporation and the University of Pennsylvania. My wife gets pensions from Denmark, Norway and Germany. The money buys much more in Australia than it would in its countries of origin. Economic mismanagement has depressed the Australian dollar. I am 89 and take no medication. Life is very good for me in Australia. I am here because my wife grew up and went to university in Australia before she left for Europe. She wanted to come home when I retired in 1987.

I feel very sorry for the less fortunate Australians who have bought the goods that Abbott and his wrecking crew are selling, and the other Australians who have not bought the goods but are still suffering.

Dear Joe
Please explain to the staff cleaners cooks receptionist at any motel in Canberra why they have lost there jobs or the boss can't pay more then 17.50 an hour,Because you and your mates are wroughting the system.
Dear Joe
Please explain the word morale to a bunch of school kids
Dear Joe
Please explain to people with no where to live (many thousands) why others need to have 15 houses
Dear Joe
Please explain how you intend on fixing this once great country
So far you have managed to double labours debt,kill business confidence,turn majority of people off your policies because they are so out of touch with reality,Kill any chance of mr/mrs average from owing a house 50-60k guys its not going to happen, Tying us to free trade agreements which will devastate this country.
BTW gratz on stopping the boats, are you ready to share with us how much you guys are wasting on using battleships to do this ?
AB

It is the compartmentalised thinking and slavish adherence to ideology that prevents leftists from acknowledging the obvious: that demand from continued large scale immigration forces up housing prices.

<To give our crystal ball a solid foundation, we asked CoreLogic RP Data for a statistical snapshot of prices and sales in all capital cities in February 2010. We also asked for comparative sale numbers and median sale prices from February 2015.

Hopefully, this five-year snapshot will reveal trends that help us forecast what lies ahead for Australia’s capital city housing markets.

[tables omitted]
According to Cameron Kusher, CoreLogic RP Data’s Senior Research Analyst, “the standout message” is that Sydney, and to a lesser degree Melbourne, has been the star performer over the past five years.

“All the others (capital cities) have been fairly muted,” Kusher says.

“One question people often ask is ‘why haven’t all the markets grown equally when recent interest rates cuts are national’?

“Well the reason we have seen such strong growth in Sydney and not in other markets is more because of overseas migration to Sydney, which has been fairly strong because of its job opportunities, because New South Wales’s migration away has been low since 2010 and also because there’s a shortfall in housing.>
http://tinyurl.com/pgthtrf

Add to that the necessarily ramped up taxes and council rates to provide the required infrasyructure for 200,000 new migrants a year. -Which is the equivalent of building five cities the size of Port Macquarie ANNUALLY.

Add again the cost to the Centrelink, Health costs (Medicare) and the direct and indirect costs associated with multiculturalism and it is easy to see why government reports say that young working Aussie couples are delaying and finally not having the children they planned for.

Young working Aussie couples are being discriminated against by taxes and user pays to support the 'Big Australia' and 'diversity-Australia-is-being-forced-to-have' to suit the cringing cultural elitism and anti-'white' hatred of the leftist 'Progressives'.

Dear Paul,

The following website is quite a revelation
of our Treasurer:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/06/11/joe-hockey-belongs-class-wealthy-landlords-course-hes-untroubled-housing-affordability

We're told that "As home prices have skyrocketed in recent
years more and more first home-buyers have been locked out
of the market..."

Now it seems that the Treasurer has added to his long list
of political gaffes - all first home buyers need is
"to get a good job that pays good money."

The treasurer is really out of touch - which has marked his
career to date. As we know having a good job is not
sufficient to gain a foot-hold in the hot housing markets.
Sydney's median house price is now above $910,000.
A median apartment is above $600,000 and the median
household income is still around $52,000.

Many 30 - somethings on above average wages we're told will
find the prospect of buying a home receding into the distance.
How many cleaners, baristas, or factory workers earn
enough to put down a deposit for a dwelling in this country
and that's not even mentioning the roughly 750,000 Aussies
who are looking for work.

The website is worth a read - for it discloses the fact
that Joe Hockey's Family Trust owns 4 houses, including a
stately pile in Hunters Hill that could be worth as much as
5.4 million with a combined household worth reportedly above
$10 million - Hockey and his merchant banker wife are well
and truly in the top one percent of Australian households.

Australians don't begrduge the rich making money - but they
can smell hypocrisy a mile away. It's all very well for Mr
Hockey to tell us that the "Age of entitlement is over,"
while he reaps all the benefits of entitlement for which he
did not work hard. He came from comfortable circumstances
and married well.

Thanks Foxy, it really makes no difference if it is Cocky Joe or The Mad Monk himself making these outrageous statements, they are simply digging a deeper political hole for themselves. A hole in which the Australian voter will one day bury them.
Conservatives like Hockey are totally absorbed by the concept of the "free market" and to hell with anything else. However there are certain norms within Australian society which are seen as sacrosanct, and above petty economic considerations, the right to a "fair go" for all is one, the right for all working people, regardless of where they reside, to at least be able to aspire to home ownership is one of those norms. Any politician who is dismissive of that aspiration does so at his or hers political peril. Like cigar smoking is bad for your bodily health, to be seen chomping on a big fat cigar and appearing to be uncaring and conceited at the same time, is bad for ones political health as well.

Paul1405, "I am a Sydney property millionaire, owning my own home and all"

You need to give the jealous Fox some tips.

Labor isn't interested. Least ways not the Labor Party of the career politicians like ex-union boss Willie Shorten. Latham was right,

<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He told 3AW radio Bill Shorten’s private members bill to push for changes to the marriage act to allow same-sex couples to tie the knot, to be introduced into parliament on Monday, was nothing more than a symbolic gesture.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street.

