u/Kid_Self

Not a dunk post. Love using UP for splitting costs with housemates and friends etc. Low risk incidentals and daily life stuff. Travel options are fucking amazing too.

Really looking forward to the Essentials feature launching on 1 Sept. Thing is, UP is not my nominated salary deposit nor savings account, so I don't think I could take full advantage of it.

But I don't want to deposit my salary into UP because I can't fully commit to it whilst the service is mobile app only.

It might just be a matter of personal risk, but what on earth would I do if I lost my phone (or stolen!) and couldn't easily access my funds? How do I block my cards, or lodge an issue that my phone is gone? Can't buy food and essentials until I recover the service, but at least my gym membership is paid? And without a branch to walk into, I'd be a bit up the creek.

I get my phone and UP app has its own protections like biometrics, but still, concentrating an essential service onto a device that can easily be misplaced just seems a bit silly. I think there are some services, like banking, that absolutely require a browser-based portal or, at least, a desktop app. Just some other alternative.

I'd like to fully commit to UP Banking more, but without that sort of accessibility and de-risking, it's relegated to just being a nice way to split costs with friends.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

Wondering if anyone here has lived in these places and has experienced rentals there? What was it like?

Are the sorts of things in this article the kind of policies the government should also be looking at?

The Budget reforms are one thing, but there will still always be renters for a myriad of reasons. Could we further disincentivise housing-as-investment by strengthening renter protections?

I guess I see a lot of discussion about Supply and Demand and their specific levers (more builds, land rezoning, cut migration, etc.), but considering renting is part of the property investment scheme, I also wonder if the housing situation could be helped through better rental regulation and protections, e.g. disincentivising through minimum long-term leases, rent price regulation, vacancy decontrol, etc.

I strongly suspect the removal of CGT Discount on Shares is simply extra fat and will become the sacrificial pawn of the budget during parliamentary negotiations.

It's a fairly classic government maneuver: package up what you actually want with additional reform, something a little spicy that gets people hotheaded. So when it comes to parliamentary negotiation and implementation, the government has something to cut away as a "compromise", whilst still delivering exactly what they want.

With the amount of discussion generated about CGT Discount reform on Shares/ETFs, I'd say its doing the job as intended. It was meant to stir a bit of outrage to dilute the property conversation, the actual core reform the government wants to deliver, making those changes more palatable.

Give your opponents plenty of targets and they might take down one or two, but the core remains intact.

It's actually starting to piss me off and is detracting from the details of the budget.

So, the argument being made is that Albo's government broke an election promise about making no changes to Negative Gearing. All they've offered is a soundbite of Albo in a radio interview several years ago being asked about it, and he simply said, "No."

Now, on Budget night, ABC journos, especially Sarah Ferguson's interview with Jim Chalmers absolutely tried to hammer him on that point, barely discussing anything else. She did the same with the Albo interview last night.

And the ABC's live budget thread on their website keeps reiterating this point.

Simply, Who the Fuck Cares?

It didn't seem like a strong commitment years ago, and the electorate has definitely shifted since, with younger Australians becoming the majority demographic, and the housing issue blowing up.

Governments are slow. They take time to catch up to social sentiment. All I've seen is this Labor government read the room and take some action on it. Y'know, how one would expect governments to run.

And, given the rapidly shifting global state of affairs, it is not amiss that circumstances 3+ years ago are different than today. Yet the ABC seems to really be pining hard for this "broken election promise" angle that really just doesn't exist.

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post