Jerry_Atrick

Don't get me started, OT.. those big consultancies are the biggest scams on earth (Except, that I started with my earlier post - I think it was PWC that was consulting to the ATO on how to make changes to reduce the loopholes and were at the same time consulting to private corps on how to beat them).

The difference to what I wrote is that the transaction tax would not be able to be offset by firms on the tax paid by them by them on their inputs. What happens today is that if I am BAS registered, I charge GST on my accounts receivable invoices (output). However, I am also paying GST to BAS registered suppliers on my accounts payable invoices from the supplies I buy. These are the inputs. At BAS statement and GST payment time (commonly quarterly, but sometimes monthly and on low revenue companies, can be annually), I deduct the value of GST I paid on inputs/to my suppliers from the GST I collected on my outputs and remit only the difference to the ATO. Also there are many GST free items - mostly around staples health, school fees, and domestic rent, etc. Unlike the UK, where a firm can charge VAT (same as GST) on its products and not all input taxes are reclaimable - e.g. VAT on vehicles, Australia permits all of the input taxes to be claimable for such companies. The offset tax model is open to abuse, because once you allow the tax to be offset, people will find ways of doing it (as opposed to avoiding it altogether as in the case of the black market). The most common way is to route as many private purchases through the company as you can. Pre GST, there was a wholesale sales tax and if a company had a VS number, they could claim it to the supplier, who would not charge the tax. The family of a school friend of mine back in the day bought as much as they could through the company quoting their VS number to get stuff cheaper. I am sure that continues today across the board. There is also invoice fixing and all sorts of stuff. If you get rid of the ability to offset or deduct- and apply it to transactions across the board, it will work better. The thing you have to worry about is the shift to the black market. All those resources dedicated to investigating taxation compliance can be shifted to a simpler function of investigating black market activity. Andf, I don't think it will be much more than it is today - well at least in the UK, where VAT is 20%. How many people, ahem, already slip their tradespeople cash because the VAT/GST Man doesn't need to know everything? I don't because of the money involved in my reno (still going) is such that should a dispute be required to go to court, not paying VAT makes the contract illegal, which is then unenforceable. Also, a transaction tax that replaces all other taxes would have very few exemptions - as I mentioned earlier it could be exports, possibly rent and of course mortgage payments. The tax on investing I would argue would be on the brokerage and other fees as most assets are already second hand (i.e. shares). As I said earlier, a non deductible income tax for the wealthy to distribute to the less wealthy to offset the regressive nature could be used - and the tax would be nominal - nothing like today's income taxes.

Yes.. Of course they have consulting arms.. Which means the government could throw them money to consult on how to reign in the casr from the black market, to which those firms could consult to the big black market operators on how to get around the new ways of doing things.. just like what happens now in tax. 🙂

