2022 Election
AndyM it's to whoever owns the bonds.
When the government wants to raise debt (borrow money), it issues bonds in financial markets. Market participants buy the bonds off the government. Hence, money flows from these participants to the government.
A bond is just a promise by the government (a contract) to pay back that money it raised when it issued the bond, via regular interest payments, called coupon payments, and then a lump sum when the bond matures, called the principal.
By definition, quantitative easing is when it is actually the Reserve Bank who is buying a lot of the bonds that are being issued by the government.
I don't have the exact breakdown in front of me but it's (both domestic and foreign) financial market participants like banks, managed funds including superannuation funds (and hence you), and the Reserve Bank who hold most of the bonds. So this is who the government owes the money to.
indo-dreaming wrote:It's a seriously depressing thought to be living in Victoria under a complete and utter fruit loop in Dictator Dan and then have each way Albo as PM. (China will be stoked though he will be kissing their arses)
Worst thing is after Scomo and LNP have done all the hard yards and got us through Covid with the economy still ticking along, real estate booming and among the lowest Covid death rate's in the world and one of the highest vax rates in the world, spineless vanilla Albo is most likely going to get all the credit.
It's not over until its over though, a lot can happen in a few months even days, and even if Labor get in once Covid is over they will start slipping back into all their woke ways and get booted out within a term or two.
And thank fuck the borders are open, those kunts would love to shut them again and take away any rights they can, but that wont be very easy now, they will have be liberal lite for a while, the only way they can get in these days.
Anyone concerned about loss of freedoms should really be honest with themselves and ask how it would have been under Labor, you only have to look at the Labor states to see the answer.
Have to agree with the above. A mostly Labour Aus will not be a good thing.
andy-mac yes you're exactly right.
Note that a lot of the money was spent on all the covid stimulus packages.
But yes the basic idea is that governments should try their best to invest the money in the productive capacity, infrastructure, skillset of the workforce, and technological capabilities, etc, of the country.
This has been done to a certain extent with covid, but the big issue in an "emergency" situation is just getting the money out there and circulating in the economy as quick as possible. For instance infrastructure projects take time to get off the ground.
So a lot of the covid stimulus money was just handed straight out to the people and put in their pocket to spend, just to get it out there, as apposed to investing in the productive capacity of the nation.
Again I don't know the exact breakdowns of where the money went.
Australia now kind of needs a long period of economic prosperity like after world war II to reduce the debt burden.
How ya reckon a discussion on our debt and MMT would go down in Norway?
indo-dreaming wrote:Worst thing is after Scomo and LNP have done all the hard yards and got us through Covid with the economy still ticking along, real estate booming and among the lowest Covid death rate's in the world and one of the highest vax rates in the world, spineless vanilla Albo is most likely going to get all the credit.
Anyone concerned about loss of freedoms should really be honest with themselves and ask how it would have been under Labor, you only have to look at the Labor states to see the answer.
How’s the real estate boom good for ‘Australia’ ID? Seems that they’ve actually lost control of it to the detriment of a large proportion, if not a small majority overall.
Getting rid of NG and CGT discounts would have been a far better policy outcome for Australians.
AndyM wrote:The reality is right before you Indo, it’s a theory currently in practice.
Way above my pay grade, but it seems experts on it don't agree at all some swear it's real and works some swear its a complete hoax.
It might be an experiment currently underway in some places, but the experiment is not over yet.
And even if it does work it might only work for so long to some extent, seems like a very dangerous game to play.
And also one thing is clear the USA and the USD is very different thing to other countries and their currencies.
etarip wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Worst thing is after Scomo and LNP have done all the hard yards and got us through Covid with the economy still ticking along, real estate booming and among the lowest Covid death rate's in the world and one of the highest vax rates in the world, spineless vanilla Albo is most likely going to get all the credit.
Anyone concerned about loss of freedoms should really be honest with themselves and ask how it would have been under Labor, you only have to look at the Labor states to see the answer.
