Introduction

SPEAKER_01 0:01

I've been waiting for this. I've been waiting for this a month. Um, get ready for this. Get ready for this. Listen to the guys, get ready. We've we've we've hit all the fucking culture today. And now this is what we're really here for. Get ready for the fucking fucking end up.

SPEAKER_00 0:16

Welcome to the Oliver Wild Experience featuring Oscar Thompson. The show that discusses money, power, sex, and culture. Despite the hosts having none of the above. Sit down, shut up, and enjoy the delusions and propaganda about to grace your ears.

SPEAKER_01 0:32

Hello everyone! And welcome to the Oliver Wild Experience featuring Oscar Thompson. Money, power, sex, and culture. And today we have a bit of a food review. I don't even think we can review it, to be honest, because we've gotten what's it called?

SPEAKER_03 0:49

Um Barry what was it called? Berry something McFlurry. I can't even remember the exact name. It wasn't Barry Blast. It was called something ridiculous. Try me to find it.

SPEAKER_01 1:00

Quickly find it, pull it up. It was, I just remember it's called something absolutely revolting. Like it was just not it. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Um, go into your orders on Uber Eats.

SPEAKER_03 1:11

It wasn't called Berry or anything. It was, it was Berry. But you know what the issue was?

SPEAKER_01 1:16

Derpy. Derpy McFlurry Derpy McFlurry. So here's the Derpy McFlurry. For your own sake, don't fucking.

SPEAKER_03 1:25

The vibrant treat features classic vanilla soft serve blended with a sweet wild berry sauce. Show the people berry black this is very flesh blackberry popping pearls. Yeah, nothing's popping in my mouth. No, but seriously.

SPEAKER_01 1:38

And like show show them show them the texture. It's like gooey. It's just disgusting. It's like massive. Yeah, it's just not it. So we're not I'm not even putting that in my mouth. You are you going? I might have a little bit. Okay, you're gonna get the actual stuff in it, but you can't just have ice cream. No, I'm just drinking the actual Okay. Oh, what would what would we rate that out of ten actually? It's getting a fucking one.

SPEAKER_03 2:02

A one? The soft serves saves it. Because you know what it is as well, it's not even like Okay, so the popping pearls aren't popping. It's just like hard jelly in your mouth. It's like stale jelly. And then they've put brown sugar in it, and that just doesn't work.

SPEAKER_01 2:20

No, it I don't know why we're gonna such a weird concoction. Um yeah, I'd give it I'd give it a two. Well, that's a bit generous, actually. Yeah, a two. Only just because the soft set is fine. I have no issue with the soft set. Anyway, please no one fucking get it, because that's disgusting. I've been I mean the fact it's in the same room, I'm literally gagging.

Eurovision

SPEAKER_01 2:37

Anyway, this week uh we had Eurovision, which for those who don't know is one of the biggest song contests, obviously based in Europe. Multiple countries compete. Um and yeah, so this year Bulgaria won. Um it was their first ever win. They got 516 points, which is a pretty significant margin. Um and then Israel came second, Romania came uh third, Australia came fourth, and then uh Italy was Italy. So um you know, I I watched, have you watched many of the performances? Because I watched the Bulgarian one and I did not enjoy it quite, you know, I did not enjoy it at all. Really? I watched the top five performances, so the ones I've just read out there. My personal ranking would be I would say out of them five, Italy should be the first one, Australia second, Israel third, Bulgaria fourth, and Romania fifth. Romania tried to do a rock song and it did not work for them whatsoever. Um so yeah, that that was the situation with that. In terms of other interesting facts, just about you know, uh about how people placed, Israel finished second, which um caused some controversy, which we'll speak about in a moment, and the UK finished last, um, which continues their shocking Eurovision run.

SPEAKER_03 3:50

So does Germany. Germany and UK don't do very well.

SPEAKER_01 3:52

Really? Yeah, because there's countries that just generally always kind of do decent. Yeah. And then there's countries, yeah, that's the same.

SPEAKER_03 3:58

And look, obviously, like I think the UK in 2022 or 2023 got second or something, actually. But then that was it.

SPEAKER_01 4:05

Like they have there's random bleach. Yeah, because I can't remember them being kind of high placing in the last few years. Um so yes, and then the main controversy behind this year's Eurovision was that five countries boycotted the contest over Israel's participation. The five countries were, I believe, to be Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Iceland, and Slovenia. Um and these countries not only just boycotted participation, but they're not sure. Most of them didn't show yeah, most of them didn't show the um broadcasting. Yeah, they also did not broadcast it whatsoever in their country. So, what are your thoughts? Do you think that Israel should have been allowed to participate? Um, and if you don't, why? Like, what's your kind of general thoughts?

SPEAKER_03 4:44

I think look, I personally you can't have Eurovision without it being political. Like, I think that's the whole point of Eurovision was to try and make a depoliticization of Europe in a way. Like it was it was actually inherently political the way it's been set up and the way there's voting. Yeah. Like you get like you know, but um should Israel be allowed to um participate? It's an interesting one because I think if Russia's banned, Israel should be banned. Yeah, but like I don't think any country should be banned.

SPEAKER_01 5:13

Like I I think it's the type of thing, sorry, where you either you either have everyone compete or you have very strict standards, right? See, I would say, like, for example, I would say personally, Israel probably should be banned if Russia was banned, right? Yeah. Because you know, it could you could argue, well, it's a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of perspective. But I think maybe they should actually introduce set standards in the sense that if you violate international law and stuff like that, you shouldn't be allowed to compete. Because then it's a lot more black and white in the sense of you know, everyone gets a fair and consistent treatment. Yeah. If we kind of have standards, you need to oblige to meet these set rules to actually participate. Yeah, it just means that there's not as much nuance, like you know, we wouldn't be having this conversation and all these people wouldn't be tuning out and stuff like that. Yeah. Um it would just, yeah, it would save everyone, you know, the kind of argument. Um so yes, and I think just generally, I mean Eurovision's been quite political in both a social and uh foreign affairs type of aspect for a while. I know one year it was either last year or the year before there was a trans or no, it was a non-binary artist, I think, that won actually. And quite a few trans artists as well have um have participated in the place quite highly.

SPEAKER_03 6:29

Um and obviously, yeah, it's just uh I know there's a lot of uh people as well in terms of flags and stuff who the Aboriginal flag got banned because last year I think there was a there was a um indigenous group that went um and performed at Eurovision, and then you're not supposed to have more than one flag and then they raise the Aboriginal one anyway.