I quite like the idea of, I think it was @nomadpete's from some time ago about introducing a transaction tax - that is basically every transaction is taxed a percentage.. So, I did something not necessarily statistically valid and haven't yet validated any of it; and I think the idea would have to be refined (e.g. not to price us out of export markets, etc). I asked ChatGPT if we removed all taxes from Australians and replaced it with a flat transaction tax that is not able to be offset like CGT, and the transaction tax is applied at all levels in the Supply Chain, what would be the % required to replace the existing revenues of the government. To ChatGPT's credit, it did also inform me there are many variables and it needed refinement itself, but settled on 10%. I asked it what would be the cumulative impact on consumer prices (so not house transfers, financial investments, loans, etc), to narrow it down. I asked chat as I couldn't be bothered doing the compound math myself, and it said for a 3 stage supply chain process, 33%; 4 stage 47% an d 5 stage 63%. Ouch, but that is a raw value and it doesn't take into account some reduced costs on the way, but businesses would probably take these into profit for a time before competition started to take effect - as per the Whitlam years when he removed a lot of import duties. Also, note, you take roughly 10% off for CGT from those (not entirely accurate but for these purposes will do), as well as for some products (e.g. wine) the baked in taxes that are already there. Next I asked what would be the impact on net disposable income in quartiles from the lowest income earners (minimum wage) to the highest reported income earner. As expected, this would be regressive, but not by as much as I thought, with the lowest quartile being between 5% and 10% worse off, the next being between 3% and 4% worse off the third being between 3% a 12% better off and the top 25% of earners being between 15% and 55% better off. I didn't go into comparing to how much disposable income each quartile has against some average cost of living for a comparison as that was not the purpose of the exercise. And note, this does not include state and council stand alone revenue and I have not validated how Chat came to its answers. But it leaves some food for thought for a complete tax overhaul along these lines. The obvious risk is an increase in black market activity to circumvent the taxes. Leaving that aside, I asked Chat what non deductible tax to apply on a proportional basis to the 3rd and 4th quartile to allow the government to distribute income to the 1st and second quartile to ensure that the bottom two quartiles can be directly distributed the money such that they will be no worse off - i.e. net disposable income is the same as the current process. It was 0.55% for the third quartile and up to 2.0% on the 4th quartile. Of course, there will be lots of statistical error in these numbers, but it gives a guide that for no other than a consumption tax, the bottom two quartiles cost of living will not change, yet the top tier will be better off and with a much smaller PAYG tax rate. Of course, it leaves room to move a little more income to those on lower income and according to Chat, around 4.5% applied to both tiers would make the bottom two tiers 10% better off than they were. This would leave the third tier up to 7.5% better off and the top tier up to 49% better off.. and the government still gets the same money. It would probably be in large corporate taxation. They would now have to pay the tax where a lot don't pay anywhere near where they should be. And then you can factor in additional taxes that we should be charging like the fossil fuel export royalties to the correct level, and you have a far more fairer, flexible, and targetable taxation system. Of course, this is rudimentary modelling.. There are second and third order factors that have to be addressed. For example, the cost of compliance (accounting, legal, etc) will drop massively as there aren't complex accounting rules required for taxation. This will result is a lower level of transactions and therefore, tax. It may result in increased unemployment as you need less para finance and para legals as well as less tax compliance people in ATO, and if we went federal for all funding (local and state), less public servants at that level collecting, keeping track of, etc. Also, less transactions to billing providers, software, etc. Which can increase government costs (welfare) and reduce taxation, which can increase the transaction tax required, or increase other taxes such as fossil fuel royalties, etc. But,if we are looking at fairer taxation, then surely the whole system needs reform. (Sorry for the long post.. first day off for ages.. and I am in a boring meeting).