How’s the real estate boom good for ‘Australia’ ID? Seems that they’ve actually lost control of it to the detriment of a large proportion, if not a small majority overall.
Getting rid of NG and CGT discounts would have been a far better policy outcome for Australians.
It's a complex topic and a bit of a two edged sword, with positives and negatives but increased wealth (even just equity) is generally a good thing for people and countries while too much debt isn't, the result of the real estate boom though is a generally an effect of prosperity, real estate price rarely rise in bad times.
indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:The reality is right before you Indo, it’s a theory currently in practice.
And even if it does work it might only work for so long to some extent, seems like a very dangerous game to play.
And also one thing is clear the USA and the USD is very different thing to other countries and their currencies.
“Might” and “seems” aren’t worth much Indo, got anything better?
And in what way is the United States different? We are both sovereign states with our own currencies and with the ability to print money.
AndyM wrote:And in what way is the United States different? We are both sovereign states with our own currencies and with the ability to print money.
Have a look at what it means to be the world's reserve currency and then How the U.S. Dollar Became the World's Reserve Currency.
indo-dreaming wrote:It's a complex topic and a bit of a two edged sword, with positives and negatives but increased wealth (even just equity) is generally a good thing for people and countries while too much debt isn't, the result of the real estate boom though is a generally an effect of prosperity, real estate price rarely rise in bad times.
ID, the main problem with the property boom is all the people who missed the boat and now will possibly never be able to own property. So it's just reinforcing inequality and concentration of wealth, and likely contributing to the development of a large lower class in our society of people stuck living in poverty. That isn't desirable.
It seems that neither of the political parties have the backbone to tackle the issue.
The problem can be easily indicated here by comparing weekly wages to property prices:
AndyM wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:AndyM wrote:The reality is right before you Indo, it’s a theory currently in practice.
And even if it does work it might only work for so long to some extent, seems like a very dangerous game to play.
And also one thing is clear the USA and the USD is very different thing to other countries and their currencies.
“Might” and “seems” aren’t worth much Indo, got anything better?
And in what way is the United States different? We are both sovereign states with our own currencies and with the ability to print money.
No because i honestly dont know, Ive read and listened to experts from both sides talk about it and they seem to have completely different views, from a complete laymans perceptive it doesn't make sense, and seems to go against the rule of "if it seems to be good to be true it generally is"
The USD i expect is different because its basically the global currency that other currencies are measured against and there is a shit load of them and a shit load of debt owed to USA, it's very different beast to our AUD.
I dont understand why or how this matters but i understand that it could somehow.
gsco wrote:AndyM wrote:And in what way is the United States different? We are both sovereign states with our own currencies and with the ability to print money.
Have a look at what it means to be the world's reserve currency and then How the U.S. Dollar Became the World's Reserve Currency.
indo-dreaming wrote:It's a complex topic and a bit of a two edged sword, with positives and negatives but increased wealth (even just equity) is generally a good thing for people and countries while too much debt isn't, the result of the real estate boom though is a generally an effect of prosperity, real estate price rarely rise in bad times.
ID, the main problem with the property boom is all the people who missed the boat and now will possibly never be able to own property. So it's just reinforcing inequality and concentration of wealth, and likely contributing to the development of a large lower class in our society of people stuck living in poverty. That isn't desirable.
It seems that neither of the political parties have the backbone to tackle the issue.
The problem can be easily indicated here by comparing weekly wages to property prices:
Gsco, Do you think it is likely that these prices will continue, or is there a possibility of a major correction or crash?
Not just a 5-10% drop, but something big. If houses dropped 10%on Sunny Coast, they will be were they were 2 weeks ago it seems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The social implications as you pointed out are scary, creating a whole underclass which cannot be a good thing.
andy-mac wrote:Do you think it is likely that these prices will continue, or is there a possibility of a major correction or crash?
Not just a 5-10% drop, but something big. If houses dropped 10%on Sunny Coast, they will be were they were 2 weeks ago it seems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯The social implications as you pointed out are scary, creating a whole underclass which cannot be a good thing.