“If you are interested in equality and social justice in Australia then what was the really big event in the month of May,” he said. “We had the Struggle Street documentary which revealed that in the nation’s public housing estate, most notably in Mt Druit people live in conditions that you wouldn’t wish upon your dogs. Absolute chaos, despair and hopelessness in their lives.

“And surely, you would have expected a serious national response from the party of social justice?
“We didn’t hear anything.
“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/story-fnizhakg-1227371979220

tbc..

contd..

Shorten who might also reflect on the tax burden on new house developments.

Because through federal taxes the taxpayer has to support a burgeoning victim industry and all of the large costs direct and indirect of multiculturalism.

At State and Local Government levels there are the high taxes and skyrocketing rates on homes, new and established, to provide infrastructure for the over-population in metropolitan cities like Sydney caused by over-zealous immigration.

State Premiers, examples being Labor's own Anna Bligh and Bib Carr were highly critical of the over-zealous immigration policies of Labor federal governments in particular, stating the obvious, that it was not sustainable.

So much too for the culturally elitist metropolitan liberals who direct the Greens too, who preach sustainability but favour Open Door immigration to 'solve' the world's over-population.

What maximum population do the Greens say Australia should have in 2015, 2016, 2017...2020, Paul1405?

Dear Paul,

<<the right for all working people, regardless of where they reside, to at least be able to aspire to home ownership>>

Want your own home? build one!

Why work for an employer or for the banks - work for yourself, use bricks, mortar and whatever other materials you find to build your own home.

It's only your government, Paul, which over the years made it practically impossible for people to realise their dream because it keeps, and increasingly so, dictating what, where and how are people allowed to build and call "home".

<<A hole in which the Australian voter will one day bury them.>>

I am an Australian voter, do you want my vote?

None of the issues discussed here would make a difference, but whichever is your party, all you need to get my vote is to allow me to ride a bicycle without having to wear a pot over my head. Do we have a deal?

Dear Paul,

There you go - we've got all the news from our
resident political expert - otb.

Once again this "rational" expert tells us - our Treasurer
is not being hypocritical by telling us the age of
entitlement is over - while grabbing every entitlement for himself
(including charging taxpayer's so much per day to live in
his wife's house while he's in Canberra). And it seems
that - pointing that
out is a sign of jealousy - on our part -
not hypocrisy on the Treasuer's part. Ah well, we all have our standards.

And, of course as always - its all the fault of the Labor Party -
(even though they're not in government - and unemployment is
rising). Why the Labor Party?
Well, that's easy. It's because those
arrogant, uninformed, ideology-driven, ego-centric Leftists
are -self
loathing marxists, anarchists, with their secondary agendas.
Unlike those humble, transparent, caring, righteous, hard-working,
Liberals, the good-for-Australia-Liberals - that are keeping us
informed of everything they're doing, and are creating a society
we can all be proud of. Why even travelling overseas - when we
say we're from Australia - we're looked at with admiration.

We should all count our blessings, especially the 30-somethings
who can't afford housing
and the 750,000 who are looking for work. And above all else we
should pay attention to Mr Hockey's advice of getting a good
job that pays good money.
Afterall he's done precisely that.

Fox,

You need to remove that eye patch. Here again,

It is the compartmentalised thinking and slavish adherence to ideology that prevents leftists from acknowledging the obvious: that demand from continued large scale immigration forces up housing prices.

<To give our crystal ball a solid foundation, we asked CoreLogic RP Data for a statistical snapshot of prices and sales in all capital cities in February 2010. We also asked for comparative sale numbers and median sale prices from February 2015.

Hopefully, this five-year snapshot will reveal trends that help us forecast what lies ahead for Australia’s capital city housing markets.

[tables omitted]
According to Cameron Kusher, CoreLogic RP Data’s Senior Research Analyst, “the standout message” is that Sydney, and to a lesser degree Melbourne, has been the star performer over the past five years.
..
“Well the reason we have seen such strong growth in Sydney and not in other markets is more because of overseas migration to Sydney, which has been fairly strong because of its job opportunities, because New South Wales’s migration away has been low since 2010 and also because there’s a shortfall in housing.>
http://tinyurl.com/pgthtrf

Fox, it is the massive immigration to diversify Australia that you support that is the root cause of the housing demand causing higher house prices.

On top of that, young Aussie working couples are burdened with higher taxes, council rates and user pays to provide infrastructure, welfare, Medicare and the costs of a whole heap of multicultural services and lobbyists swinging from teh taxpayers teat.

As a result, young working, tax paying Aussie couples cannot afford the housing and children they want.

Your solution and that of the lunar Greens is bring in even more migrants, not skilled migrants, but to take the flood, the teeming millions from undeveloped, largely totalitarian countries. The ethnic lobby has demanded an increase of 50,000 more migrants to ramp it up to 250,000.

Who pays Fox? You might consult with millionaire land holder Paul1405,Esq., on that and get back on it.

Australia is an old, dry continent. At approximately 30 million people we then can no longer export food as all that Australia produces will be needed for its own population. Sprawling cities are taking up the areas with good soil and adequate rainfall. Much of the rest of Australia is unsuitable for both agriculture and pastoralism. The population in the rest of the world is also increasing so we may not be able to import food. Most of Australia is unsuitable for agriculture. According to Professor John Woinarski of Charlles Darwin University: "In parts of the Northern Territory pastoralism resembles a form of strip mining, exporting soil nutrients from some of the poorest soils in Australia."

Climate change will cause reduced irrigation in the Murray-Darling basin and marginal land becoming arid.It would make sense to avoid increasing Australia's population or even reducing it right now. We can still have immigration as long as it is less than the number leaving.

otb,

You are again wrong.
I have not supported massive immigration to Australia.