SPEAKER_01 6:52

So I think I know flags have been very contentious as well, just from different countries, because obviously there's multiple flags, etc. Um, so yes, you know, I think you know we need a consistent set of rules, so then there's a lot less tension. Um because I do think, yeah, very much so, it's either we everyone's a free-for-all for cultural expression, or we kind of have an agreed-upon kind of path. Yeah. Because I do think it should be an event that brings people together, not tears people apart. And I do think that having Israel in the competition this year has torn people apart more than that. For sure. Because I mean there's obviously less viewership because countries aren't showing it, etc. Um,

Drake

SPEAKER_01 7:28

so yes, anyway, in terms of music and on the same note of music and culturally impactful things, Drake released not one, not two, but three albums this week. Um, and obviously this is kind of his comeback trilogy after all of the beef with Kendrick Lamar, um, which happened in 2024. And who do you think won that beef boy? I guess Kendrick One. Like I guess. Well, yes, yes, Kendrick One. It's an objective fact. Go to any club and it's not like a Kendrick One.

SPEAKER_03 7:55

Kendrick One. Yeah, and I'm Tim Kendrick from what I know. No, I am generally as well. Yeah, Tim Kendrick. Um and um I think I I think as well that that Super Bowl performance in 25, I think it was, I think that was the nail in the coffee. 100%.

SPEAKER_01 8:09

Yeah, because everyone's chanting the song. I mean it's the biggest platform in the world. Do you get what I'm saying? Yeah, for sure. And like, anyway, so um basically he announced uh the album Iceman in quite a creative way. So basically there's a massive like ice block kind of ice sculpture in Toronto. Um and inside was the release date, so everyone's rocking up with hammers and trying to, you know, people draft and stuff like that.

SPEAKER_03 8:33

Well there's a good people draft get uh human nature's so weird. Like why would like Yeah the big eye drags like it reminds me of that what's that shit at the moment, the swatch? Oh my god.

SPEAKER_04 8:46

Oh my god.

SPEAKER_01 8:47

I know, you know, how to drag people. No, no, no, no, it's actually important to talk about. There's this okay. Everyone's had to explain this to me and I still don't get it. There's this watch. I knew this before Austin that says not me. I still don't get it. My mum was explaining to me. You know what my mum said to me? She'll be listening to this. I was debating getting one. Has everyone lost their minds in this world? Why is everyone queuing up for this fucking watch? What's it what is it called?

SPEAKER_03 9:12

A piece watch, like it's a collab. A piece watch or something.

SPEAKER_01 9:16

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's ridiculous. They're all lining up for it, and people there's like fights breaking out and shit. I don't even understand. They've had to shut shut down shopping centers and shit. Yeah, all I know is like it's gonna have high resale value and it's a collab. That's basically all. Have you seen how shit they look? They look like kids' watches. But they're not even watches, they're like fucking pocket watches. Who's walking around with pocket watches in fucking 2020?

SPEAKER_03 9:35

I was thinking maybe we should go and line up and see.

SPEAKER_01 9:37

I think I would rather fucking slip my throat and gouge my eyes out than fucking go to one of them. Anyway. It's literally like labou for a shape. You're exactly right. You're exactly right. Um, because as well, like I think this whole Drake thing, you know, talking about the ice block stunt and as well this thing. Consumer behaviour is so weird. Of course. Just generally. Yeah, it's like even though like people are Drake fans, like it's still like it's still like a product, his music, and we're still the consumers. Yeah. So it's just, I don't know, I agree with you, it's very weird. Um so basically, one guy he was streaming on kick or whatever, you know, Twitch, whatever, and he breaks the ice, he gets this kind of folder and then brings it back to some mansion. Drake's hanging out of the window, kind of waving to him in a stream as he opens it and it says Iceman May 15. So uh May 15 comes, and he doesn't just drop Iceman, he drops two other albums, Iceman, Maid of Honor, and Habib T. Let's start discussing Iceman. What was your overall thoughts on that album?

SPEAKER_03 10:35

I thought it was a bit like it reminded me a bit of a and I don't really listen to Kanye, but it reminded me a bit of a Kanye album in the sense that there was good stuff in there, but like it was like you were like swerving through a pile of shit a little bit.

SPEAKER_01 10:47

Well, I do think it was bloated in the sense that like You didn't know what I write it for.

SPEAKER_02 10:51

Well it was, it was.

SPEAKER_01 10:54

I personally think no album should be like longer than like 14, 15 songs, and I believe it was 18 songs. So I think they could have they could have cut it down just a little bit. Even twelve. Yeah, but yeah, 100%. Even fucking 10. If it's 10 good songs, I have no issue with that. Um I I'm much more just generally in life a um quality over quantity person. And I think what we'll see in a sec as we continue to discuss this, he has gone more broadly for um quantity over quality. He's throwing everything at the wall and hoping it sticks. Um look, I think, yeah, as I said, it was bloated, and I mean a lot of the songs are like five minutes long as well. No song should be over like two and a half minutes.

SPEAKER_03 11:33

Oh no, I feel I have three minutes. I don't mind I actually don't mind a long song.

SPEAKER_01 11:36

No, because no, no, not at all. When you're listening to a song, you want to have to be quality, of course, you want it to be quality. You don't want you to have to.

SPEAKER_03 11:41

Yeah, but you can have like a double-edged song in the sense that you can have like a one of those. That gives me the shits.

SPEAKER_01 11:46

It does because it's just like just release two, because I'm either listening to that song for one or the other. Do you get what I'm saying? Very rarely it are both sides, you know. Anyway, um I thought it was a it was a decent album overall, however. Um, I think it was, you know, out of all three of them, it was still probably the highest quality in the sense that I think it was the most thought out. I think it had the most planning put into it. The concept was there. It definitely appeals more to his kind of core and sure, a lot more hip-hop type of stuff. Um and you know, there weren't that many features or anything on that as well. But I thought, yeah, no, overall, what would you give it? I'd give it about a seven. Probably a six. A six, yeah. Yeah, I think that's a bit harsh. I don't think there's anything wrong with it necessarily. I would I I don't think I'd listen to it again, to be honest. Okay. The second album he dropped is Made of Honor. What did you think of this? I like that one.

SPEAKER_03 12:33

Yeah. And I thought that's the one I I when I saw them all, I thought, oh that one looks shit. Like that looks a bit like and everyone has been giving it a lot of um.

SPEAKER_01 12:41

That it's the most controversial one, yeah, for sure. Um the second I listened to it, I kind of came up with the the word war. It's just it's club music in the end of the day. He is going for hits, um, he, you know, predominantly female artists are featuring on it. Um, you know, it's just that type of vibe, and like not everyone's gonna be pleased by it. Well, no, it doesn't cater to his base, does it? It's more of trying to expand the market. Exactly, exactly, 100%. He's going for charting stuff rather than stuff that the bass is gonna feature.