Property prices would need to drop like more than 50% on the Sunny Coast to get to pre-covid levels! Of course who knows what will happen, anything is possible (nice deflection there by me)...
I'll just say again I think Australia is at a moral choice point.
Do we go down a more US style neoliberal path of accumulation of wealth and zero fucks given for those left behind and disadvantaged in society?
I don't think this is the Australian way. I think we've always been a society and people more conscious of equality, social justice and egalitarianism.
I believe these were once core Labor party values, and assume they still are...
gsco wrote:andy-mac wrote:Do you think it is likely that these prices will continue, or is there a possibility of a major correction or crash?
Not just a 5-10% drop, but something big. If houses dropped 10%on Sunny Coast, they will be were they were 2 weeks ago it seems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯The social implications as you pointed out are scary, creating a whole underclass which cannot be a good thing.
Property prices would need to drop like more than 50% on the Sunny Coast to get to pre-covid levels! Of course who knows what will happen, anything is possible (nice deflection there by me)...
I'll just say again I think Australia is at a moral choice point.
Do we go down a more US style neoliberal path of accumulation of wealth and zero fucks given for those left behind and disadvantaged in society?
I don't think this is the Australian way. I think we've always been a society and people more conscious of equality, social justice and egalitarianism.
I believe these were once core Labor party values, and assume they still are...
Cheers,
My thoughts also. Problem is though for many if they do drop 50% a lot of people will face economic ruin. If there is not a correction then many face a bleak economic future. I don't have a solution, but don't think it should have been allowed to come to this. Negative gearing, CGT, restricted ownership to citizens, limit the number of properties someone can own??
Dunno? Something I feel will have to give, unless we want tent suburbs in own cities.
gsco wrote:AndyM wrote:And in what way is the United States different? We are both sovereign states with our own currencies and with the ability to print money.
Have a look at what it means to be the world's reserve currency and then How the U.S. Dollar Became the World's Reserve Currency.
indo-dreaming wrote:It's a complex topic and a bit of a two edged sword, with positives and negatives but increased wealth (even just equity) is generally a good thing for people and countries while too much debt isn't, the result of the real estate boom though is a generally an effect of prosperity, real estate price rarely rise in bad times.
ID, the main problem with the property boom is all the people who missed the boat and now will possibly never be able to own property. So it's just reinforcing inequality and concentration of wealth, and likely contributing to the development of a large lower class in our society of people stuck living in poverty. That isn't desirable.
It seems that neither of the political parties have the backbone to tackle the issue.
The problem can be easily indicated here by comparing weekly wages to property prices:
Yeah like i said it's a double edge sword positives and negatives, its a problem being seeing around most of the developed world and even some undeveloped countries, i cant see how any political party can fix it though unless the market was flooded with land and continued to flood the market keeping supply ahead of demand.
BTW. It always comes back to success never being equal and the more success there is in a society the bigger the gap will become between the haves and have nots, people often go looking for better economic/social systems because of this like Communism and Socialism which only turns everyone into the have-nots.
I think a good start and something that shouldn't be too painful is that you can only negatively gear a maximum of two properties, that being your primary place of residence and either your investment or holiday house or whatever. These people with a 'property portfolio' are the ones that are driving the market and even if interest rates increase It's not too much of a hit for them as the increase can be passed on to their tenants and the net tax benefit still falls in their favour. That is something that could be looked at. Also, foreign ownership should also be looked at- not necessarily making the owner an Australian citizen but that person must at least reside in Australia. Commercial property could be exempt from the above because the biggest problem is the difficulty all day every day Aussies are finding to get into their own homes.
I know this goes against my own principles but I really don't think anyone needs to own more than two dwellings, but if they can afford more than two then they should pay accordingly.
imo.
Just let interest rates revert back up to their historical average - either set by central banks, or set by the market, I care not by this stage; they are abnormally low. Tide goes out. Chaos. Then housing will be affordable.
velocityjohnno wrote:Just let interest rates revert back up to their historical average - either set by central banks, or set by the market, I care not by this stage; they are abnormally low. Tide goes out. Chaos. Then housing will be affordable.
