Speaker 1: Nine Podcasts.
Speaker 2: Hello, this is Neil Mitchell. Much to discuss today and
Speaker 2: again I welcome your feedback. Neil Mitchell at nine dot
Speaker 2: com dot A you. I want to talk today about kids.
Speaker 2: Are they boys and girls? Or should they be called
Speaker 2: awesome humans? I'd like to collect your stories from your schooling.
Speaker 2: I can give you a list of when I was
Speaker 2: whacked over the head by teachers. They certainly didn't think
Speaker 2: I was an awesome human. Also today Donald Trump? Who else?
Speaker 2: Housing and generational wars? And tax Now, first, I'm not
Speaker 2: sure we're going to like what I've got to say.
Speaker 2: By all means screen blue murder in the email. But
Speaker 2: I think it's time to increase the GST, the once
Speaker 2: evil Goods and Services Tax. Put it up. I think
Speaker 2: it should go from ten percent to fifteen percent, but
Speaker 2: only if there is a serious tax change along the
Speaker 2: way with it. The GST is twenty five years old
Speaker 2: in July July one next week, and it needs dusting off,
Speaker 2: rethinking increasing. It's tired, its benefit is waning. Now. Option
Speaker 2: would be to extend it to areas that are exempt,
Speaker 2: like food, but I don't like that idea. Food is
Speaker 2: expensive enough and it's not optional. You've got to eat.
Speaker 2: Extending the current tax would of course put the price
Speaker 2: up of most things if you increased it. But here's
Speaker 2: the caveat to that, and it comes down to trusting government.
Speaker 2: If the GST is increased in the areas that already exist,
Speaker 2: governments must must make significant adjustments to tax in other areas. Now,
Speaker 2: this isn't a plan to increase taxation, it's a plan
Speaker 2: to collect it Differently. Twenty five years ago, when the
Speaker 2: GST came in, the wholesale sales tax was dumped, and
Speaker 2: the states fiddled around the edges. They cut a few,
Speaker 2: not enough. The figures are pretty telling. The GST brings
Speaker 2: in about ninety billion dollars a year at the moment.
Speaker 2: Income tax that's you and me three hundred and thirty
Speaker 2: five billion, corporate tax one hundred and thirty three binion. Now
Speaker 2: those income and corporate taxes both keep increasing and both
Speaker 2: reduce aspiration and productivity. Why work more if the taxman
Speaker 2: is going to get most of the overtime. The GST
Speaker 2: you pay only when you buy, and it's not on
Speaker 2: the necessities of life. They're not all luxuries, but it's
Speaker 2: not on necessities. Tax is absurd A friend recently bought
Speaker 2: a new car, admittedly was expensive about ninety thousand dollars,
Speaker 2: but he paid just on eighteen thousand in taxes, partly
Speaker 2: to protect an industry that no longer exists. Eighteen thousand
Speaker 2: dollars nonsense. If the GST increases to fifteen percent, presumably
Speaker 2: it'll then bring in around what would it be, about
Speaker 2: one hundred and forty one hundred and forty five billion,
Speaker 2: so and going up as people bought more. So what
Speaker 2: the government would need to do is this, cut income tax,
Speaker 2: raise the thresholds. That's what happened when it was introduced
Speaker 2: to it again, cut corporate tax, dump absurdities like the
Speaker 2: luxury car tax. And this one's the key. Require the
Speaker 2: states to dump or slash stamp duty on property and
Speaker 2: also land tax. That's pretty difficult. Mixed the extra GS
Speaker 2: money a GST money wouldn't cover all loose, but it
Speaker 2: could be a start. At least index tax rates, get
Speaker 2: rid of brack of creep, at least reduce significantly stamp
Speaker 2: duty on property. Stamp duty brings in about twenty billion
Speaker 2: dollars combined in New South Wales and Victoria. So they're
Speaker 2: never going to give all that up, but stamp duty
Speaker 2: cripples real estate. It's a disincentive to move, and which
Speaker 2: would actually free up housing stock if more people moved.
Speaker 2: Its combined effect is to force up the price of houses,
Speaker 2: and that prices generations X, Y, and Z out of
Speaker 2: the market. Houses are described as being impossibly unaffordable. I
Speaker 2: would say they are atrociously unaffordable. Younger generations are paying
Speaker 2: the price for that. Increasing the GST seriously, reforming the
Speaker 2: tax system, not just fiddling with it, is a starting point.
Speaker 2: And how good would it be to require all those
Speaker 2: big corporations who pay no tax to pay their fair share.
