UnSubRocky wrote on Jul 16^th, 2026 at 9:14pm:


There you go, claiming rich people already pay enough tax....are you agreeing with Setanta, or just  have no idea how government should  fund public services people want? 

Gnads wrote on Jul 25^th, 2026 at 4:13pm:



No, net zero is a scientific consensus of what the planet needs, not ideology.

So, are you going to ignore the public services people want?

Grappler Racist Filth wrote on Jul 25^th, 2026 at 6:16pm:


Near zero?

(google)

"Around 138 to 145 countries are working to achieve net zero emissions, covering roughly 77% to 82% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Databases like the Net Zero Tracker follow these national climate goals". (But see the cost to "taxpayers" problem below which is hindering achievement of the goals).

Quote:


China has reduced pollution and traffic noise remarkably in the last few years,  with vast amounts of renewable energy transmitted from the Gobi desert...

Quote:


Another of your flowery/spongy narratives designed to obfuscate.

So back to it: how do you propose to fund the public services people want?

Quote:


OK, most countries do; but with only 27 million people  living on a large continent  which is mostly hot desert, we can achieve net zero more cheaply with renewables...though charging taxpayers for the required infrastructure will hinder the transition, of course. 

Courtesy oif stupid mainstream economists who think a currency-issuing government is finance-constrained.

Oh, by the way, what sort of public services do people want?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 25^th, 2026 at 4:35pm:



Bullshyte it is.

Gnads wrote on Jul 28^th, 2026 at 1:10pm:


I lived through the communist Rudd government a few years ago.

While the net impact of immigration on the economy may be roughly zero, that aggregate conclusion hides the fact that there are some clear winners and losers. The main economic benefit of immigration is the extra tax revenue for the government, and the extra tuition revenue for our university sector; the main costs of immigration come from the increased demand for infrastructure and housing, which lead to shortages and congestion in the short term, and extra construction costs in the long run.

This situation creates a warped incentive for our politicians. The benefits are concentrated with the federal government, arrive quickly, and are easy to identify. The costs are dispersed amongst the citizens and state governments, grow slowly over time, and are less obvious. The end result is that the federal government has an incentive to maintain high immigration, regardless of whether or not it is good for the whole country.

...
Aussie-culture or Multi-culture?
The multicultural ideology is an explicit rejection of the nation-state, and opposed to the idea that the Australia should have a unique Aussie culture. This raises a series of questions:
1.      What is to be done with people who already identify with Aussie culture? Are they a new type of indigenous-Australian, or should they be encouraged to rediscover the culture of their ancestors, or should they forgo cultural identity?
2.      How do multiculturalists reconcile their preference for exclusive cultural groups and networks (in order to maintain their separate identities) with their desire for non-discrimination and universal inclusion?
3.      If Australia is simply a political system and economic zone, without a unifying culture, will that elicit any meaningful love or loyalty?
4.      Can a modern democracy survive a return to multiculturalism, given that voters will identify primarily with their cultural groups rather than the general public?
5.      How will the rise of identity politics and the importation of foreign identity conflicts impact on social cohesion in Australia?

These questions haven’t been adequately answered. Proponents of the multicultural ideology are attempting to deconstruct the nation-state without having a proper understanding of how it has worked until now or what will likely come next.
Though for all the talk of multiculturalism, the current reality in Australia is that we still do have a dominant Aussie culture. That culture emerged from the early British and Irish settlers, evolved due to our unique geography and history, and has been influenced by waves of migrants.

There are of course many cultural minorities in Australia (as with nearly all countries) and those minorities are growing in size and influence, but these points do not contradict the existence of a dominant culture. It is entirely legitimate for Australians to consider the potential impact of immigration on that culture.

Immigration and Aussie culture
As mentioned earlier, culture is always evolving, and one cause of that evolution is immigration. The impact of immigrants on the existing culture will depend on three things:
•      The number of migrants that arrive each year.
•      The existing culture of those migrants, and how similar it is to Aussie culture.
•      Whether new migrants are encouraged to integrate into Aussie culture or retain their separate culture.

Recent decades have seen an increase in total numbers, an increase in the proportion of people coming from very different cultures, and public policy focused on retaining separate cultures. The consequence is a sharper cultural divide, which has inevitably triggered some opposition.

Brilliant, just brilliant!

Labor's plan to reset the availability of built housing is to ONLY bring in enough people to fill all new builds!

That'll fix the market and house those boosted out to date!!

Got me hair cut yestiddee - me old Abo hairdresser mate who's dad was Abo and used to tell people he was Italian so he could work ... and he has the pulse of the town ... seems the young blades, those who aren't in the slammer, are getting into machetes here and there are about 220 people living on the beach across the bridge....  it IS Winter and the coast is warmer...

Poor Fellow My Country... we the people need to take it away from the New Nazis of the left who are running the show...

They mentioned reducing immigration would mean lower productivity - well - maybe a tiny bit overall.. but the productivity of the individual won't alter and more likely, with more incentive to prosper through Arbeit (makes you Frei, you see), will rise.  Greater productivity would come from actually producing more real goods for a change and not these ephemeral things... ah, yes - but the productivity of the philosopher class is rising - they's doin' better than 73 genders now and that's without eating the crayons!!!!

Might cut the productivity of Muslim nurses bumping off Jews, though... you know there is always a dark side and a silver side to every cloud... mothra would be shattered if Muslim productivity were to fall...imagine the fall in shoe sales and flag sales if marches were cut out... and all that energy of the Left that would be wasted on real work instead of saving the world one genocide at a time!!