SPEAKER_03 13:08

And that's that had my favourite song. I like that road trip song.

SPEAKER_01 13:10

That's my favorite. I like I like that one. I think that's my favorite one. I like the hook, how the woman sang it, and then the beat drops. I like that. And I saw actually, um, I saw two Drake fans, it's the NFR podcast for those who might know it. Um, they discussed it and they said that was like basically the worst song on like the entire like three albums.

SPEAKER_03 13:28

It's just crazy, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 13:29

It's crazy how people's views are so different, but I mean they're like hardcore Drake fans, we'd be like casual-ish. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, I think as well. Look, yeah, so I mean it's it's dance pop type of stuff. Um, you know, I don't think I think the first album, uh the first part of the album, sorry, it was very much front-loaded in the sense that there was good quality upbeat stuff at the front of it, but then when you got to the back, he decided he was gonna be like the weekend but without the talent. Um and I don't think that worked that well for him. It was still though, I mean it was better than what we're about to discuss in a sec. But overall, what would you rate it? I would give it, I'd give it like a 6.5. Give it an eight. I thought it was better than Iceman. Only just because I think he's kind of just kind of clearing the shelf of like some leftover, some leftover kind of like pop music that he was making and he's just getting rid of it.

SPEAKER_03 14:15

That was probably the only album I could listen to without.

SPEAKER_01 14:19

I think it has a high like re-listenability. Is that a word? Yeah, I've just got to be a little bit more. Yeah, it's very, it's very easy to re-listen to that. Yeah, do you get what I'm saying? Because every song is so distinctly different with such a different sound, different hooks, etc. Um, the last album was the worst album. It was fucking, it was a complete shamozzle that was.

SPEAKER_03 14:37

And I thought that I when I when I saw Habibti, I thought that was gonna be the best one because I was thinking we're gonna have some shik shak shock samples in there, we're gonna have something like tub tap.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

And that I open it, what's that fucking song called? Rusty Intro, I think it's called. That was the worst song I have ever listened to in my entire life. Fucking shocking. I mean, that album is just disgusting. I mean, not even, you know, one song I don't even think was salvageable, to be honest. No, like it just felt unfinished. Felt clunky, boring. That's the thing. That's the worst thing an album can be. Boring. I'd much rather an album be bad than boring. Do you get what I'm saying? Yeah. I feel like though, this is probably. That is a very good way to put it actually out. Because it's like at least you're going for a concept. At least you're going for that's the w that's why I can respect Maid of Honor. Obviously, this album has not been thought out and planned as much as Iceman, but at least he's going for something. You know, he knows what he's doing there. With this, I mean seriously, what's the point of it? There's no point.

SPEAKER_03 15:34

There's no point. I think he I personally think he's released three albums, and I know there's a lot of theories regarding it.

SPEAKER_01 15:39

Yep.

SPEAKER_03 15:40

I personally thought he released three to kind of flood the zone in a way, even though I don't think because we've seen recently, especially 2025, people sure there's a big lead up, and then when they release the album, like even look at the Harry Styles album.

SPEAKER_01 15:53

Well, I think that is a great album.

SPEAKER_03 15:54

But sure, but it went to pretty much to shit within three weeks. In what way? Like no one's talking about it. No one's talking about it. I don't know. I feel like I know I think it's doing alright. I I I don't hear anything on the record. Maybe that American Girls is the only one that's still playing.

SPEAKER_01 16:09

Yeah, I agree in the sense that compared to like his other albums, Harry's. And look, I don't think anything's probably gonna top that. Probably Harry's House. That one. Yeah, no, I like that. That's my favourite one. But a lot of people prefer the fine line. Is that the song Fine Line or is that no? No, it's it they're both. Okay. That the Fine Line album a lot of the colours.

SPEAKER_03 16:25

I prefer Fine Line, but I think Harry's House is will do the wet um the best, probably.

SPEAKER_01 16:30

Yes, because it's like it's interesting. Yes. It's the opposite of boring. Every song has its unique sound. It's engaging. Yeah. Anyway.

SPEAKER_03 16:37

But with the as I was saying with the um three albums, I think he's just he's done that to flood the zone because artists are having a lot of problems, especially in the new kind of era of music where it's much more online versus radio. If you look at the Billboard uh top ten of the Hottest 100, it's this woman named um what's her name? Some country woman. I've never heard. Ella Langley, that's her name. Ella Langley. She has like three songs on there. She's overtaken I know she's overtaken Taylor Swift on some metric, I don't know which one. And then the rest of the songs is like ordinary Alex Warren. Okay. Like, why is that still in there? Yeah, exactly.

SPEAKER_01 17:16

It's just crazy how yeah Yeah, and there are theories about that, but before I get into the the theories fully, um, what would you rate her bibtia? I'd say it's like getting it two. It's it's like a one. It's yeah, may maybe 1.5 will be generous. Um, but I mean, yes, so in terms of theories, yes, I have heard quite a few. Um bear with me here, because these are like, you know, crazy shit made up by Drake fans. Basically, they're saying that uh the glove in the album cover of um Iceman is mimicking Michael Jackson's glove. And basically the reasoning is Michael Jackson got fucked over by his record labels. So now Drake's saying he's getting fucked over by his record labels, and the reason he's released three albums is because he's trying to clear house of all this music that's indebted to the record labels, so then he can leave the label and actually start making good music again that he can then profit off of. So basically, people are saying maybe he's put out these albums that are quite shit and mediocre, just to kind of tick the box with the record label, then leave them, and then actually start making hits because then he can make money off of it. Because right now there's no financial incentive for him to make good music because the record label's taking all of it. So, what that sounds like to me is a whole bunch of bullshit and a whole bunch of cope from the Drake fans because they're just trying to justify. So I would not have said that if the Michael Jackson movie wasn't out. Exactly, and that's another thing. This Michael Jackson love is so incredibly forced, right? All these people come out of that movie loving Michael Jackson. You could not name a single fucking Michael Jackson album two months beforehand. Seriously. They're all diehards now, and and that's another thing about consumer culture.

SPEAKER_03 18:55

The impacts that but it's propaganda, it's propaganda, and it's literally his whole family has made it. Do people not have a more of a critical have a critical? Yeah, nephew. Yeah. It's run by like it's just the agenda behind it.

SPEAKER_01 19:09

It is, it's the change, it's to change a hundred perception. And it's because he's had a bad perception. And and it's the perception I still hold, and probably you do as well. It's just weird. It's just weird.