Speaker 2: That's one of the obsentities in the system. However, I repeat,
Speaker 2: the GST is the starting point. We're at ten percent.
Speaker 2: At the moment. New Zealand is fifteen percent. The European
Speaker 2: average is twenty two percent. We should increase it ourselves
Speaker 2: to fifteen percent, but only with a cast iron guarantee
Speaker 2: written into legislation, a strong, unbreakable, sensible guarantee. The GST
Speaker 2: goes up, other tax goes down. This isn't a plan
Speaker 2: to bring the government back to surplus. They can begin
Speaker 2: that with some sensible financial management by ending the waste.
Speaker 2: This isn't a plan for surpose. It's a plan for efficiency,
Speaker 2: for productivity, for fairness, for decency, and I believe a
Speaker 2: better deal for the average person. Now this is related
Speaker 2: a little generational wars of STUF in Australia, and they're
Speaker 2: already getting nasty. More than that, the government, federal governments
Speaker 2: picked sides and many believe it is now going after
Speaker 2: the boomers a tax attack. People I've spoken to in
Speaker 2: the finance industry believe that's begun and will build into
Speaker 2: a full on attack. Now I doubt that. I don't
Speaker 2: know that, but the political decisions have been made. Boomers
Speaker 2: no longer have the majority influence at the polling booth,
Speaker 2: so instead the government looks to seduce the millennials, that's
Speaker 2: Generations X, Y and Z and get their vote. It's
Speaker 2: sensible politics. And the Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers is already
Speaker 2: talking about what's got to be done to address what
Speaker 2: he calls intergenerational justice. Inter generational justice. So sadly, at
Speaker 2: the same time as developing online and in the community,
Speaker 2: a deep resentment of the boomer generation. And remember the
Speaker 2: youngest boomers are sixty this year. Too often boomers are
Speaker 2: seen as greedy, as privileged, having built their wealth through
Speaker 2: being crooks and gaming the system. That's clearly nonsense. Of course,
Speaker 2: there are boomer crooks. There are in all generations, but
Speaker 2: most have built their wealth at whatever level by hard work,
Speaker 2: and it's got to be said, good luck. That means
Speaker 2: any comparison by generations X, Y, and Z are not pretty.
Speaker 2: As I mentioned earlier, housing is a key issue in this.
Speaker 2: Housing is impossibly unaffordable. Sydney's got the highest ratio of
Speaker 2: annual earnings to house prices in the world. When boomers
Speaker 2: bought their first house, it was probably the equivalent of
Speaker 2: two or three, maybe even four years salary. Interest rates
Speaker 2: were higher, but borrowings are smaller. It's now up to
Speaker 2: twelve times annual earnings to buy a house the value
Speaker 2: of a house. That makes it impossible for a lot
Speaker 2: of people. Now, as I said a moment ago, the
Speaker 2: government could deal with this. They could dump stamp duty,
Speaker 2: they could encourage decentralization, they could drop the land tax
Speaker 2: and every other impediment to housing as part of my
Speaker 2: GST argument, but there's more, and this one is contentious.
Speaker 2: They could cut immigration austraight As population has grown by
Speaker 2: forty percent since the year two thousand, our housing stock
Speaker 2: has gone backwards and become impossibly unaffordable, ridiculously expensive. Governments
Speaker 2: have got the levers to pull, but they won't do it.
Speaker 2: On my podcast this week, Neil Mitchell asks why which
Speaker 2: has posted every Tuesday. I spoke to two experts in housing.
Speaker 2: They agree the government could make houses more affordable, but
Speaker 2: lack the will. Head of research at Domain, doctor Nicola Powell,
Speaker 2: was one of them. Scott O'Neill, a property investment expert,
Speaker 2: was the other. Both had ideas on how to get
Speaker 2: prices down. Both the greed immigration was a problem and
Speaker 2: well look at it. Austraight as population increase forty percent,
Speaker 2: as I said since two thousand, it has to be
Speaker 2: a problem. Here's what these sir doctor Powell and Scott
Speaker 2: O'Neill said about immigration and housing prices. But are you
Speaker 2: suggesting we should link immigration or popular growth to housing
Speaker 2: supply and there's no houses available therefore no immigration this year.
Speaker 3: I think it should be something that is highly considered.
Speaker 3: We get it.
Speaker 2: It'll never happen because immigration covers up recession.