Kindly provide the evidence to substantiate your claims
that I have.

What I have suggested in a different discussion
was to increase our
intake of asylum seekers to 20,000.
But that's a different issue.

I happen to agree with Prof. Thor Hundloe who has stressed
that - humans have the intelligence, the tools, and the
natural resources to provide for a good, sustainable
life as long as there are not so many humans that we exceed the
globe's carrying capacity.

Again - check your facts before you make assumptions about
people and political parties. Sledging and stereotyping
others does you no credit.
And is no way to argue. It encourages counter-stereotyping
and negative reactions.

cont'd ...

All the evidence suggests that we must turn around population
growth and aim for a much smaller population than we have
today.

"All the evidence suggests that we must turn around population
growth and aim for a much smaller population than we have
today." - Foxy

Thank you; I agree 100%

Yuyutsu pointed out that many of our jobs contribute nothing to our well-being. In fact advertising creates desire for goods that aren't needed. People are employed to make these goods that aren't needed. Pollution and waste accompany those activities which are a net loss. Pay the advertising men to leave their jobs. Some of them want to write books anyway. Give a bonus to married couples who have their fifteenth anniversary without producing young.

Inflation is caused by too many people chasing too few goods. Many wars are caused by too many people chasing too few resources. Encourage people to enjoy pasttimes that expand the mind, be one with nature and involve simple pleasures such as friendship and conversation. Encourage all forms of sex which involve neither violence nor reproduction nor coercion.

Fox, "All the evidence suggests that we must turn around population
growth and aim for a much smaller population than we have
today"

The population growth, in fact over-growth, is coming from immigration.

What should be the maximum number of migrants per annum, including that 20,000 you have already given a pass to?

As usual Foxy and david f make complete sense. The question of population levels and immigration are complex, and many studies have been undertaken over the years without anyone producing a definitive answer. As a participant in the global economy it is too simplistic to thick Australia can simply turn immigration on at off at a whim. Like most Australians I want to see a sustainable population that gives the best possible living standard for all.
With the world population growing exponentially it is unrealistic to think Australia can act on such a global question, as population levels and immigration in isolation, I do not believe we can.

Paul1405,

Yours and Fox's agreement with david f is only superficial. You don't really come to terms at all with the limitations of Australia's soils and rainfall, or lack of it.

Weren't you and Fox all for Australia sending naval vessels to 'rescue' economic migrants over 6,000km away on the Indian continent? Others were rightly saying that the country at fault and its neighbours should be encouraged by the UN to fix the longstanding problems.

The Australian taxpayer cannot be held accountable for the unwillingness and refusal of other countries, particularly in far flung regions of the world, to take responsibility. Nor should the thousands of opportunist young men be allowed to flee accountability for the totalitarian creeds such as Islam that the themselves have benefited from and would introduce in countries kind and foolish enough to bow to their emotional blackmail.

Now what about you and Fox say what immigration in total there should be, numbers please, for 2015 and years to come and what it should be in (say) 5, 10 years from now?

Who pays?

There is a conflict. The social justice issues of the Greens are at odds with the environmental preferences of the Greens. One estimate is that the carbon footprint of the average Australian is 50 times that of the average Bangladeshi. Move a Bangladeshi to Australia where he or she lives the life of the average Australian, and the damage to the environment is much greater. Many Labor, Lib and Green politicians are all blind to this.

PM Howard talked about the Chinese all eventually having the lifestyle of the average Australian. That would make the planet uninhabitable.

Population control, changing individual lifestyle and government measures are all necessary to preserve the planet. As a member of the Greens I have tried to get the Greens to put environmental issues first but have been unsuccessful. At a Green meeting one member even suggested using farmland for dwelling construction.

it would be wonderful if we could offer every refugee refuge, but we should recognise that we can't do it. Abbott worries about the boat people.They are much less a problem than the legal immigration intake.

david f,

Early this morning I was driving through sprawling housing estates on highly fertile, water retaining land that only a couples of decades ago supported numerous small crops farms, with roadside stalls selling fresh produce.

We used to over-pay the farmers by never taking change from the honour payment bucket. We were not the only ones who did that for the privilege.

We especially miss the custard apples that were prolific but ending the season this time of the year.

Of course those sprawling 'burbs could be high rise apartments instead and more intensive living is taking over, bring a raft of new problems that will never be solved if overseas experience is any guide.

It is difficult to understand why some here want to rush headlong to over-populate beyond the taxpayer's capacity to pay for and provide the necessary infrastructure (and social solutions) and ultimately, very soon if some have their way, beyond the breaking point of the already too highly exploited capacity of water and land resources.

Paul Ehrlich, a biologist who published "The Population Bomb,"
in 1968, took centre stage in the late 1960s.
As Tor Hundloe points out in his book, "From Buddha to Bono:
Seeking Sustainability," (and from which I have regularly
quoted in my posts on this forum):

Had there not been student riots worldwide
protesting capitalism in capitalist countries and communism
in communist countries, the book would have had a major
immediate impact.

It was the first of a number of apocalyptic (doomsday)
environmental books.

According to Hundloe - Ehrlich has a tendency to overstate
the case. Yet we cannot challenge his central thesis;
the world is not large enough to nurture
unlimited number of humans.

The world's population was three billion when the book was
published. Today it is approaching the nine billion mark.
As I have emphasised in the past - if we, the middle-class
want the life-saving and life-rewarding tools of modernity -
this is possible as long as there are not too many of us.
This is a fundamental caveat. The experts who measure human
demands on the planet suggest if -by some miracle of
economics - everyone living today was to have a middle-class
lifestyle - we would need immediately two or three more
planet earths. And as stated earlier - humans have the
intelligence, the tools and the natural resources to provide
for a good, sustainable life as long as there are not so
many humans that we exceed the globe's carrying capacity.