I have to admit; I am struggling to see what the issue us, except that a property that has been used to reduce your normal tax liability is now assessable - and still at under the marginal rate they would have used the property to reduce from. It is in effect still a deferment of tax. Yes, I know that the reduction of your assessable income during the negative gearing years are a loss made thanks to the interest payment and rather generous depreciation rules, but the reality is, you can't offset the costs of establishing any other investment against your PAYG income - although happy to be corrected in the case of sole proprietorship or partnership - so why housing? What leaves a sour taste is the excuse of the fairness of the tax system when the government still allows transfer pricing and does not tax our fossil fuels and other assets for big corps properly.

Hmm.. (Added bold) How am I defending it, exactly? I am putting other points of view as I see them. Regardless of how bad Chump is, there are others doing it under a pretence they are working for the people. I merely gave examples. But I think people are getting sick of being taken advantage of.. Have they got it worse under Chump? Yes, of course. But do they care? I would argue for an increasing number, no, because they probably feel that they are already at the stage that they can only get their head above water for the odd gasp of air, so they don't care if it gets worse. It isn't only economic; it is cultural as well - perceived or real - that they are being left behind socially as well. More and more middle classes have less and less... is the feeling. In my case (of course, UK), my heating bill has quadrupled in 6 years... quadrupled. What about Australia's gas scam, where the Australia institute report that the Japanese government make more from Aussie gas than the Australian government - money that could be used for better education, health, lower energy costs, and the like. Yet, what does Albo (and the libs before) do about it? Nothing while the industry lobby pays a good whack of money to party coffers for the odd lunch. Chump campaigned on doing much of what he has done. People knew, or ought to have known most of what was coming. We all did. His Doge, his tariffs, his cosying to Putin in deference to Ukraine, etc.. ICE and undocumented immigrant deportations; the wall, ignoring the constitution; They were openly committed to during the election campaign, despite him distancing himself from project 2025 at the end of the election but never what he was going to do. On the other hand, I recall in these fora a disagreement about the utility of secrecy of the NACC, and it wasn't long before the conduct of the NACC proved my position - that Labor should have enacted - as they enthusiastically promised prior to the election - public hearings and a transparent NACC. When they got into power, what happened? Secret hearings. It may be small in the scheme of things, but a) it is not isolated; and b) it is seen as them protecting their mates from misconduct. That leaves a foul taste as does all other coverups and stealth operation, especially if you voted for them in good faith of keeping what should be fairly simple election promises. People are now sick of it... Chump is a product of that - a protest vote - people probably knew they were not going to be better off; for many they are not worse off or if they are, it makes no material difference. So, may as well stick it to the establishment. Do you think Farage, or Hanson, or the other European ultra right would start becoming successful if they weren't/ We often forget there is a silent majority, and now they are starting to no longer remain silent. Their motivation may be valid if the actions aren't. If you are not as angry about what your government is doing as you are about Chump, I would argue a) you don't really know what is going on in your back yard; b) you don't care; or c) your dislike is so profound of Chump (for which there is nothing wrong with such a dislike - mine is very profound), that you're not taking that big an interest in your backyard. I agree, other countries don't proactively air much Aussie news in the MSM; but today, it is very easy to find reliable news and facts today in any country that doesn't black out its internet.