Speaker 3: Exactly, so it would never happen. So then it goes
Speaker 3: to how we actually can stimulate the supply of new homes,
Speaker 3: and that's where you need those policies. So it might be,
Speaker 3: for example, we've got a wave of new first home
Speaker 3: buyer policies coming into place. It should be things like
Speaker 3: stimulating first home buyers and steering them towards new to
Speaker 3: help stimulate the construction of new home.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm still looking for the emerging generations. Get somebody
Speaker 2: to blame that can blame the boomers? Can they blame
Speaker 2: immigration as well? And immigration is a very positive thing
Speaker 2: for the country in many, many, many ways. But can
Speaker 2: they blame immigration for the fact that housing is what's
Speaker 2: the term term possibly unaffordable?
Speaker 4: Yeah, look, I think that can because there's a million
Speaker 4: extra people in the last twelve months as well in Australia,
Speaker 4: so that's a very strong increase three and a half percent.
Speaker 4: So we haven't we haven't introduced the same level of
Speaker 4: supplier as Nicklobe mentioned, and there's no chance that we're
Speaker 4: going to be keeping up with the next wave as well.
Speaker 4: So you know, you keep falling forward further and further behind.
Speaker 2: If there's one hundred people trying to you.
Speaker 4: Know buy fifty houses. Prices are going to go up,
Speaker 4: and that's what we're up against.
Speaker 2: But of course, in the real world it's easier to
Speaker 2: blame the boomers. It could be a slogan, couldn't have
Speaker 2: got a problem, blame the boomers, But really it's not
Speaker 2: their fault. Boomers were lucky in the housing market. You
Speaker 2: can't blame them for that. They worked within the system
Speaker 2: and once they had a foot in the door, they
Speaker 2: watched their house price grow. That is lucky. There's a
Speaker 2: cash to that, of course, with some people ignore if
Speaker 2: their house has gone up significantly, so with others, so
Speaker 2: they might want to downsize or move. They sell their
Speaker 2: house for a lot more than they pay, but they're
Speaker 2: paying a lot more for the new place, plus a
Speaker 2: whack of stamp duty. For many people, houses are more
Speaker 2: just paper profits, not real profits, not dollars in the bank. Still,
Speaker 2: there's a shortage houses, a run affordable. Boomers are being blamed.
Speaker 2: Some commentators now describe it as a national emergency. There
Speaker 2: are leavers to pull. That involves tax reform, It involves
Speaker 2: cutting immigration, which will mean statistically we could head into recession.
Speaker 2: But the urban azy government has shown no real sign
Speaker 2: of being strong enough to do any of these things.
Speaker 2: But they're probably there for six years. We've got to
Speaker 2: live in hope they can see sense and growsome courage. Meanwhile,
Speaker 2: perhaps a little respect to boomers. Yes they've made mistakes.
Speaker 2: Yes they are passing on a fairly disturbed old planet,
Speaker 2: but they've done a lot of good along the way,
Speaker 2: and they've advanced humanity in many areas. The least they
Speaker 2: deserve is respect. Okay, intergenerational justice, as I mentioned Jim Chalmers,
Speaker 2: cause of that, what is it and the reality of
Speaker 2: that wealth transfer. It's estimated they are about seven trillion
Speaker 2: dollars to be trained tand half the private wealth in Australia,
Speaker 2: which is why I reckon the government will look at
Speaker 2: a suite of inheritance taxes. Look out for the inheritance taxes.
Speaker 2: They'll be hidden, That's what they'll be, and will be
Speaker 2: done in the name of intergenerational justice. The government's got
Speaker 2: a chance to act on this, by the way, and
Speaker 2: they've had it before, but they haven't acted on their
Speaker 2: newfound concern for intergenerational justice. There was before the Parliament
Speaker 2: a thing called the Future Generation's Bill earlier this year
Speaker 2: moved by the independent MP doctor Sophie Scamps. In the UK,
Speaker 2: they say housing, employment, superannuation all loser issues for intergenerational justice.
Speaker 2: Sophie Scamps had an idea to monitor that and plan
Speaker 2: around it. She wanted a commissioner for Future generations. She
Speaker 2: wanted regular reports on it. She wanted legislation to be
Speaker 2: analyzed for its effects on future generations. All quite sensible stuff.
Speaker 2: What happened. The bill lapsed before the election. It lacks
Speaker 2: Nobody seemed interested enough to even raise it during the campaign,
Speaker 2: and it's only only now the Jim Charmers even talking
Speaker 2: about it. By the way, as I said, he's not
Speaker 2: talking about government efficiency. He's looking to raise more tax funds.