I repeat - all the evidence suggests
that we must turn around population growth
and aim for a much smaller population than we have today.

Fox,

You are in denial and ducking.

The population growth, in fact over-growth, is coming from immigration. Young Aussie couples are already not having the children they planned to have and have worked for.

Young Aussie couples are delaying fertility and being obliged to start children at an older age, increasing their own health costs as well as Medicare's. It is because young couples are bearing the weight of taxes and other direct and indirect costs for infrastructure, welfare, Medicare and multicultural policy. That IS discrimination.

What should be the maximum number of migrants per annum, including that 20,000 you have already given a free pass to?

otb,

Correction - I am neither in denial
nor ducking.

I find you offensive.

I have already covered this issue in my posts
on this forum. I have provided sources and
links including the Report from Angus Houston
and panel, as well as the Dept. of Immigration's
intake programme 2015-16. I have listed the numbers
quite clearly.

Very foxy, always the dodging 'politician's answer' (sic) and a deflection.

So much for your professed concern about (over-)population and sustainability in Australia. LOL

Our denigration of others only reflects on ourselves. This is a list where, in general, we are anonymous. If we assume the others we deal with have good will we lose nothing thereby. Since, in general, we know nothing of each outside of the views they express we may keep it that way. There is a tendency to think that those who differ with us are not quite as good or reasonable than those who agree with us. I suffer from that tendency as my ancestors as are everybody else's ancestors were tribal people. I tend to see those who disagree with me as not belonging to my tribe and thus my enemy.

I am writing this because I like Foxy and think she is a very good person. However, I have grown to appreciate that otb has a lot of experience in life and I have learned from what he has told us about
his experience.

Please try to tolerate each other.

David, as a Green I too see a slight dilemma that the party faces with policy concerning the short term issue of immigration, and the longer term environmental issue of sustainability. There should not be a choice between the two, but an accommodation of both. When speaking of living standards, we should not just equate that to the material living standard of the average person in our western society. Foxy is correct about planets and resources. Maybe we confuse materialism too much with living standard. I understand an improvement in living standard to be some what more basic, improvements in health, education, housing, nutrition, employment etc, giving people a better, happier and more fulfilled life, not necessarily a life just filled with material objects.

Dear Paul1405,

I see a desirable life the same way you do. However, the 'health' of our economy is measured by the growth of GDP, and the economic indicators are generally not concerned with what the GDP is concerned with. The Christmas season is looked on as economically worthwhile if people spend a lot of money on a lot of material objects. Substituting an appreciation of nature, science, mathematics, the public library, learning to play a musical instrument,walking and other things that don't necessarily cost a lot of money would 'hurt' the economy. How do we recognise that conflict and resolve it?

We both apparently live well. How do we tell people who aren't living so well that material objects aren't important?

Before my grandmother would iron clothes she would heat the irons on a wood burning stove. As an iron cooled off she would remove the handle, insert it on a hot iron and put the cooled iron back on the stove. Somebody in the family would have cut the the wood into sizes suitable for the stove. She didn't have a washing machine but would heat water, pour it into a tub and scrub the clothes on a wash board. Some people in the world today scrub their clothes in a stream. I'm sure my grandmother would have loved a washing machine, electric iron and a gas or electric stove. We now think of these things as necessary, but my grandmother lived without them. Would you give up your computer?

Tolstoy wrote a story - "How much Land Does a Man need?" when he's dead a small plot will do. When he's alive how much?

Dear David F.,

Thank You for your kind words and your good
advice. I do appreciate it very much.
And I shall take it on board.

I can't control the behaviour of "On the Beach,"
But I certainly can control my own behaviour.

The fact of the matter is -
"On the Beach," will never accept that
I am not who he says I am.

His style of
posting I find deeply offensive and it's
been directed at me and
going on for a pretty long time.

Belly left because of "On the Beach."
Belly asked "On the Beach," to leave him alone.
It didn't work.

Others have tried to tell "On the Beach,"
to lay off me.

I asked for a truce ages ago.
It did not last long.

I have even asked him not to address his posts
to me. That I do not wish to interact with him
That did not work.

I've tried many things -
Nothing worked.

I suspect that he genuinely enjoys
pushing my emotional buttons, especially
the negative emotional buttons. He thrives
on stirring and baiting.

I've been advised by many to simply ignore him.
Not to respond. To simply not read what he
posts and scroll past his posts.

I've succeeded in doing that sometimes.

I've also not succeded in doing that.
I should take your advice in the future - and
remember to use your "hat argument."

It won't change his behaviour, but at least it will
alter mine. I'll give it a go.

Dear David,

Thank you for all your kind and interesting comments!

While I agree with many of your ideas, I am saddened that the Greens party, to which you belong, have not renounced coercion as the means to achieve wholesome outcomes. I take note that yourself has just denounced coercion in the realm of sexuality, then why not in the realm of politics as well? It is my conviction that the means are at least as important as the ends.

<<Encourage people to enjoy pasttimes that expand the mind, be one with nature and involve simple pleasures such as friendship and conversation. Encourage all forms of sex which involve neither violence nor reproduction nor coercion.>>

Nothing expands the mind more than religion, transcending the mind's limited function of serving the individual ego and its desires. Through religion one unites with God, hence one becomes one with everything including nature. Unity with God produces the simple, unconditional and ecstatic rejoicing in just being who one is, without the need to do anything in order to prove it; friendship with everyone; and kind and sweet speech. One who lives in God experiences constant orgasmic bliss which involves neither violence nor reproduction nor coercion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We disagree. In general religion closes the mind. In accepting religion we treat such man-made creations as God, afterlife, Nirvana etc. as real. It is rubbish that we must tolerate as people have the right to believe rubbish. However, religion remains rubbish.