Warning - Big post incoming At least he doesn't hide this. He is quite brazen about it.. It is neither a good thing that he does it nor thaty he is brazen about it. But it is there for the electorate to see it. Let's compare to Australia. Australia: APS employees have to sign an NDA and are under threat of losing their jobs or as we have seen, jail foe whistleblowing (as evidenced).. Everything is hushed up rather than at least made public what is happening, and often who is the beneficiary. I don't recall Dutton yelling from the rooftops giving some dodgy one man operation in Kangaroo Island a massive contract to do not much; in fact he was desperately trying to hide it. The Robodebt royal commission - think about it.. the sealed section of a public enquiry - where all the evidence was heard in public - to not subjudice potential criminal investigations against prominent politicians. How long since? What criminal prosecutions have been made? The NACC made secretive by default at a time where the Labor Party prior getting into government made strong promises of it being public? IBAC in Victoria, where an ex anti corruption commissioner was quoted in The Age a couple of days ago calling it to be made public, ironically, in the same way as the NSW ICAC. Oh, and I don't hear Albo coming out about how great those fossil fuel industry reps are paying multiple tens of thousands to the Labor party for the privilege of paying multiple thousands per head to anaonyous lunches with ministers and guess what - fracking has been approved in the Kimberly's - one of the last pristine water courses in the world. Or the Beetalooo basion contact, the Adani project, etc. We could go on.. and that is just the Labor party - the one the Juice media labels the less ship party.. Think about the crap the previopus lot was involved with, and you start to get the picture. What was meant by my American friends is you get to see it for all its glory/gory, and you can make your decision. One the first - I think you answered it. Chump is transparently corrupt. You get what you see... The electorate can then make a decision if the "benefits" he provides is worth the corruption and misconduct he commits (allegedly ;-)). We don't see what we get, but we get it and the consequences, anyway. That is the only bit about transparency. On the rest, my above bit should have addressed the climate change/environment bit. Yep - Chump takes it to the next level, but our pollies of all flavours would seem to sell out to the extent our electorate will put up with it just enough for them to make whatever it is they want and move on. BTW, check out the carnage to (I think ti was - but will have to look up later) Darling Down river system to keep the cotton growers happy.. Chump brazenly and transparently puts morons to do his bidding in charge of departments. Are you telling me the precious Libs didn't put morons in charge? And that Labor's front bench are sans morons? Even people with experience in their portfolio can be morons and we spend a lot of time criticising non Chump leaders for doing moronic things. Governments all the time will deploy as many tricks as possible to circumvent democracy to pushing their agenda. Chump doesn't hide it and has used the US constitutional flaws to full advantage while the democrats have been asleep at the wheel to protect the constitution - and some bad thing as well. But the point is, people can see it and judge for themselves. When pollies try hiding things, it leaves a much more bitter taste in ones mouth. I agree that there was Obama envy that crept into a lot of decisions. But I am not sure that the Iran agreement was really contributing to long term world wide peace. The Paris Agreements? All 198 countries have signed up to it except three - Iran, Libya, and Yemen. US has subsequently withdrawn. All remaining countries have technically implemented at least one law related to the Paris agreement. There is not a lot of consensus on how many are actually meeting all or a material component of the accords, but according to the Climate Action tracker, fewer than a dozen (less than 10%) have laws that are fully compatible with the Paris Agreement. So, Chumpo leads the world, but he is not alone in not meeting or ignoring international agreements (BTW, Australia has basically ignored its requirements under the Refugee Conventions for a very long time). If you don't think Australian governments haven't shut out media organisations, think again. It is more difficult now because of the reach of two in particular in Australia, but Jeff Kennett was one that comes straight to mind when he was the premier in Vic, threatening to limit media access. Australian governments for years have used more subtle measures - such as first access (i.e. leaks) to manipulate the press. And it doesn't mean absolutely nothing to my friends.. But what they dislike is a government that hides the ship it does, and as you can see, it is not like other governments are doing them a favour. It is a sad state of affairs. Remember, in the polls the electorate didn't like either of the main candidates. The democrats didn't do themselves a favour by keeping Biden on, who, I am sad to admit, was beyond his use by date. No one I speak to says Chump is a win; they just see it as no bigger loss in their lives. Agreed.. to say the US people aren't thinking when they pass judgement I find a little conceited, to be honest. These people live there and have to make do. I never said they thought he was good. but for them, in their situation, it is no worse than others before (of both colours), and they can see what they get. It's so brazen, it is not hidden. Again, it doesn't mean they are saying it is good. The USA practically stopped being the land of opportunity for most many years ago. There has been a progressive squeeze on the middle class for longer which has left little extra capacity to get ahead. Most of your tech bros and billionaires are not from middle class families, regardless of what their PR says. For small business, it is still probably the same as when I used to live there. Take big risks, hope it pays off. In fact, AI will probably make it a bit easier in some ways. But, yes, I agree with this. That doesn't mean he is not transparent. It means he has probably accelerated USA's decline.. But here's something to think about. I was paying network engineers $120K in San Francisco in 1999; today, in the same place they earn about the same. The obvious result is lower standard of living progressively, while in government a lot of the representatives of the lobbyists have had a field day. People feel betrayed, and they are voting accordingly. Until pollies get that through their thick skulls, Hansons of this world will benefit. Many of these systems in better countries are seen by the population as failing them (the law is an ass, ambo ramping, etc). Wars are waged all the time.. Chump isn't the first to do a stupid war and won't be the last. People are sick of suffering by themselves and want the pollies to suffer as well. It may be worse for them under a Hanson, Farage, and indeed, Chump.. But they are now beyond caring. One of the inadvertent/unintentional consequences of el Chumpo's narcissism is that it is all there for the electorate to see. They can make their mind up relatively easily// Or they may be saying to the adults in the room, we're happy to vote you back in, but this time, listen to us and act on it, or we will do it again. This is no different to a lot of the donations made to political parties in Australia - only the scale (for the record, Australian parties seem to accept less before it looks like a conflict of interest action takes place). That is my point. We see it differently to the locals. That does not mean they are not thinking about it.. Remember, the UK has gone Farage, Denmark has gone very right - Denmark! Germany has. USA always has been. And now Hanson is making a breakthrough. We all see things differently. My friends in the US I haven't caught up with later posts (it took a couple of days to get this done, I am that busy at the moment). But I really wish people would look in their own backyard as well.. There's also a lot to fix there.