Prices drop as people can borrow less and pay more in interest, but does it really make things more affordable???
With you Zen, capping the number of properties that are NG-able at 1-2.
With you on foreign ownership too. It just needs to take the speculative element out of housing.
Debt that is unsustainable and mal-investment get wiped out in that scenario Indo. Asset prices are reset, and after they bottom, a new economic cycle with much higher natural growth rates begins, one with far less moral hazard in the pricing and amount of risk to be taken on. Higher natural yields reward saving and encourage more productive investment.
We are well and truly overdue for such a scenario.
zenagain wrote:I think a good start and something that shouldn't be too painful is that you can only negatively gear a maximum of two properties, that being your primary place of residence and either your investment or holiday house or whatever. These people with a 'property portfolio' are the ones that are driving the market and even if interest rates increase It's not too much of a hit for them as the increase can be passed on to their tenants and the net tax benefit still falls in their favour. That is something that could be looked at. Also, foreign ownership should also be looked at- not necessarily making the owner an Australian citizen but that person must at least reside in Australia. Commercial property could be exempt from the above because the biggest problem is the difficulty all day every day Aussies are finding to get into their own homes.
I know this goes against my own principles but I really don't think anyone needs to own more than two dwellings, but if they can afford more than two then they should pay accordingly.
imo.
Agree.
One house to live in.
One house has holiday home.
One as investment ( must have tenants).
Anymore after that then no NG or any other tax breaks. Maybe even tax the 4th more with land tax as a disincentive.
Again I don't know as sure accountants would find ways around it...
Owing multiple houses isn't really the issue if they are rented out to permanent tenants, the problem is when they are just holiday rentals or left empty.
For instance i knew a guy that had 17 houses 15 rented out to tenants 2 he used, we might be jealous of his property portfolio and income he had going but really he is helping providing rental housing and taking pressure off the government to need to fill this void.
What we need is incentives for people to lease out their houses permanently and big disincentives for house's to sit empty and even disincentives for holiday rentals.
You grow up the Valley living in a Housing Commission or SEC house info?
While the current policies forego large amounts of tax (heavily favouring high income earners) that money could also be used to build/maintain large stocks of public housing for low income earners.
See current policies continue current inequity
Hey Indo, I don’t have an issue with people building property portfolios. I just don’t think the taxpayer should subsidize them. Renting is a tough game for many people; they lack surety of leases, subject to price rices and often have properties sold from underneath them.
I don’t see any benevolence in the actions of your mate. It’s capitalism. If he didn’t own them, then someone else would. Unless it’s a holiday home, it would likely be owner / occupied or rented out. He’s not providing a service to the government.
I move a lot for work, so I’ve usually rented. I own a couple of apartments, one that I’ve lived in and one that I bought as an investment when I was in my early 20s. Both been positively geared for most of the time I’ve owned them. My views aren’t based on envy, this isn’t an ‘eat the rich’ comment. I Just don’t see the need to slug the taxpayer.
Indo- what the bloke above said.
That is the crux of the matter spot on. Tax payer should not subsidize others property investments. Also should be some disincentives for multiple properties stating vacant. If you are fortunate and wealthy enough to own multiple holiday homes then a appropriate tax could apply, maybe worked out on water usage??
Anyway big problem i reckon is brewing here and some are going to hurt, whether over extended borrowers or people not being able to put a roof over their family's head.
In regards to owners selling their houses whilst tenanted; kind of feel it is the right of the owner to sell what is theirs when they wish. Maybe some kind of system where there are incentives for people to but houses for specific reason of letting but then a contractual agreement with govt body that they cannot sell for set period and some type of incentive to attract buyers in this market?
Ultimately though from my understanding, there does need to be a major addition of govt housing to the market for lower socio economic groups..
GuySmiley wrote:You grow up the Valley living in a Housing Commission or SEC house info?