Faith breeds ignorance.

Doubt and questioning open the mind.

Hi Foxy.

When it comes to Beach try and apply the 'Armadillo Principal', very simply have a thick skin. Earlier this year I spent a week in the forums equivalent of Alcatraz for calling Beach a wombat or some such thing, By the time I had engaged Tom Hughes QC to fight the charge, I was out on parole. I still like to comment on the nonsense Beach posts, all part of the 'forum experience'.

Hi David,

I understand the "need" for materialism in our western society, as you point out it drives our economic system. On the other hand I have seen a general lack of materialism in places like Fiji and other parts of the Pacific, where people have little want for those material object, granted when they obtain such material things they like them, no denying that. However I believe their lifestyle is better severed by catering to basic needs first, education, health, improved housing etc, and eventually applying the other good things of life such as labour saving washing machines etc. They should, and many do see dangers of becoming part of our western materialism. Can people embrace the good things of our society, and still remain free of the bad things? Or is it all or nothing!

Dear Paul,

Perhaps this slip-of-tongue of yours says it all:

<<However I believe their lifestyle is better severed by catering to basic needs first, education, health, improved housing etc>>

I think that you probably intended to write "served", but it came out as "severed".

It's a slippery-slope and once you get used to comfort-appliances it's very hard to fight the addiction, perhaps too late.

If one considers the full price of a washing-machine, not only the obvious direct costs, if one considers how much of their life is spent in servicing those gadgets, how they could have used that time instead to be in touch with themselves, their family, their friends, nature and the divine, then one would wish they thought about it twice before, but by then it's very hard to give up. The fact is that the Western civilised person, despite all machines that wash their clothes etc., has far less time on their hands than those "primitives". Most of us are forcibly awakened by alarm-clocks while still tired and must drag ourselves out of bed in order to drive to some dreary workplace that we don't like so that we can finance all those gadgets.

If you have AIDS, then you must live with it, but not give it to others.

Dear Paul,

Who defines what the good and bad things of our society are? My definition of bad things includes religion, new age, rock and country music, TV sitcoms, supermarket & lift music, war, militarism, patriotism, respect for authority, faith, racism, mining, advertising except for classified, panty hose, the arms trade, sustainable growth, wine, dogs except for cattle & sheep dogs, guide dogs, huskies and Samoyeds, fracking, money politics, chaplains in public schools, Newscorp, bush poetry and Olympics and other sporting competitions that are orgies of nationalism and commercialism for a start. I doubt that anyone would or should trust me to define what is bad.

A restrictive society forbids what is not expressly permitted. A permissive society allows what is not expressly prohibited. I favour the latter.

Materialism does drive our economic system. I also question our economic system. Apparently the countries with the smallest gap between rich and poor along with political freedom and the basics provided for everyone are the Scandinavian countries. Those countries still have flaws. Denmark is over-status conscious and conformist. The Scandinavian countries are capitalist but a kinder and gentler variety than ours.

Western materialism? I don’t think materialism is a particularly western phenomenon. The spiritual east is more of a stereotype than a reality.

@david f, Saturday, 13 June 2015 6:44:56 PM

Thank you for the compliment.

While I might agree with your sentiments and would generally do the same, the later posts by Fox and her buddied-up Paul1405, while superficially agreeing with you betray their modus operandi and tactics most would reckon.

As usual, I will let others be the judge. I usually choose not to reply to the personal sledging. Because it is most often intended to take attention away from earlier posts where the offenders are on the back foot and are applying their Plan B, disrupting the thread. Many would be aware that 'jokes' for example are also used to disrupt when their backs are to the wall and they can bounce off one another for a time until people lose interest in the thread.

So I will say to you that while your intentions are laudable, this is another thread that has been disrupted and doubtless will now dwindle away.

BTT

Anyone who denies that demand, directly attributable to the large scale immigration from growth and 'Big Australia' policies, is driving up the prices of housing in the large metropolitan cities and in Sydney as an obvious example, IS in denial. But why?

Lol!

"As usual, I will let others be the judge. I usually choose not to reply to the personal sledging. Because it is most often intended to take attention away from earlier posts where the offenders are on the back foot..."

And after the pot waxes lyrical calling the kettle black - he tops it off with a big fat "BTT".

Ya gotta laugh....

Poirot has dropped in to prove my point.

A certain thread killer.

BTT, for what it is worth.

Dear Paul,

Did you happen to watch "The Insiders," this
morning? An interesting programme especially
on the housing bubble in Sydney.

Another bit of interest - that Ben Eltham
pointed out that you might have missed:

"While Hockey owes 4 houses in trust with his wife
and father, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann owns
five, Malcolm Turnbull owns seven. Collectively
Australia's parliamentarians belong to a class of
wealthy landlords. Can we be surprised that they
seem quite happy with current housing policies
designed to drive up property prices or that they
seem to care so little for the problems of renters?"

Dear David,

You are correct:

<<Faith breeds ignorance.>>

Indeed, faith breeds ignorance of the illusory world: one cares less and less about the news, what crimes have been committed, which sports teams won, what's the new fashion. In fact it even stops being important how and why this world was created or what are the physical forces which make it tick, etc. etc. You deeply and confidently know that you are what you are and always will, that nothing, not even death, can shake this most obvious of all, hence the details lose their importance and it is safe to blissfully ignore them.