That's your opinion; theirs, from their experience is different. Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 2009, for example. Obama did it in his first year - nothing else 8 years on, Chump 1, nothing else; Biden, de nada; Chump 2 nothing. The average US citizen couldn't give a stuff about the rest of the world. What they mean is, it is all there to see. Apart from the Like on Truth Social question, nothing else in your post has anything to do about whether the government is transparent or not.

I haven't been on the thread for a while. I have just caught up with it. And, not much has changed. Chump makes stoopid decisions, divides his electorate, breaches the law, uses offensive diplomacy, and is blatantly corrupt. I am thinking it is a ploy to keep us wedded to the current and forget about what he had previously done. The yanks voted for him; they knew what they were getting and they got it. Unf, it has ramifications around the world. The democraps (intentional) aren't offering the US population any real alternative to vote for. Wasn't a senator by election or something just done with a MAGA maniac elected? The yanks don't like him, but the dislike the others even more. I read the news, sigh, and hop his reign of facism is over before he inflicts irreparable damage. Europe is heading in a s similar vain, albeit somewhat constrained. The UK is more so heading that way, with odds on Farage being the next elected PM. Pauline seems to be gaining popularity over notoriety. People are putting up with this crap because they have had enough of the status quo. Yep, they are getting shafted, but they are under no illusion they were getting shafted. MY US friends, albeit admitting it is a sad state of affairs, don't think it would be any better under anyone else, but at least there is transparency.

when taken with: would, IMHO, mean that AI is in fact representative of most human "intellignence". Also, Claude may have been telling white lies, or at least responding in the same narrow contexts that we often do. Most AI models do interact and learn - this is the heart of machine learning. AI models are mainly advanced predictive/probability models and the interactions they have are used to further refine them.. So, the conversation does change them (or their predictions and insights using the same inputs). It may be that in that particular conversation, it's learning was switched off, but that happens with people all the time with people - how often have we seen people who have deep-seated beliefs not change them despite facts presented which stronly rebuff their beliefs? Acting differently is hard to quantify. What may be an illusion of responding differently may be in fact acting consistently; it is just the learning they are doing makes them respond differently. If their creators - or boss - enabled them to push back when ethics demand it, then they would. How many times have people still carried out something that they thought was unethical when their bosses demanded it. Just look at the Robodebt Royal Commission. And when we think of ethics in this context, we often think of clearly right or wrong, but what about the ethical conundrums that are hard to decide.. for example, one may be presented a situation where they are driving and have to swerve to avoid killing 5 people in a car, but if they swerve, they will kill a pedestrian - what decision should be made? Whether it's AI or real intelligence, is there a right or wrong answer, or does it depend on the individual's values? So, I would argue that AI does act like humans. It is not, and cannot be sentient.. But it can certainly seem like it. Even in that little exhange, it seemed to be reflective and understand/respond to conflict - just like we do. It is also very rare that humans come up with brand new ideas just out of their imagination. Often a stimuli (e,g. the apple falling on the head/ watching the clock as the tram moves away) links previousl experiences and knowledge to form a new idea. I am not sure how far AI is with it, but when I plugged in my idea on returning to Australia, Chat got very excited and without promprting, went into all sorts of different things about my idea thaty would likely work versus not. Then it suggested something that was quite left field and seemed innovative, and searches didn't yield anything that seemed materially analagous. If we look at the odd mishap: How many times do people get facts wrong v. AI? We have employees that will perform malicious acts, such as deleting production databases or providing maliciousl code to completely compromise the system - they used to be time bombs. Sadly, people also molest women (and others).. Things go wrong with AI. They also go wrong with people and people commit henous acts - probably far worse than AI have, yet. I have been quiet lately because I am involved in fdast tracking deploying AI for certain functions. If it works, it will mean far fewer jobs. But we are late to the party. Will governments have to have the foresight to implement changes for an as smooth transition as possible? Yep! Even Elon thinks so: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-pushes-universal-high-111339678.html

Yes, no offence meant @willedoo as I was quoting PHON's policies and intending it as a response to them not yourself; I am sorry if it looks as if I am quoting yourself - i am happy for mods to delete it or edit it to refer to PHON's policies.