While the current policies forego large amounts of tax (heavily favouring high income earners) that money could also be used to build/maintain large stocks of public housing for low income earners.
See current policies continue current inequity
Dad did work in the SEC but i was lucky enough to not live in them as Dad went to Vietnam so i think they got a crazy low interest loan and maybe deposit free or something like that for being a Vietnam veteran, but i lived not far from these housing commission areas and had friends that lived in them in both Traralgon & Morwell and went to school near housing commission areas, actually right in the middle of one fir a while with lots of kids from the housing commission areas.
Hence i think these type of public housing commission areas are terrible ideas they basically become low social economic slums where nobody bothers to mows their lawns, often no gardens there always seems to be a broken down old car somewhere and people often treat their house with very little pride because its not theirs and they pay virtually no rent so not always appreciated and then the places just fall into disrepair and it just becomes a black hole for public funds to maintain and id expect those that repair them overcharging as tradies do for government, council, insurance work.
Not to mention the areas always become areas with real bad reputations for safety and high levels of crime etc.
My gran moved to some public housing in Frankston too before she passed away and id always visit her and it was the same thing basically just a developed world slum.
Id much rather see ways of encouraging private investment in permanent rental housing saving the government both the cost of ownership (or construction) of housing and cost of maintenance of housing and avoiding the creation of slums because the rental housing isn't just concentrated in on area but dispersed throughout all communities.
If there is a case for government funded housing id much rather see it in the form of high density housing like you see in Carlton, but again these areas basically become low social economic slums.
But you also need to have smart policy around this type of high density housing like they do in Singapore where there has to be diversity in ethnicities to prevent the ethnic enslave slums seen in areas of Europe which only create negative stereotypes and fuel's racism issues, opposed to smart policy that encourages multiculturalism.
https://wearenotdivided.reasonstobecheerful.world/the-country-where-dive...
BTW. Im a home owner now but ive rented in share house's & units as soon as i left home at 18 until my 30s (three on the Goldie and at least half a dozen more places in Vicco) and i have siblings who are currently renting, so im not painting all renters in one light or even all those who live in housing commission areas but you only have to visit these housing commission areas to see what im talking about in my mind they aren't ideal and are more a failed thing of the past.
Agree with most of that... Some areas do become slum like with high crime. Area I lived in has a few govt run houses and most tenants nice families. One however was house of crims and young guy there in and out of juvenile detention, his mum encouraged his crimes. His little eshay gang were stealing cars by breaking into people's houses, grabbing the keys then going on joy rides. Lots caught on CCTV. Community had enough and rallied and forced their eviction. Had 60 year old retired Audi drivers with clubs threatening to burn house down. Police and local pollie had to calm things down. Little pricks were uploading their antics burning out cars on Instagram.
Poor neighbour had just bought next door, done big Reno. He was sitting on dunny and he heard mum next door tell the kids, quick get over there now, there is no one home. He grabbed a couple and gave em a flogging. One was a student at the school I was working in.. anyway they got evicted and new family is lovely.
Yep complex issue housing .
Info, agree many HC areas were poorly maintained by the tenets and the govt. Public Housing needn't be like that as you also elude to in your reply but those multi-storey inner city flats need demo-ing and replaced with something better. They were good when built in the late 50's replacing 3rd world slum conditions in the back streets and lanes of Melb's inner suburbs. My point was more public cash needs to be directed into public housing, that should be the focus not giving speculators more reasons to speculate.
She’s absolutely right , we need to get him out
Karen Andrews with a late save after a Freudian slip.
— Squizz (@SquizzSTK) February 5, 2022
(following an attempt to blame Labor for Barnaby, Turnbull and Macron calling Morrison a liar)#GetHimOut #auspol #insiders pic.twitter.com/yh7rjJsrNa
Yeah i dont know what the answer is but just think its better to encourage private investment in the area, i don't think public housing has worked very well especially when concentrated in one area.