SPEAKER_03 19:19

Like, don't get me wrong, there's a few good songs there, but it's just a but even then like I can't even listen to it anymore in the sense that that voice just I can't the voice just gives me the heep.

SPEAKER_01 19:28

Yeah, it gives me the heebie jeebies, yeah. And the hee he I can't even. He has like such a weird view. Um so anyway, there's some crazy theories going around. But I mean, just generally, it has done very well. So it's actually so Iceman alone's pulled 140.2 million streams on Spotify in its first day. It was the biggest album debut of 2026 on Spotify. So that means it's beaten Harry Styles just because. Yeah, which doesn't surprise me. Yep. Um, and I I do think as well, he's probably a bigger name nowadays than Harry Styles. Oh, for sure. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because it's like, I mean, you you pull the more countries probably. Um, I think Harry Styles.

SPEAKER_03 20:04

Drake was even there before Harry.

SPEAKER_01 20:07

Yeah, uh Drake's first first solo album, I think, was 2009. One Direction, yeah, was around I mean it was around then that One Direction, yeah. Yeah, but then I mean Harry's solo career, I think he started in 2017 or something. Um so anyway, it's done well in that sense, and then Drake's also become Spotify's most streamed artist in a single day in 2026. So I mean that probably rivals people like Taylor Swift and stuff like that. So yeah. And I don't yeah, that wasn't surprised in 2026. Yeah, so look, it's performing well, it's performing well, but I mean, you know, there's a lot of speculation, a lot of questions, because it's been quite an unorthodox ride. Um, but yeah, so we'll have to continue seeing how public opinion shapes on that.

Budget

SPEAKER_01 20:47

Speaking of public opinion, I've been I've been waiting for this, I've been waiting for this some months. The fucking Christmas has come. Get for the hacks. Get ready for the tinfoil. I know literally, guys, get ready. You know, we've we've we've hit all the pop culture shit, and now this is what we're really here for. Get ready for the fucking propaganda. The federal budget. Oh, it just it gives me so much pleasure to just say that. Finally released, and oh, it was just beautiful. It was I'm gonna cry. It was the bet it was honestly one of the best budget. I'm literally, look, I'm tearing up.

SPEAKER_03 21:16

I'm it's so I'm just uh I just as I said, I don't really the budget just doesn't do much for me. I agree. That was the best budget I've seen in my life. Like that's the best budget I've remembered in my entire lifetime for sure. Yeah, yeah. No. The rest of them have been quite boring, to be honest. I feel I feel like the NDIS is always getting cuts. Yes.

SPEAKER_01 21:32

In everyone, yes, I know. But you know what? As well, I was thinking, and we'll discuss it soon. This will now be the third time we've discussed NDIS cuts on this podcast. Yeah, I know. Anyway, um, so for those who don't know, how how have we even described the federal budget to people who aren't it was on the federal reform? It's quite a reformist budget in a sense. No, no, no, but just generally what the federal budget is. Oh, it's basically it's like a No, I know, I know. Uh it's basically like a a document. That the government hands down that outlines all of their economic policy and finances of the country every single year. Um, and this year has been uh the first one since the 2025 election because they had an early budget just before the election last year. Um and yes, as you were saying, it's been a reformist government and it's definitely um made many changes. It's uh you know shaked up, is that a word? Shook up, that's the word. It shook up um basically the entire country to the point where you can't um scroll on TikTok without some dodgy accountant or economic Everyone's become a fucking economist. You know, everyone over 50 is now waiting for it. But Albert has a 47% share in every business. You know, seriously, 47% in every business, that doesn't make him a fucking robber. That makes him a smart investor. That's my take. This is the type of propaganda we're getting here, ladies. Okay, now let's actually let's before we go into the analysis and before we run away with it, let's go into um the the main changes. So I've narrowed it down to th to four main things. Sorry. Um negative gearing reform, capital gains tax reform, uh trust tax reform, and then also the working Australian tax offset. In terms of what they actually are, what they mean, I've basically. Well I've no I've basically um I've gotten summaries here made by AR, right, to most simply explain it. So we can add to this. So basically, the problem with negative gearing, right, is it's let investors write rental losses off against their wage income, which means taxpayers have basically helped subsidize speculative property investing. Yeah. Um now what Labor has fixed in this budget is investors buying existing properties can no longer offset against those wages, um, meaning those concessions are effectively redirected toward new housing because it's only allowed in new housing. Yeah. Would you say that's a that's an all-right analysis? It doesn't really cover off the process. Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what it is. That's what it is, yeah. Well, no, it's more it's more or less outlined the problem and the changes. Negative gearing itself is basically, I would describe it as welfare for investors, where we're rewarding them with our taxpayer dollars for their bad business model. So basically, when they uh operate a property that they own at a loss with expenses, the government subsidizes them more money, basically. So what they do is they make profit out of losing money. Yeah. Um and what it means is it basically gives investors a lot of um leeway to buy all of these investment properties because they know that no matter the loss, they can actually still get money back. So it's uh it's incentivizing mass investment, basically. Yeah. So um basically removing that in existing properties and only limiting it to first home. First buyers, yeah, first home. It basically yeah, it basically allows first home buyers um to rock up to you know the average house and not be competing against as many investors because we're not subsidizing them investors without taxes.

SPEAKER_03 24:58

It's about a supply it's about um demand. It's about reducing the amount of people who are wanting to buy a house. Yep, absolutely. And that's what that's a more of a demand thing.

SPEAKER_01 25:07

Yes, yes, and and as well, it does help supply because the only properties that you can negatively gear are newly built properties. So that just means like look, if the investors are the ones with the money, you know, if you want all these investment properties and stuff, we've got to get building because then you can invest in them. Yeah, okay. What do you think specifically about negative gearing? Um, what do you think about the kind of backlash? What do you think about the discussion? Because there's been a lot of people saying, well, um, you know, what what all that's happened is uh the government has basically taken away the opportunities that boomers had um for young people and them opportunities were the reason why boomers are so successful. Like what would you how would you respond to?

SPEAKER_03 25:50

I think the first one is regarding that argument. First of all, it's uh it it you're thinking too short people are thinking too short term in a way. Those boomers are gonna be dead in 30 years. Yeah, right? So then everyone will be the beneficiaries of that, right? I understand the people who are now what 30-ish now, 35, maybe mid-20s. I understand they would it and but again, I I struggle to see the amount of them who were planning on buying an investment property in the first place. Yep, right?