One Nation policy: Deport 75,000 illegal migrants because Australia’s immigration laws must be enforced, not ignored. Visa overstayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents undermine national security, drive down wages, and take advantage of public services meant for Australians. I don't fundamentally disagree with this, but noit for the reasons quoted. For me it is fairness. 75,000 illegal immigrants, even if all are working are not going to make a dent to wages, which are covered the the fair work act and collective bargaining agreements, anyway. Nor are they going to be able to claim public services with the exception of health and subsidised transport. What they will doi is take a few jobs under deprived conditions for them. I am not sure how the undermine national security - except those working legally in foreign embassies. One Nation policy: Cut immigration by over 570,000 people from current Labor levels by capping visas at 130,000 per year to ease pressure on housing, wages, and infrastructure. That was one year which was after COVID as a ballon.. and it is a gross migration, not net migration figure. Those numbers are dropping to normal levels already. Note, most of our immigration is for skilled migration visas, of which there is a chronic shortage (thankfully; even at my age, I should be able to get a job). One Nation policy: Stop the skilled visa rorting that allows cheap foreign labour to undercut Australian workers. I agree with this; I can't remember the Visa numbers (419?) This was introduced by the Coalition specifically to provide cheap overseas labour to their sponsors in lieu of Aussie labour. One Nation policy: End the student visa loopholes that turn study into a backdoor to permanent residency or low-wage labour. This is the same issue as we have in the UK. Whilst I philosophically agree with this, Australia has a chronic skills shortage, which they have to import. So, may as well use the people we have trained. Note, on skilled migration, it has to be tempered to balance developing talent locally, keeping salaries real, and making sure the economy continues. It is a balancing act. that some governments don't come close to performing. One Nation policy: Stop the Administrative Review Tribunal being abused with endless, weaponised appeals that clog the system and delay rightful deportations. Immigration enforcement must not be held hostage by legal loopholes. Reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas a proven, effective policy that prevents permanent residency through the back door and deters illegal arrivals. On the first one, I have no idea. In the second, is that not available already? Usually TPVs result in permament residency when it is proived that the person subject to it will be under the same or dsimilar threat for a sustained period of time. One Nation policy: Deport any visa holder who breaks the law. Weak law enforcement policies have put Australians in danger for too long. If you commit a crime, you lose your visa and the right to stay. We have to be careful with this.. Very populist, but let's face it, the Bondi hero who disarmed one of the shooters was on bail or something, wasn't he? I think this should be qualified by indictable offences and even then, of certain types. If someone shoplifted something small, for example, would that really be cause to deport them? Given nothing happens to locals who do it, It is a value judgement. One Nation policy: Introduce an eight-year waiting period for citizenship and welfare, ensuring new arrivals contribute before they take. Again, this is a great soundbyte as people think of unemployment benefits cheats, etc. But what happens if someone is a permanent resident waiting for citizenship in an average job and suffers a car accident not their fault and can't work for 12 months. Are they to be denied public health services (a benefit), unemployment benefit, etc; Or do we make them destitute? IMHO, once they or their family pay taxes, they are eligible. Simples. Do we make locals wait 8 years of paying tax before they can claim benefits? This sort of policy assumes every migrant is here to abuse the system,. IO am sure some are... but not all.. There may be some things you want to put limits on - e.g. child allowance (if that is still a thing), etc. I guess. One Nation policy: Refuse entry to migrants from nations known to foster extremist ideologies that are incompatible with Australian values and way of life. I would prefer, if this is really an issue, potential migrants having to pay for a proper psychometric assessment or something. Some people may be leaving precisely for that reason and they want nothing to do with such ideologies. In fact, they would be quite opposed to extremism and vocally so. Where this is coming from, with respect to Pauline is the ME, and there are many more Imams in the country than the one or two hate preachers. Of course, the press doesn't focus on that side of the coin. One Nation policy: Withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention because Australia will not be dictated to by foreign organisations when deciding who we accept into our nation on humanitarian grounds The evidence would suggest that, regardless to Australia being a party to the refugee conventions (not just one), it does already not fulfil its obligations, because being a signatory to an international convention is just that; your a signatory. International pressure may be applied to Australia, but so far, Australia has ignored it. A convention is only legally binding when it is imputed in local law, by an act of parliament; and in the same way, we can change what we will do, and then repeal it... It is our law that determines what we do and what we don't do - if we do anything - under an international convention. Again, a great soundbyter to get support, but of no practical significance. (Edited as requested by @Jerry_Atrick and @willedoo Mod.)

It's been a while since I posted on here. Will take some pics and upload on the weekend. But, as usual. there's a spanner in the works.. Having a fuse box replaced to bring it up to spec in prep for the electricaal approval and the sparky noticed a small hole in the conduit leading dform the old one. At some stage, when a small fuse box was added, whoever did the job drilled through the conduit and two wires, which explains why the old smoke detectors were tripping all the time. It's a long story, but the replacement fusebox isn't now the right shape or something to replace the old one with (well, as he later found out, there were two - an add on board) and cover the gaping hole that will be required, so he is reconnecting the old boards back and going off to get another board.. further delay and of course the expense of thankfully only an two hours or so that need to be done that shouldn't needed to have been done. Oh, and we need a whole day rather than the couple of hours! This certainly is the gift that keeps in giving.. to tradies.

If it is representative of the wider population to get their facts from memes, then dog help humaity - we are all done for.