<<Doubt and questioning open the mind.>>

Yes, to open your mind, doubt and question the false idea as if you are a limited body with a limited mind, separate from others and from everything else, as if you can die with that body once it falls, as if this world is real.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Religious faith breeds ignorance of science, history and philosophy. It discourages one from attacking human problems because an imaginary big daddy in the sky will fix things.

We are limited bodies with limited minds. Religious mumbojumbo may cause us to regard this real word as a world of illusion and cause us to deny the only world we have.

The Renaissance and the Enlightenment has partially freed us from religious crap. There is no more reason to follow the current popular religions than there was to follow the Norse gods, Mithraism, Manichaeism or other past nonsense. Unfortunately when Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism eventually disappear humans will follow new forms of superstition. Human gullibility will probably never disappear.

Dear David,

<<Religious faith breeds ignorance of science, history and philosophy.>>

Also of football, fashion, politics and social status. One doesn't even care to know where the nearest brothel, bar or pokies are. The best among the faithful are even ignorant of their bodily pains and aches, not to mention of their bodily, genetically-derived urges, including lust, greed, envy, anger and egoism. Nationalism and procreation fall by the wayside. This is so wonderful!

<<It discourages one from attacking human problems because an imaginary big daddy in the sky will fix things.>>

Attacking human problems will never defeat them because it's the nature of humans to have problems. If nothing else, humans have the problems of aging and dying. Our true problem is in our identification with being human: while we do, we cannot escape those natural human problems that come with our bodies. Attacking those human problems is only second-best, an aspirin, perhaps a temporary relief - it doesn't solve the root cause of our pain.

As for an imaginary big daddy in the sky, believing in one is a technique, historically quite useful in helping many to achieve a state of faith. Admittedly, with the prevalence of science in modernity, most contemporary people cannot be helped by it, but there are myriad of other techniques instead that can help us to attain faith, some of which do not even involve any belief.

<<We are limited bodies with limited minds.>>

This is the ultimate ignorance.

Never mind big daddys in the sky, there is no need for any - once you know who you are, then you already know God without the help of supporting myths.

Religion is the biggest force in nature, it doesn't need to be popular or even conscious and it doesn't need to involve belief. The pain of isolation, of separation from God, from Goodness or from Otherness if that concept appeals to you more, forever keeps pulling every thing and every one back to their true original nature. I suspect that within your aspiration and social activity to help others, lies the spark of religion.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have the right to your superstition. Be well.

Hi Foxy, I didn't see "The Insiders", Hockey and Co are proving themselves hypocrites of the highest order. Its do as I say, not do as I do. Hockey has no problem with accommodation, claiming $270/night to stay in his family apparent in Canberra's 'Cocky Towers', that's $108,000 over the past 4 years.

Dear Paul1204,

Hockey has not told others that they should not grab what they can. If he had then he could be rightfully called a hypocrite. He has not done so. If everybody grabbed as much as that greedy nogood we would be in worse shape than we are. Hockey is greedy, uncaring, selfish and arrogant but not a hypocrite.

Paul1405,

Again Fox and yourself show your irrational jealousy and bigotry.

Hockey is perfectly entitled to spend his allowance with whichever provider he wishes. The provider is irrelevant. It is all public, within the guidelines and perfectly legal of course.

Both of you are one-eyed, political partisans who a very different yardstick where your 'own' crew are concerned.

TV shows like "The Insiders" are tabloid entertainment, cynically and disrespectfully dumbing down their viewing audiences, playing games of shock, horror and the favourites of the peanut gallery, hysteria and shaming.

The present Oz media would make the (departed) story-making 60 Minutes hack Richard Carlton a dead (sorry Richard) cert, a lay-down Misere for the Pulitzer Prize.

Richard Carlton for the memory challenged, 'shock, horror' addicted leftists,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raBCfPVFzHU

Dear David F.,

I'm not sure that I would entirely agree with your take on
our Treasurer. To me he is a hypocrite.

Ben Eltham summed things up rather
well in the website I cited earlier on this discussion.

Some of what Eltham stated was:

"This is the politician who lectured Australians about
the "end of the age of entitlement," while drawing a
handsome parliamentary allowance that he has used to pay
off the mortgage for his Canberra home. This is the
politician who told us that increased petrol excises were
unlikely to worry "the poorest people," who, after all,
"either don't have cars or actually don't drive very far
in many cases."

Eltham points out that "ordinary Australians do not
begrudge wealthy individuals who have worked hard and
risked much to achieve success. But they can smell the
hypocrisy of privilege a mile off."

Eltham then gives the Treasurer's working history and
background and confirms that the Treasurer came from a comfortable
background and married well. "Working hard" has been confined
to the Treasurer's time spent in Parliament.

In any case, as Eltham tells us - "the issue of Parliamentary
allowances remains a sore point for many voters. Like all
parliamentarians Hockey receives a generous nightly allowance
meant to cover accommodation costs for MPs travelling to
Canberra during sitting weeks."

We're told that "Hockey collects the allowance even though he
stays in his own house in the Canberra suburb of Forrest."

The practice is acceptable under current Parliamentary
entitlement rules.

But as Eltham says - "it sticks in the craw of ordinary
taxpayers. In effect, the taxpayer is paying off the
Treasurer's mortgage."

Is it a rort? Of course it is.
How many Australians are lucky enough to get their boss to
pay for their mortgage?

Dear Paul,

South Australia's Independent Senator Nick Xenophon has begun
a debate about whether the perk should be abolished.
Eltham in my earlier link points out that -
"collectively Australia's parliamentarians belong to a class
of wealthy landlords."

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear Paul,

As I cited earlier - "Can we be surprised that
our politicians seem quite happy with current
housing prices designed to drive up property
prices, or that they seem to care so little for
the problems of renters."