SPEAKER_01 26:22

Exactly, and that's yeah, so it's to interject as well. That's another thing. And it's just infuriating me scrolling on social media. You know, no one all these people, they didn't even know negative hearing existed, right? But now it's been taken away from them for for good reason, right? Because it's fucking it's helping 75,000 more Australians buy a home, right? Um, first home as well, not just investment properties. Um, you know, now that it's been taken away from them, everyone was going, oh well, I was planning on negative hearing my property. You didn't even fucking know negative gearing existed.

SPEAKER_03 26:51

And I guess everyone's always going to complain at the government for whatever. Exactly. But and I think as well, apart from that um argument, I think the second one is this we need to contest the social fabric of this country of wanting of as in as in we need to contest um should we really be um buying more houses?

SPEAKER_01 27:12

Like should we really should we really be exactly right in the sense that there's a few things on this. First off, I don't think it's a radical idea to say that housing should be for shelter, not for fucking profit. Yeah. Right? It should not be a product, it shouldn't be bought and sold for only financial gain. You get what I'm saying? And I have major issues with the fact that for so long our country's been set up to the point where we're subsidizing these people as if this is like a product and not like a family home. And then also on top of that, look, it just doesn't make sense for us as a country to have so much wealth stored in assets in the sense that stuff like houses, they just stay put, right? They don't contribute to the economy, all they do is rise. What we need is we need um these investors to actually, if they want to make money, they can, but you gotta innovate. You gotta do it through, you know, I don't know, creating some business that's gonna actually improve people's lives, rather than just putting all your money in a house and just letting it sit there over time.

SPEAKER_03 28:05

And like, is the Australian dream about negatively gearing six, seven properties?

SPEAKER_02 28:13

Or is it still a still six seven anyway?

SPEAKER_03 28:15

Or is it or is it about um being buying your home? The Australian dream is about buying a home.

SPEAKER_01 28:23

Yeah, first and foremost, it's about buying, you know, a being a first home buyer and buying a home. You know, if you're a young couple, you're you know, late 20s, early 30s, that's the Australian dream. The Australian dream is not how many fucking properties can I buy, how many fucking units can I negative?

SPEAKER_03 28:38

Well, how's it housing is seen in the Australian dream? Housing is a home. Housing isn't a product, housing isn't a business. Yes. And I think in a way, it goes back to what I was saying about the social fabric, and I think it's what years of conservative rule have kind of done to people in the sense that that's been embedded into people. Just like how with Labour, it's been embedded that we should like health, the kind of healthcare stuff. Like no one wants to touch free healthcare because it's now embedded into the way we think.

SPEAKER_01 29:08

Which is why now Labour's conservative have tried to embed the idea of investing in property. And I think they've pretty succeeded as we they have because I mean, and we'll get to all the backlash and all of that in a minute. We're mostly just right now going through each policy and the analysis. I think we've covered negative gearing relatively well. Yeah. Um, the next one was capital gains tax reform. So the problem I have listed here is the old system let investors pay tax on only half their profit when selling property, making speculative wealth accumulation more attractive than productive economic activity. So what's changed is the 50% capital gains discount um is replaced with a fairer model based on inflation injusted adjusted gains and a stronger minimum tax floor.

SPEAKER_03 29:52

Is it 30% tax?

SPEAKER_01 29:54

Um that's on trusts, which we'll get into. I'm not sure about this. It's just I thought it was on CGT as well. Maybe I'm not sure. Um so yes, basically that's that's uh about you know what it actually is, what they've fixed it. Um in terms of here, you know, why is it a positive thing? Because under the old rule rules, investors could receive tax benefits while holding a loss-making property, um, then another tax break when they're selling it for profit. You know, a worker, for example, might pay full tax on wages while speculative gains were taxed at a discount. Um, and treasuries also identified these tax settings as encouraging excessive speculative housing investment rather than more productive sectors of the economy, which was kind of what we were saying in the sense that why should we all have all of our money in houses that just sit there rather than things that can actually contribute? So, what are your general thoughts on it? What do you think about the reaction to the discussion?

SPEAKER_03 30:49

It's good because when we look at it with the ha history of housing uh in this country, when the Howard government put that in, CGT discount, 50 no made it 50%, um, that is the single biggest reason for increasing housing housing house price house prices house prices in the country, like it's just a fact when you look at all the graphs and stuff. So and I think it remains to be seen uh how much that'll affect housing, and as well, I think a big flaw, and I'm sorry we're going back to reactions as well, a big r um reaction to the budget is that well, house prices aren't actually gonna go down.

SPEAKER_04 31:30

No.

SPEAKER_03 31:30

It'd be very stupid economic policy if the government made stuff uh made uh policies that would make housing prices deliberately go down because that's how you get into a recession.

SPEAKER_01 31:41

Yes. In the sense that as well, well, everyone, you know, most people that have houses, you can't just they can't be losing money off of that. Do you get what I'm saying? That's just not that's not an option. What we want is not housing prices to go down, we need them to grow at a much slower rate. So they're basically staying the same, just growing enough.

SPEAKER_03 31:59

But even then, right, playing a bit of the devil's advocate, but also genuinely, when you say people we can't have people losing money on their house, but it's still a bit of an embedded thing about the house. Yeah, why should housing even be a profit? Yes. Why are you still gonna be selling that house in the first place? Which you should be able to do. Like I'm not stagnant.

SPEAKER_01 32:19

But we can't have set prices.

SPEAKER_03 32:21

Of course. And I and I don't think house prices should I don't think the government should be making policy that makes housing prices fall. I think we should have government policy that makes our housing prices very stagnant, like, yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yes, maybe just the thing that's the slightest thing. But I just find it interesting that, you know, yeah, I just find it interesting that we're still thinking of housing as a bit of a economic capitalism type of thing.

SPEAKER_01 32:45

So anything that adds to the capital basis from mode? Okay, so we're moving away kind of from the housing side, because that hadn't a lot of overlap with the negative gearing changes. And I think this is this next one's probably my personal favourite in the budget is the trust tax reform. Um, so I have here the problem is discretionary trusts have allowed some wealthier households to legally split income and reduce tax in ways unavailable to ordinary wage earners. Um so the fix is a minimum, a 30% minimum tax rate applies to discretionary trusts. Basically, what that's saying is a bunch of rich people, they set up these trusts where they distribute large amounts of wealth to many people because then that way they're paying lower rates of tax because it's split evenly rather than in one big chunk.

SPEAKER_03 33:31

That's basically what that money doesn't sure that money doesn't go to them, but it means it's tax-free.

SPEAKER_01 33:35

Yes, a hundred percent.

SPEAKER_03 33:36

Which is how they get out get around it.