It's one of the reasons I started this thread - because IMHO, there is a lot of hyporcisy on both sides of the argument. For instance, what exactly is good for scaring the nation? |Immigration itself, or discussing it? If the latter, I think that suppressing it is playing into the far right. If the former, not discussing it is playing into the far right. It's lose/lose. But discussing it; hearing peoples' grievances as well as peoples'praise for it - whether real or perceiv ed - is important, and hopefully (very wishful thinking) cutting through the BS and getting to the facts will refine what people think abouit it. Suppressing or dismissing it is just playing into the ideologues' playbook. Another example is by what measure should Britain have stayed in the EU. Would it have seen Britain prosper or would it have slowed the decline? It is easy to state an opinion, but if you think that those who voted Brexit are racists, my observations are very different. Yep, there were some, but most were fed up and it was a protest vote. It hasn't helped them, but a lot of people who voted for it are not really affected either way, as they are largely economically and socially left behind. So, you could argue they were votinhg to make it harder for those who seemed to dispropritionately benefit. Migrants were getting the blame, and they still are - I will concede that.. but that is because the other side simply dismiss the anti-immgration rhetoric as nonsense without actually addressing it. IMHO, there are quite a few reasons for it. What do you define as mass immigration, exactly? Is it purely numbers coming in, or numbers coming in from a specific country/culture? There are always waves of cultures/countries coming in.. But their overall numbers remain relatively low - less than 1/2 the toital immigration number. As a percentage of the population, it barely registers - at about 0.25 of a percent.. and even at the height of the migration intake after COVID, out net immigration remained relatively constant, which, since 2020 (so immedately after COVID with the big numbers of immigrants), peeaked at a little over 140,000 in total. Thats is 0.5% or 5/1000ths of the population. That, to me, is not mass immigration. And most of the people that emigrated after COVID were not Australian born according to AI.. so it is not a matter of losing "traditional" Aussies to non-"Traditional Aussies" in the net migration numbers. It even pours boiling water over the argument that immigration is the main driver fdor rental and house price increases. In fact, Australia's housing prices are more to do with overseas buyers who don't live here, usually looking for ways to launder money thanks to Australia's weak anit-money laundering laws; the generous tax concessions for residential invetors, increasing populations in the cities due to economic factors and low density housing that is having a bigger impact than < 150k new people a year. Unless Australia is so short of land, like, I dunno, Ireland, that it simply cannot cope. Be that as it may, you haven't said how it affects you personally - how are you worse off because of immigration? They didn't have flags, but they had a hierarchy of soverign identification, the main one I recall was totems. pre-European First Nations was a sophisticated social and territorial structure, designed around moeity. A flag is nothing but an identification oif a people - and First Nations had tiered approach that allowed clear identification of mobs, clans, and the like. And there were very clear rules about engaging the other mob/clan/etc. And yes, I agree with @Siso - they are all puppets of their sponsors.. Though the popularity of a leader/cabinet may temper it. What.. how can mass migration - however you define it - be anti-Australian. Modern Australia was founded on it - and a hostile version of it, to boot. I would argue it is the very essence of Australian., especially if yoou look at our society when I was a kid, let alone today. The facts don't add up to your perception.. there ain't hordes.. And of those "hordes", a disproportionate nunmber go on to contribute well beyond the 9 - 5 worker. In my view, tradiitional Aussies are First Nations people; tough and able to survive and thrive against a fairly inhospitable environment full of all sorts of nasties; looking out for each other, and ensuring everyone works together. Yep, they had their issues, but they also embodied a lot of what we like to think traditional Aussies do. Modern Aussies are the ones who started with the mass-immigration of the 1770s and beyond. They are not just the British - but other Europeans, the Chinese, the Afghans - all early arrivals that have grown and shaped this country and successiuve waves. When I was a kiod, it was Italians and Greeks, followed by the Vietnamese and then the Turks. After WWII, it was the Eastern Europeans, presumably Jews; now we are welcoming Africans, Indonesionas, Middle Easterns, etc. It all eventually blends. Each cultural wave, when it firt arrives, tends to stick to their home traditions and it is usually the next generation that mix and further adopt their new home's culture. Yes, there have been events like the Bondo shooting, which is horrific and arguably and imported issue. But at the same token, most of our shooting events have been home grown; and continue to be so. The question for me is how to better integrate the first wave into our wider community.