Speaker 2: He's not throwing it back at you. There's a small
Speaker 2: cut coming, but very very little. I wouldn't mind if
Speaker 2: they raise the tax take, provided they spent it better.
Speaker 2: But no government of any color has ever shown any
Speaker 2: ability for doing that. They are inefficient, sloppy and wasteful.
Speaker 2: They always have been. Now, like the rest of the world,
Speaker 2: I've been watching anxiously what's happening in the Middle East.
Speaker 2: For one reason, I got friends trapped in the year
Speaker 2: in the war zone. But more. I worry what is
Speaker 2: developing could erupt and involve the world. I don't think
Speaker 2: Donald Trump's unpredictable. His public statements give no real indication
Speaker 2: of where he's headed. He's been throwing around obsentities in public,
Speaker 2: which is very pecure. Doesn't worry him as very peculiar.
Speaker 2: This is Donald Trump leaving the White House after he's
Speaker 2: peace deal. He's ceased, far shattered and be worn. As
Speaker 2: I said, there's an obscenity. We haven't cut it out
Speaker 2: because I think it's important that you hear. The prison
Speaker 2: of the United States wasn't mucking around. This is what
Speaker 2: Donald Trump said.
Speaker 1: Israel, as soon as we made the deal, they came
Speaker 1: out and they dropped the load of Bob's, the likes
Speaker 1: of which I've never seen before, the biggest load that
Speaker 1: we've seen. I'm not happy with Israel. You know, when
Speaker 1: I say, okay, now you have twelve hours, you don't
Speaker 1: go out in the first hour and just drop everything
Speaker 1: you have on them. So I'm not happy with them.
Speaker 1: I'm not happy with Iron either, But I'm really unhappy
Speaker 1: if Israel's going out this morning because the one rocket
Speaker 1: that didn't land, that was shot perhaps by mistake that
Speaker 1: didn't land. I'm not happy about that. We basically have
Speaker 1: two countries that have been fighting so long and so
Speaker 1: hard that they don't know what the fuck they're doing.
Speaker 2: Do you understand that now it shows he's frustration. I
Speaker 2: think it shows he's anger being made to look silly.
Speaker 2: Said the war had been sorted by him. He was
Speaker 2: the greatest president in the history of the world. Heaven
Speaker 2: knows how he racks now, But he seems to be
Speaker 2: blaming Israel more than Iran for the problems with the
Speaker 2: ceasefar reality, Czech Iran is a terrorist state. They support murder.
Speaker 2: Who would know how that country will react if this
Speaker 2: goes on. I think I fear that this war is
Speaker 2: going to ebb and flow for a long time and
Speaker 2: will continue with this capacity to erupt. But I'm also
Speaker 2: puzzled about this talk of a rules based order. Hearing
Speaker 2: more and more about that now, the rules based order
Speaker 2: that is something that surprisedly supposedly provides a stable and
Speaker 2: sensible world under those rules. Many eminent lawyers are arguing
Speaker 2: America acted illegally in bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. That may
Speaker 2: be right, although it is entitled to respond to aggression,
Speaker 2: and it's claimed Iran directly threatened the US that they
Speaker 2: would activate sleeper cells of terrorists. States that I'm told
Speaker 2: by lawyers is not sufficient justification. But Andrew Hasty, the
Speaker 2: Opposition to events spokesman, former elite soldier, Unlike most of us,
Speaker 2: he's actually been there when the bullets are flying. He says,
Speaker 2: anybody talking of a rules based order is being nostalgic.
Speaker 2: It's out of date. He says, it's gone sad though
Speaker 2: it is. He says, for years countries like Iran, Russia, China,
Speaker 2: North Korea have challenged that rules based order. He says,
Speaker 2: Iran is a dangerous terrorist state and it shouldn't be
Speaker 2: trusted and allowed nuclear weapons. That's the bottom line. Iran
Speaker 2: is part of this terror conglomerate which it supports and funds.
Speaker 2: It's part of a philosophy that says blatantly every jew
Speaker 2: on the planet must die. It's already been issuing veiled
Speaker 2: nuclear threats on social media. I find it puzzling to
Speaker 2: talk about following a rules based order when we're faced
Speaker 2: by this type of evil. It'd be lovely, be really
Speaker 2: great if everybody followed the rules and behaved decently. Some
Speaker 2: countries have not and do not. For Iran to have
Speaker 2: his nuclear weapons would be terrifying. And if they don't
Speaker 2: want them, really, why have they stockpiled large amounts of
Speaker 2: weapons enriched uranium. It's just sure to being rich enough
Speaker 2: to make a bomb, but at a point where there's
Speaker 2: no civilian purpose. So why they're doing it? I suspect
Speaker 2: Andrew Hasty is right. The rules based order is long gone.