SPEAKER_01 33:37

Yes, so they're getting around taxes. Now, um, you know, I have here, you know, why is it positive? Australia has more than one million trusts. Many use it as a tax minimization structure. That's crazy. Uh particularly concentrated among wealthier households. Yeah. So for example, uh, you know, I just have here like a nurse, a teacher, a retail worker, they can't split their salary across family members to reduce tax, whereas some high wealth households currently can, um, it creates a fairness problem where similar income um can face very different tax treatment depending on access to financial structures. It's closing this loophole to prevent uh sorry, it says closing this loophole protects revenue for hospital schools. Uh it's just a fucking chat GPT talking point. Basically what we're doing, I know I had to double read that one. Basically, what we're doing is we're taxing people who are avoiding fucking taxes, who are wealthy, and we're literally, and we'll it will feed into the next one as well. We are now using that tax money that they should have paid already, um, basically just to government services and the working Australian tax offset, which we'll discuss next. But what do you think about the trust tax and all?

SPEAKER_03 34:46

I I've actually found it crazy that there's over a million people who've tried because I've never met a single person. Maybe I have secretly, but like I don't know I couldn't tell you a single person I know who has a trust. Yeah. I just don't know it.

SPEAKER_01 34:57

Like, and I think it's a bit of a foreign concept in the sense that as I've been hearing it in the budget, I've kind of had to do more research into how trusts work. Because it's not like a commonly known thing.

SPEAKER_03 35:06

It's not like inheritance, it's a different thing. And I think that's funny how sorry, going back to reaction again, but how people are trying to frame this as a death tax, which is essentially an inheritance tax, so the government would ta take a portion of money that would go um to you after someone died. This isn't the same thing. But um But that's what they're trying to make it out to be.

SPEAKER_01 35:27

Yes. And we'll we'll get to the reasons why. Because that money's still taxed beforehand anyway. Of course. And we'll we'll get to the reasons why and dive deep more into that in a second. But yeah, so I think we've said basically all we need to say. That's pretty self-explanatory. Moving on to the working Australians tax offset, which is also called the WADO. Basically, this money that we've just taken from these trusts, instead of just you know doing something useless with it, we're actually directly returning this money to Australian workers, right? So basically, um Labor's making the taps the tax system fairer because ordinary workers should benefit off of this revenue. So, what they're doing is there's an annual $250 tax cut for 13.3 million workers. A lot of people might say 250 isn't enough. Just watch the next budget and the one after that. I guarantee you, and that's what everyone's saying, they're gonna expand that. What they're doing is they've set up a structure that basically directly returns um you know, returns tax dollars back to workers rather than people who earn income off of assets and other things like that. Basically, it's it's set up of a way to distinguish workers and people who make money from their uh incomes rather than uh from their incomes of like you know, wages and salaries compared to people who make you know their money from assets, yeah, assets, shares, etc. like that. Right. So um you know, why is this positive I have here? So 13.3 million Australians receive direct tax relief um for households under pressure, blah blah blah. It's just all chat GPT talking points, groceries, fuel, etc. But this is also important to note um combined with Labour's broader tax changes, average workers could be up to $2,816 better off annually. Um and then it also says, unlike uh asset focused tax concessions, it yeah, this is what I was saying, directly rewards people directly earning wages. Um, because as well, workers are more likely to spend um this money in the real economy. Um, so the relief also supports, you know, you know, it just says here local businesses and jobs. But you get what I'm saying? It's actually going to people who need that money and who will use it in meaningful ways rather than people who have a fuck ton of money in the bank. Well that it's not going to be people saving it. Yes, exactly. It's people spending it, and that you know grows the economy.

SPEAKER_03 37:44

Which is a bit more do we want inflation? Is it a bit inflationary in a way?

SPEAKER_01 37:49

Yeah, but that's why it's $250.

SPEAKER_03 37:51

I mean it's it's a fiscally responsible budget. Um in the sense and it's actually deficits down. Yeah, overall, 100%. So the uh essentially the deficit for people who don't know is the amount of um money. Actually, you can you explain it? It's too hard for me to understand I haven't been prepared to explain.

SPEAKER_01 38:11

No, uh um it's Well, it it's it's basically the money is it necessarily it's not debt, it's you know, you you explain it. You because you probably explain it better than I would. It's essentially how deficit.

SPEAKER_03 38:25

Yeah, the surplus the oh no, it is getting worse then. The deficit is lower. The amount the debt is growing growing is at a lower rate. Yes, 100%.

SPEAKER_01 38:34

Because when a surplus happens, it means that we've actually we've basically had surpluses. Yes, and so we had two surpluses and then they've reduced the deficit every year after. Surpluses basically mean that we've collected enough revenue that we've paid for everything and we have some left. Yes. Deficits basically mean the opposite in the sense that we've spent the revenue and we're going into debt at this rate is probably the best simplest way to describe it.

SPEAKER_03 38:56

And also, since um Labour came to government, it's lower.

SPEAKER_01 38:59

Yes.

SPEAKER_03 39:00

So debt to GDP ratio has gone down from around 40% to around 28%.

SPEAKER_01 39:05

And I mean, even think back to like, you know, the last government in nine years they said they'd deliver a surplus every year onwards, right? They never did. They printed the merch for all of it, and then they just couldn't deliver it. Um so I think, you know, we've basically discussed the four main changes, right? So we've kind of gotten through the policy, discussed it, right? Um now, how are people reacting to this? And I think this is really where the meat of this whole budget discussion is. Well, as I've been yeah, you know, you take it away, and then I'll I'll have some stuff on top of that.

SPEAKER_03 39:34

That's what I've been saying. People are just people aren't very happy, it doesn't seem like. But that that's what it seems. That is what it seems. Um I I'll I'll I'm happy, but you know, I'm also And also everything's grandfathered as well, which is interesting too.

SPEAKER_01 39:51

In the sense that let's say if you back to negative gearing, what it basically just means is if you're already doing it and if you already have an investment portfolio set up doing that, where you're getting that taxpayer subsidy, you can still continue doing that.

SPEAKER_03 40:02

But can you just continue but can you continue doing that if you buy another house?

SPEAKER_01 40:06

If you buy a house, so no, it has to be a new build.

SPEAKER_03 40:10

A new build never. But even for the people who are still who have properties who are using that that discount. Yeah, of course.