It would be interesting to see how other countries have dealt with the issue though.
indo-dreaming wrote:Yeah i dont know what the answer is but just think its better to encourage private investment in the area, i don't think public housing has worked very well especially when concentrated in one area.
It would be interesting to see how other countries have dealt with the issue though.
How's leaving it up to the private sector going with aged care Indo Dreaming?
Vic Local wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Yeah i dont know what the answer is but just think its better to encourage private investment in the area, i don't think public housing has worked very well especially when concentrated in one area.
It would be interesting to see how other countries have dealt with the issue though.
How's leaving it up to the private sector going with aged care Indo Dreaming?
Much much better than if there wasn't private aged care and it was only public run, where i live we have had a number of new private aged care facilities built we even had a restaurant and cinema (Banfields) actually close to build aged care, the fact there is money to be made in aged care is a good thing as it ensures investment in the area and takes pressure off the government to provide these things which shouldn't be their job. (but that's where id expect our ideology's differ)
My wife works at a private aged care facility and its an extremely good work place and elderly well looked after, they even had a staff member contract Covid last week and they went through all the procedures needed and none of the elderly got Covid and neither did any other staff.
But really they were also just lucky as it's impossible to keep Covid out of anywhere in society including aged care, i mean Covid has even got to Antartica, and the majority of people in aged care are in the last years of life and can die from anything from a cold to a small fall, every single country on earth with aged care public or private has had large numbers of deaths in aged care.
The only way to really keep it out is to have very strict draconian measures that are cruel to both the aged and family.
The real problem with aged care is more to do with the fact we need aged care facilities at all it shouldn't be a governments business or a private companies business to look after the aged, it should be a familys business especially he children of the parents, so the big question is why are we not taking more responsibility for our own loved ones???
In places like Indonesia the aged are highly respected and it's seen as a familys duty to look after the elderly, the only reason i can think of why this isnt the case in Australia is because we dont value the elderly the way we should and sadly even see them more as a burden.
IMHO this is due to eroding of traditional family values and the traditional family unit.
"Much much better than if there wasn't private aged care and it was only public run,"
wow. talk about ideological blinkers.
It's the private sector aged care homes that are in absolute chaos, not the state run public ones.
You have to ignore a mountain of evidence, the findings of the Royal commission, and the current fiasco in privately run aged care to come to your conclusion ID.
The for-profit aged care sector is a fucking lethal disgrace. Criminal negligence has killed people, and you're still cheering them on.
You give conservatism a very bad name mate.
.
No time for federal ICAC: Cash. Attorney-General Michaelia Cash says class action reforms and a federal integrity commission will have to wait until after the election as the government pursues laws on religious freedom and online trolls in the final days of parliament.
Senator Cash said the first priority of the Prime Minister was to ensure passage of the Religious Discrimination Act and to remove the right of faith-based educational institutions to expel gay students under section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act. The next priority was to amend privacy laws to help combat online abuse. https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/pm-cracks-down-on-wild...
The religious freedom act compared to a hard look at integrity within governing bodies is joke. Once again they are showing their cards. No doubt it will secure some votes and some political donations.
Robwilliams wrote:The religious freedom act compared to a hard look at integrity within governing bodies is joke. Once again they are showing their cards. No doubt it will secure some votes and some political donations.
The crooks in the LNP don't want an ICAC. The Christian lunatics certainly don't want to protect gay kids or teachers, and the crooked religious dogs want neither. It's a shit show.
Cardinal Pell would be feeling satisfied. ... "oh the hypocrisy" And no i don't hate christians or other religious followers. Just bullshit from the top down
There is no doubt the LNP gave up governing for all Australians long ago, if they ever did, but now they have dropped any pretence and its very clear they’re only there for their backers such is their self-indulgence.
The religious discrimination bill is simply to protect thousands of years of belief systems from attack by modernism. For example, If you work for the Labor party, you have to believe in their ethos and follow their rule book. That only makes sense. If you work for a Christian school or particular church, that also makes perfect sense to have a standard of belief to follow. A truly free Australia allows people to follow what they believe, hire who they want and it should not affect people who don’t believe the same things. It seems the people most offended by Christian teaching don’t even believe in God so what’s the big deal anyway. We can’t live like fascists saying “dont believe that or else I’m gunna get ya”. People like me get offended by the worlds behaviour every day, but that is their free choice and not even God forces His opinion on everyone. The choice must be free.
