Luciferase,

I referenced Stephen Koukoulas - who knows a bit more than random characters on OLO.

Just saying....

I do recall the great economist, rehctub, also rejected Saul Eslake's opinion on negative gearing on this forum - so I won't reprise Saul's post at the moment.

Far be it from me to reference well-known Australian economists when the crew from OLO are here to reassure me.

Lol!

Stop crapping on and address my points on taxation.

Acknowledge the fair way forward vs Labors class war on NG and CGT.

I've always held you in high esteem as a poster but you're not in this for the truth, it appears, just the posturing.

Joe (Loudmouth) got it right with his, "Poirot, your envy is showing".

That is the demographic that Shorten and his leftovers from Galah'd and Rudd are appealing to. However, as Galah'd and other leftists before her have found to their cost, Class War appeals to the 'never did' and 'always watched' who, having sat on their increasing behinds for years and relied on the taxpayer for most of that time, always need excuses for their own failure in the world. Arse out of their pants, jealous of the hardworking successes around them and needing someone to blame for the inevitable sad consequences of their own choices and slackness.

But they vote Labor or is that Greens anyhow. Hey, there's the problem: L'il Willie Shorten is trying to out-protest the wilful Greens to win some of the 'Useful Idiots', the always stupid and dependent vote back.

Labor could come up with some real policy if only the rank and file of the party had some say in things. But no, it was Shorten and his Big Union thugs who removed any vestiges of democracy in the party by discounting the votes of ordinary members to ensure that the union heavies ruled. Shorten would call that 'progressive'.

Appeals to authority Poirot, are the last resort of an impoverished mind.

That goes double when those authorities are the very ones who got us into this mess in the first place.

rehctub,

Your argument assumes that if people didn’t spend in the way that you have described, then they’d be able to afford a house. But that’s not the case as all. Two people on decent wages couldn’t even afford a two-bedroom fibro shithole an hour out of the city nowadays. Your argument is simply a rehash of the old, “You kids are just blowing all your money on iPods” argument (which could have been purchased for as little as $80 when that argument was going around). But not spending like that would make no difference, so your argument is invalid.

Don’t take me for your average fool who doesn’t know the first thing about spending and saving. That’s the whole problem with the older generations. You assume that an inability to manage money is the entire problem. It’s not. It’s just that your generation is too stupid to understand that times have changed. When two wages don’t even cover the mortgage costs, something is wrong. Get it?

Clearly you didn't bother watching the video I linked to. It shows.

I note, still, that no one has yet come up with any arguments that invalidate what Aly said in the link I provided.