SPEAKER_01 40:16

Yeah, you you can't, for example, that that my house, right? It's it was fucking built in like the 1920s, whatever. So if some boomer comes has already had six properties and trying to do it. But if it's a new build, if you're out, you know, west and you're going to one of them estates, yeah, as everyone can. Yeah, you you can yeah, you can do that. Um so you know, I'll take you up as well now for some interesting analysis. You you're saying people aren't very happy. Well, it doesn't if that's what doesn't seem the same. Now this is something I've thought about a lot, right? It doesn't seem that, but the reason it doesn't seem it is because the media is absolutely losing their shit, right? You have Jim Charmers being called a communist on the Daily Telegraph, trust me, in our fucking dreams sometimes, seriously, right? Um everyone's up in arms, you know, you have uh Sky News, 7-9, they're all you know, it's all they all have ties to the Liberal Party, every single one of the people. Like even for example, Seven's headline the other day uh on YouTube, the headlining of the budget, it was like uh budget disaster. Ah yes, I'm sure. Labor, blah blah blah. Now, why we need to ask ourselves, right? We can't number one, we can't believe everything that these fucking outlets are telling us. Why? Because there's conflict of interests, right? So Sky News is owned by a news corps, it's controlled by the Murdoch Empire. Its business model has been aligned with lower taxes, pro-market economics, right? Its structure, that news corp, controls 114 brands, right? It's owned by a billion, it's owned by billionaires. Yeah, it's the most concentrated private media group, right? So no wonder why Sky News is um trying to protect its investor mates. You know, even Channel 9, right? That's 9 Entertainment.

SPEAKER_03 41:56

Owned by Peter Costello.

SPEAKER_01 41:57

Yep, 9's core audience includes business, finance, property readers, um, you know, the people that run this 7, for example. Um, 7 became part of a much larger commercial media conglomerate um just last year, right? So my point is here is there is conflict of interests. The reason they're against it is because they are the investors, they are the investor class, they are the people with the money, they own fucking trusts. It is going after these people, and as it should, because why should they have all this shit when it's there's a cost of living crisis and people can't afford to fucking eat? People can't afford rents, they can't afford to get into the housing market. Why should these slimy pricks own 50 houses when someone can't own one? I mean it's just common sense. So what they're doing is they're trying to gaslight the Australian public into thinking that this budget is unpopular. It is not unpopular whatsoever. They might say, well, look at it compared to previous budgets. Um, it is less popular than uh Hockey's 2014. It's less it's less popular than Keating's 93. One of the reasons why it's quote unquote the most unpopular budgets is because they don't fucking ask that polling question every single year. This is fact, right? They only ask it on controversial budgets, number one.

SPEAKER_03 43:07

Now, as well, let's look at the actual And people again, I don't think most people would actually remember the 2014. Exactly. And I'm sure there'd be absolutely fuck all people who know the night. I don't even I don't even know what's mostly within that budget, the Keating one.

SPEAKER_01 43:20

Well, the Keating one I don't know. I know it's a 2014. There were the no cuts to health, no cuts to education, the fucking weasels did it, right? Now, as well, we'll we'll get to the broken promise stuff in a minute. But so, you know, I was saying, you know, the media's distorting it. Um let's actually look at the polling for this stuff. Wolf wool uh this polling company, Wolf and Smith, right? Support for negative gearing changes. 41% support, 27% oppose, and 32% uh neutral and unsure. So much for budget disaster, right? Here's another one support for capital gains tax changes, support 38%, opposition 26%, neutral and unsure 35%, right? Let's actually look at then the polling um for. The the ALP and then Albanese specifically, right? So Labour has largely maintained their primary vote around 30%, right? Now they still lead in two party preferred against the LNP and One Nation in basically every recent poll. I think there was a weird one a few weeks ago from someone, but nothing has indicated that since, right? They'd win an election if an election was held. Absolutely, and they'd probably still win with a majority, right? Um and then, you know, everyone's talking about this resolve poll about, you know, Angus Taylor's up three points compared to Albanese in the um preferred PM. Well, look. Underthought it actually won that. Yeah, exactly, of course. But I mean, what we can look at, you know, everyone wants to talk about Resolve Poll. Well, sure, but let's also talk about News poll that came out on the same day, right? And Albanese still leads Angus by quite a large margin. It was like eight points, right? So once again, look, this whole idea that this budget's been a total disaster and it's making it harder for young people, they're myths propelled by big business, big corporations, all these billionaires, because they're trying to protect their investor mates, right? Do not believe them, right? They're gaslighting us. They're hoping that if they say it's bad and everyone hates it, everyone will end up hating it and say it's bad. Well, but that's that is straight gaslighting, right? People do support this, it does improve people's lives. We've gone through the reasons why. Um so yes.

SPEAKER_03 45:16

Well, I was gonna say as well, the people who are posting this on their um platforms or these businesses or these accountants, of course they're not gonna be happy. Or these um real estate agents. Yeah, real estate agents are probably the only people in the country who will genuinely be negatively affected by this. Yeah, 100%. Like by by the capital gains, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 45:37

I mean you could argue investors, but I would also say, well, hey, if you still want to build a fat investment property, go and invest in fucking new builds.

SPEAKER_03 45:42

That's right. You get what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_01 45:44

Like it's as simple as that.

SPEAKER_03 45:45

And um I find it funny. I thought I saw Janine Ellis, who owns Booth Chief, go on about have a tangent about it, and it was just like it's so out of touch as well.

SPEAKER_01 45:55

Like, I feel like people like that kind of have no credibility when they're talking about economics for working people and young people. You wouldn't fucking know anything. Number one, you're not young, and you're not a fucking working class battler, like you wouldn't know what it's like to try and buy a house.

SPEAKER_03 46:08

50% of the country sorry, 90% of the country are workers. Yeah. Right? This myth that every Australian like has a dream to set up a business and it's not the case, yeah. Well, yeah, it's just not the case, and it's just, you know, good luck to you, but like you shouldn't be getting subsidized from the government.

SPEAKER_01 46:29

You know, like in my opinion, no one should have two houses when someone doesn't have one. I don't think that's radical, right? Now, what we've done with this budget is we've even the playing field. Basically, we've we've fucked off them subsidies we were giving investors, so now if you want to buy a house, everyone's competing at the same level, right? That's good, great, fantastic. Yeah, in my opinion, though, I still don't understand why investors should have that same playing field as first-time buyers. I actually think it should be easier for first-time buyers and slightly harder for investors.

SPEAKER_03 47:01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 47:02

But I mean, obviously, you know, people would call that radical, etc. But my point is, is you know, right now we're at we're at a good balance um once these changes. Investors shouldn't exist. Well, that's what you're thinking about. Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm alluding to. Or no, you can still invest, but it should be harder for you to invest multiples when someone doesn't have one of something. Do you get what I'm saying? Yeah. Um, and as well, you know, looking here at the politics of it all, Angus Taylor, Pauline Hansen, they're kicking up a fuss, they're kicking up a stink. Um, you know, Angus Taylor, why is he against all of this? It's because he's linked to nine investment properties. Um, you know, he has two family trusts, shit tons of shareholdings. Pauline herself.