Eltham states that "Hockey's living arrangements also
reveal a major public policy issue that deserves far
more scrutiny: the conflict of interest Australian
politicians face when it comes to housing policy."

Fox,

You are a scream with your selective eyesight and cherry-picking, to quote at length and then broken-record, any talking head who might be construed as agreeing with your own political partisanship.

Eltham?! So who the *bleep* is Eltham that makes him an expert, let alone a credible authority superior to any other? Frivolous talk-shows, entertainment based on sensationalism. Political gassing.

I am reminded of the line from the comedy, 'The Erotic Adventures of Zorro', where a henchman guard finds Zorro's note pinned to a door and exclaims,
"Who the f*bleep* is Zorro?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-qJTtQwuqk

Eltham?!

The Sixties Freedom of Speech Movement was all in vain.

The lemmings want to suspend their judgement and have others make up their mind for them. A daily dose of BS to top up the hysteria and the lemmings can feel alive, and JUSTIFIED. LOL

Dear David F.,

Kindly note the attempted denigration of me
by "On The Beach," that still continues despite
your earlier advice to us both and
despite my now non-response to his posts.

I do appreciate your advice to be
tolerant. However, one can only take tolerance so far.

Especially when otb's version of tolerance is
him saying crazy nonsense about me and all
I am expected to say is -
"That's nice."

But I shall endeavour to grin and bear it.
Hopeless as the situation is.
I feel that the man has serious psychological and
mental problems.

Another attempt to divert and derail the discussion rather than come to grips with the very obvious reality proved by numbers that it is over-enthusiastic immigration that is the most potent force driving up house prices in Sydney and in other capitals, but specifically Melbourne and Brisbane.

The overpopulation and far too rapid growth for the even the most optimistic estimates of increase in infrastructure in those capitals is due to immigration and the family reunion that adds to the numbers.

Further, there is evidence to suggest that young Aussie couples are not having the children they want which could explain the unexpected spike in abortions conducted for women in their best childbearing years (early twenties to early thirties) - or are having their much later than desirable, adding to the cost to themselves and Medicare. Late fertility exposes these women and their progeny to a broad range of medical problems (which again could increase the number of abortions).

It is damned unfortunate for young working couples that they are being required to put off or shelve the family and future they planned and worked so hard for. All to solve(?!) and provide transport, energy, water and other infrastructure plus Medicare and welfare for far too many migrants. Now the urgers are hoping to increase the number to new record levels.

It is only to be expected that the culturally cringing leftists with their endless-diversity-Australia-is-obliged-to-have will point their fingers every which way that at the obvious contributor, high immigration, to high housing prices and ramped up taxes and council rates.

They are shameless in their denial of obvious fact. Honestly, go to an auction and look!

To add, over the decades both sides of the political fence have promised and at times undertaken all manner of initiatives to populate the country areas with migrants. Who can forget the 'regionalisation initiatives'?

Apart from the predictable, voluntary location in the country of some migrants from Europe post WW2, the substantial majority of migrants lob in the large metropolitan cities. There the infrastructure problems are an expensive nightmare.

Now there is spruiking to import a population greater than Australia presently has to populate tropical areas to the north, specifically northern Queensland. While I would like to see some limited, well-planned development of North Queensland, it is astounding that any politician could be so crass as to be unaware of the environmental and social problems that would ensue.

The cynical, conceited, self-obsessed career politicians who bloom like fungus in Canberra need to understand that the public isn't there to serve their interests. Rather, it is they who are the servants of the public and must take heed of what the public wants.

Outside of the political parties and their lobbyists there is NO collective agreement that big is better and growthism is good.

Further, there is NO collective decision that a huge population, teeming cities and endless 'diversity-we-are obliged -to-have' as an end in itself (so the elitist leftists can rub the noses of the 'whites' in it) are required and good.

In fact the public want the exact opposite.

The public are continually being railroaded by political interests who do not believe in democracy and the good of anyone but themselves and it shows. The solution? Keep turfing the rubbish out in Canberra and often!

There are many factors that may partially explain the
increase in house prices in this country.

The following website gives us a better understanding
of the big picture. It is based on reports done by
the RBA, ABS, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia's recent
Home Buyer Affordability Report, and others.

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/Price-History

It's always helpful to glean information from a variety of
sources to get the full facts.

As stated many times - humans have the intelligence, the
tools and the natural resources to provide for a good,
sustainable life as long as there are not so many humans
that we exceed the globe's carrying capacity. And all the
evidence suggests that we must turn around population
growth and aim for a much smaller population than we have
today.

As Prof. Tor Hundloe has told us -

We are in the early days of knowing what the globe's limits
are. Due to the infancy of ecology our understanding is not
precise. Debates must take place. These we should welcome,
rather than engage in black and white green ideology.
We are more advanced in understanding which economic
levers can move in the right direction than we arein our
ecological knowledge. Hundloe states that we have seen the
gulf deepen between what were once united sources of inquiry.
To a very significant extent the separate paths of ecology
and economics in recent times is the cause of our problem.
According to Hundloe we must not let it be a fatal flaw.
We need to re-unite these disciplines.

Fox,

In your rush to bury any post with evidence your leftist cultural elitism finds inconvenient, you obviously don't bother to read what you are linking to.

To take one example, your 'expert' link says, "Rental yields in Australia are moderate", which disproves those allegations you made about all of those rapacious politicians who own property, want high property prices and don't care about tenants.

House prices cannot go up where there is flagging, or no demand.

To repeat, outside of the political parties and their lobbyists there is NO collective agreement that big is better and growthism is good.

Further, there is NO collective decision that a huge population, teeming cities and endless 'diversity-we-are obliged -to-have' as an end in itself (so the elitist leftists can rub the noses of the 'whites' in it) are required and good.