I’d have slightly less of a problem with what you’re saying Optimist if your churches and their schools paid tax and didn’t receive taxpayers money to run their bigoted operations.
If religious (independent!) schools can discriminate against employing gay teachers or educating a gay-identifying students, is it fair for a secular business to choose not to employ, serve or otherwise engage with Christians on the basis of their faith? I’d suggest that it would not be and if it did occur I’m sure that there would be a well-funded legal case against it.
Homosexuality is not illegal, sinful or perverted. It is bigotry to deny otherwise.
Optimist wrote:The religious discrimination bill is simply to protect thousands of years of belief systems from attack by modernism. For example, If you work for the Labor party, you have to believe in their ethos and follow their rule book. That only makes sense. If you work for a Christian school or particular church, that also makes perfect sense to have a standard of belief to follow. A truly free Australia allows people to follow what they believe, hire who they want and it should not affect people who don’t believe the same things. It seems the people most offended by Christian teaching don’t even believe in God so what’s the big deal anyway. We can’t live like fascists saying “dont believe that or else I’m gunna get ya”. People like me get offended by the worlds behaviour every day, but that is their free choice and not even God forces His opinion on everyone. The choice must be free.
etarip wrote:If religious (independent!) schools can discriminate against employing gay teachers or educating a gay-identifying students, is it fair for a secular business to choose not to employ, serve or otherwise engage with Christians on the basis of their faith? I’d suggest that it would not be and if it did occur I’m sure that there would be a well-funded legal case against it.
Homosexuality is not illegal, sinful or perverted. It is bigotry to deny otherwise.
Im divided both are good points from extreme opposite positions.
I think its important to remember private school's can still not accept openly gay teachers or even students anyway and not have to give a reason to why, not everyone who applies to these schools as a teacher or student gets accepted.
Optimist wrote:The religious discrimination bill is simply to protect thousands of years of belief systems from attack by modernism. For example, If you work for the Labor party, you have to believe in their ethos and follow their rule book. That only makes sense. If you work for a Christian school or particular church, that also makes perfect sense to have a standard of belief to follow. A truly free Australia allows people to follow what they believe, hire who they want and it should not affect people who don’t believe the same things. It seems the people most offended by Christian teaching don’t even believe in God so what’s the big deal anyway. We can’t live like fascists saying “don't believe that or else I’m gunna get ya”. People like me get offended by the worlds behaviour every day, but that is their free choice and not even God forces His opinion on everyone. The choice must be free.
I believe you are entitled to your faith just as I am mine whatever that may be. What I can't support is the preaching of hate (negativity or intollerance) towards other groups outside of those faiths. And the ongoing destruction of a healthier society for all. Prejudice and intolerance is not healthy. Religious based or not. Just leads to oppression and division amongst the community. Recent events of a schools policy are highly inflammatory to a sector of peaceful society. Again this is not an attack on Christianity. But an observation of a healthier society wether or not your faith allows you to agree or not. It is no longer the dark Ages. Harmony before Hate. The religious discrimination laws are some what preaching to those that want nothing more do with division in the modern times we live in. That is why they are being challenged, not the faith of the individual its self. Oppression starts like this. Im sure the diverse community within Australia can see and feel the difference. True freedom is a peaceful society. Wether faith based or not.
GuySmiley wrote:I’d have slightly less of a problem with what you’re saying Optimist if your churches and their schools paid tax and didn’t receive taxpayers money to run their bigoted operations.
yep. Lots of terrible people run religious schools. The last people that should ever be role models.
'The religious discrimination bill is simply to protect thousands of years of belief systems from attack by modernism. "
Maybe it's the modern world that needs protection from thousand year old antiquated belief systems.
.