Speaker 2: I hope not. We don't know the real implications for that,
Speaker 2: but I think he's right. Okay, let's change pace. I'd
Speaker 2: like to collect stories from your schooling. Niel dot Mitchell
Speaker 2: at nine dot com dot you drop me a line,
Speaker 2: Kneel dot Mitchell at nine dot com dot you. Good teachers,
Speaker 2: bad teachers, punishment, discipline, good memories, not good memories, kneeled
Speaker 2: dot Mitchell at nine dot com dot you. I lot
Speaker 2: you from teachers too. I don't know how you do
Speaker 2: the job. The reason I want who was this? I reckon?
Speaker 2: We're lucky this country is not packed full of dysfunctional
Speaker 2: and dangerous kids. The New South Wales Teachers Federation has
Speaker 2: advised teachers to stop using the terms in the class
Speaker 2: boys and girls, so they can't stand in front of
Speaker 2: the class and say good morning girls and boys, which
Speaker 2: used to happen to us every day. Apparently that is
Speaker 2: too gender specific. Maybe there are trans kids and the
Speaker 2: prep grode. I just can't see the logic behind what
Speaker 2: they want. They want to avoid gender specific terms and
Speaker 2: suggesting said, this is what they want the teacher to
Speaker 2: call the kids, Not girls and boys, but good morning
Speaker 2: awesome humans. Really good morning awesome humans, or good morning superstars,
Speaker 2: good morning change makers, good morning future leaders, good morning
Speaker 2: epic humans. What a load of garbage? Look? Times have changed.
Speaker 2: I remember when I was a school the teacher who
Speaker 2: belted kids across the backside with a t square and
Speaker 2: it hurt. I remember the strap being brought. I remember
Speaker 2: being belted with it myself. They think it at a
Speaker 2: minimum six that hurt. I remember the teacher who found
Speaker 2: new ways of torture. They'd make you if you'd the
Speaker 2: wrong thing, like something evil, like talking when you shouldn't.
Speaker 2: They make you lift your arms above your head and
Speaker 2: wiggle your hands until he lets you stop. Just try it,
Speaker 2: go and try it. That the pain is debilitating, you
Speaker 2: want to stop. I remember teachers who couldn't speak English,
Speaker 2: a particular gentleman other Yugoslavian shocking English trying to teach
Speaker 2: us French. I remember good things. I enjoyed school, made
Speaker 2: some great friends, friends for life. I did well. I
Speaker 2: played around a bit and was disciplined. I worked hard
Speaker 2: eventually and found out how to pass exams. I didn't
Speaker 2: learn much, but I passed exams. Point is, of course
Speaker 2: there is no more corporal punishment. That's a good thing.
Speaker 2: Of course, kids and teachers should treat each other with
Speaker 2: equal respect. But I think those in New South Wales
Speaker 2: tempted to follow instructions like calling the kids awesome humans. Well,
Speaker 2: if you be better off concentrating on how to teach
Speaker 2: properly and turning out kids who can read and count
Speaker 2: and speak rather than pointless it all exercises in virtue,
Speaker 2: signaling and social engineering. Neil dot Mitchell at nine dot
Speaker 2: com dot a U. That's it for the day. Remember
Speaker 2: this week's other podcast is available now. Neil Mitchell asks
Speaker 2: why it's a dick dive into the housing market. It's
Speaker 2: been described as a national emergency. It's been described that
Speaker 2: houses are impossibly unaffordable. I love that term, and it's
Speaker 2: leading into generational wars. The expert panel goes through the
Speaker 2: reasons and the answers, like tax, immigration, poor planning, that's
Speaker 2: just some of it. Government could fix it, but it won't,
Speaker 2: so good luck if you Generation X, Y, or Z.
Speaker 2: Next week, Inside the mind of Ian Baker Finch. He
Speaker 2: was one of the top golfers in the world, suddenly
Speaker 2: lost confidence, never recovered with an extraordinary public humiliation. How, why,
Speaker 2: and what happens next with Ian Baker Finch and what
Speaker 2: lessons do we take out of it? Neil Mitchell asks
Speaker 2: why available in all the usual places,