In fact the public want the exact opposite. Which would also see quality of life maintained, far more reasonable prices and a welcome relief for State Premiers (past examples being Labor's Anna Bligh and Bob Carr) who have been complaining for many years about over-the-top immigration numbers.

I wish people that want to take part in an adult
discussion would base their arguments on
facts, not on their opinions, and cut the insults.

In the link I gave in my previous post it
quite clearly states that -

"Sydney rents continue to rise despite records
activity from investors over the past year
and remain the highest of all the state capitals"
says APM's Dr Wilson. "The median asking rent for
houses increased to a new peak of $520 per week
for an overall increase of 4 per cent in 2014
despite a surge in the supply of new apartments .
Sydney unit rents increased over the quarter
regaining the previous high ..."

"Upward pressure on rents is set to continue through 2015
part of the robust Sydney market..."

It is always best to read the full link to get and
appreciate the full picture.

Also there are many factors given by the experts
by way of explanating the increase in house prices.
Just focusing on one area is nonsense and not only
illogical it is not based on the other contributing
factors.

Fox,

The link says 'moderate' and you are on your back foot.

Any increase in rents in Sydney is due to rental demand, NOT house prices in any event.

The demand is high BECAUSE the over-supply of migrants ends up in the larger metropolitan cities and Sydney is as usual taking the biggest hit.

Labor's Bob Carr had a lot to say about over-zealous immigration when he was Premier of NSW. The feds don't have to deal with the unforeseen (by the feds) costs and negative consequences Carr said and he was right.

When he was Foreign Minister, Bob Carr AND other Labor frontbenchers strongly criticised Labor's failed asylum-seeker policies, where a large proportion of asylum-seekers were known to be merely economic migrants.

Any charge of 'elitism' must be laid at the feet of fools like Rudd and his 'Big Australia' with the culturally-cringing leftists' idealism of 'endless-diversity-Australia-is-obliged-to-have' (that the electorate strongly objects to).

It is damned unfortunate for young working couples that they are being required to put off or shelve the family and future they planned and worked so hard for. All to provide transport, energy, water and other infrastructure plus Medicare and welfare for far too many migrants. That IS discrimination - against young Aussie working couples who cannot have the few children they planned for.

Now the urgers are hoping to increase immigration to new record levels.

You yourself admitted earlier, (Fox) "All the evidence suggests that we must turn around population growth and aim for a much smaller population than we have today".

How do you expect to do that and take the tax and council rates burdens off young working Australian couples who are being forced to shoulder the costs of that world overpopulation you keep referring to? You are actively discriminating against young working Australians who should never be required to solve the over-fertility (and denial of women's rights) problems of other countries.

My feet are in the right place and
I stand firm.

Business Insider Australia also confirms
that the Sydney and Melbourne Unit, House
price pattern is reflective of the national
trends, as units continue to outperform houses
across the country due to affordability barriers
and life-style choices.
One can follow Business Insider Australia on
Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin.

There's a lesson to be learned from David F.,
in his statement to Rehctub on a different discussion
when David stated:

"One way of arguing is to cite one's opinion as fact.
Which is what you have done...Another way of arguing is
false labeling... If you wish to argue with me
please keep your comments factual and don't confuse your
opinions with fact."

Hear, hear.

Fox,

Borrowing a comment by another poster that was directed at someone else is manipulative and flawed through false comparison.

BTT

As was stated earlier, it is the compartmentalised thinking and slavish adherence to ideology that prevents leftists from acknowledging the obvious: that demand from continued large scale immigration forces up housing prices.

This is what the numbers say,

<To give our crystal ball a solid foundation, we asked CoreLogic RP Data for a statistical snapshot of prices and sales in all capital cities in February 2010. We also asked for comparative sale numbers and median sale prices from February 2015.

Hopefully, this five-year snapshot will reveal trends that help us forecast what lies ahead for Australia’s capital city housing markets.

[tables omitted]
According to Cameron Kusher, CoreLogic RP Data’s Senior Research Analyst, “the standout message” is that Sydney, and to a lesser degree Melbourne, has been the star performer over the past five years.

“All the others (capital cities) have been fairly muted,” Kusher says.

“One question people often ask is ‘why haven’t all the markets grown equally when recent interest rates cuts are national’?

“Well the reason we have seen such strong growth in Sydney and not in other markets is more because of overseas migration to Sydney, which has been fairly strong because of its job opportunities, because New South Wales’s migration away has been low since 2010 and also because there’s a shortfall in housing.>
http://tinyurl.com/pgthtrf

Add to that the necessarily ramped up taxes and council rates to provide the required infrasyructure for 200,000 new migrants a year. -Which is the equivalent of building five cities the size of Port Macquarie ANNUALLY.

Add costs of Centrelink, Health (Medicare) and the direct and indirect costs associated with multiculturalism and it is easy to see why government reports say that young working Aussie couples are delaying and finally not having the children they planned for. Young working Aussie couples are being discriminated against by taxes and user pays to support the 'Big Australia' and 'diversity-Australia-is-being-forced-to-have' to suit the cringing cultural elitism and anti-'white' hatred of the leftist 'Progressives'.

otb,

Actually it wasn't a false comparison at all
Your last post confirms that.
My comparison was spot on.

Also, (to adapt an old adage)
"I am not a manipulator.
I like to think of myself as an
outcome engineer".

And, the outcome that was hoped for was to
shame you into changing from the porcupine
that you are - still shooting quills in
my direction - to an adult capable of genuine
discussion.

However, sadly it didn't work this time either.
I stopped reading your post after the
first sentence.

I accept the fact that you find whatever I have to say on this
forum - objectionable.
Therefore there's really no further need for me to
comment.