SPEAKER_03 47:41

Pauline hasn't even been doing any media. She's been sending Barnaby out when she does it. She she said she called it a shit sandwich. Did you see that?

SPEAKER_01 47:49

No, she called it a shit sandwich and she said it was a massive communist feast or some shit.

SPEAKER_03 47:53

Paul like I find these these one age people so funny in the sense that what is Pauline? We don't Pauline doesn't go out and do any of these things because she has no clue. Yeah. Pauline doesn't have a clue about any of this. I remember back on ABC.

SPEAKER_01 48:12

The second people find out about Pauline's economics, they're gonna absolutely hate it. Yeah. Right? Because she is not for all these working class people that support her. She is for big business, she's for people like Gina and her mates, right? So she herself has multiple investment properties, multiple shareholdings, etc. So, you know, as I all I'm saying, you know, if my overall summary, why are all these big, you know, business people, all these politicians, why are they against it? It's because they have conflicts of interests, they're investors, all their mates are investors, they want to keep that wealth, they want to control that wealth. And if they start spreading all the bullshit that this is bad for young people, they're just hoping young people buy it. It's all of your jobs to actually look at the facts, read the stuff, stay educated to make sure that these people don't gaslight you, don't gaslight the people around you um into thinking it's a bad thing. Because it is overwhelmingly a good thing, as we've gone through. Um, as well, just before we finish up as well, um was this a broken promise, yes or no?

SPEAKER_02 49:09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 49:09

Yeah, I I think it was a broken promise. I think it wasn't a lie though. Do you think it was a lie? Because, in my opinion, a lie infers that when Alba was asked these questions on the 25 campaign, a lie would infer he knew that they had plans to do it. For a fact, he did not know that they had plans to do it. This came about in November, um, where they had discussions about the next year's budget. Jim was tasked over the summer to draft stuff about different options for it. They did that. They then came back, they had an agreed upon thing, and then the fucking war broke out. I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_03 49:43

He did not know at that time that they're not. I'm not sure if I buy that completely in the sense that they're not. The fuck they didn't know it was going to win 94 seats. There was modelling that they had done before.

SPEAKER_01 49:50

Yeah, but do you know what? The Liberals and Greens said, the Liberals and Greens uh uh created a commission into uh the changes in the Senate or whatever, some Senate committee, they looked into it. Like, I mean, seriously, everyone's looking into this stuff. That's just modelling. Yeah, I my point is that he was gonna win 94 seats. You know, if we knew that, then maybe he thought, oh fuck, well, let's let's do shit. Because yeah, anyway, so you go.

SPEAKER_03 50:16

It can be a line of broken promise and still be good. It can. And I think that's what this is. Of course, it's not a lie though. It's actually not a lie. There is no way when Albert was asking. It depends what the questions were as well, though. I'm not sure I I can't tell if it doesn't have plans. I remember that.

SPEAKER_01 50:32

You can say the press conference where it's up in lie cart and they asked it and he flipped out. And I don't know how many times I have to say that.

SPEAKER_03 50:39

But then there was a debate on seven or whatever he said, nothing's on the I'm I'm just asking as a bit of a rhetorical. Did they say he had plans? Yeah, because technically that's not a lie. Yeah, if he says if he what I mean, or he could say if the question is very direct, are you going to do this in this term?

SPEAKER_01 50:58

Well, that's you know what as well though, like look, as I said, I strongly don't believe it was a lie. Um I do believe it was a broken promise. But I think you know, in the end of the day, like, look, we elect governments in three-year terms, right? If if governments can only act on their policy platform from the last election, that is not good governance. Do you get what I'm saying? In the sense that look, we live in uncertain times, wars are breaking out, we have a fuck within the presidency, we have fascists all over the world, right? Um, you need to be able to be flexible, you need to be prepared to change things up and do whatever you need in the moment. Um and well, I just think you know.

SPEAKER_03 51:35

No, and as well, this is what I think as well. I think that if he had taken it to an election, it would have been the biggest scare campaign, just like 2016, 2019 were built in the world. That's right. If you need to um sometimes you just gotta rip off the band-aid and you've got to do this stuff so people will go, oh, they're they're going all they're scared now, but at least we have the elections in two years. Exactly, right? You're exactly right. For the next for the next two years, they have will see that this isn't gonna the sky isn't gonna fall in.

SPEAKER_01 52:03

And they'll see in the next two budgets that they'll expand that uh wado tax offset as well. The next budget's gonna be a lot safer than this one, I can guarantee.

SPEAKER_03 52:12

Technically, it couldn't have been done. If poor Keating had taken native title to an election, he would have lost it. Can you imagine that? Right, yeah, because everyone would have thought the bucket my backyard's gonna be claimed by some aboriginal down the road. It's not like my no. But then they lived with people lived with that for two years, nothing there was no issues. Yeah, you know what I mean. No, you're right, yeah.

SPEAKER_01 52:31

Sometimes they need it in action before they're that's it's the whole idea of a free trial. You you know, you need to see what the policy like.

SPEAKER_03 52:39

I'm sure if the voice was put in before um there was a referendum, right? Which I understand is completely hypothetical and completely couldn't be done. Yeah, because could it be done? I'm sure people would vote for it eventually afterwards.

SPEAKER_01 52:55

Yeah, I think it would probably take more time than that. Um yeah, I think it would definitely I think they'd need probably more than two, three years. Yes. I I think people just need to try for five to ten years for yeah, because I still think that there'd be I still think that people would have issues with the fact that they're adding like another branch of government, if that makes sense. You get what I'm like I know, but it would be easier. Yes, I agree. I think it would be easier for the yes campaign. 100% I agree with that.

SPEAKER_03 53:21

I think um and I'm not even sure if CGT discounts by John Howard. I'm not even sure if those were taken to an election. I can't couldn't tell you. I can't remember. I don't think it was.

SPEAKER_01 53:31

Uh well that there was it was the 98 election, and didn't they make these changes in 99? So maybe it was because that was the tax reform election. That that was see, that was the GST, right? Um, and even then, like, look, we can talk about G this is we're really going in a hack mode here, right? Like, look, personally, you know, it's a regressive tax, I prefer progressive taxes, right? But the GST's done exactly what it's supposed to do, right? It's arisen all that revenue. Um, not not in an ethical way at all, but fuck it. I mean, it was designed to do that and it's done that. Um, my point is though, is John Howard, I mean, he won a fucking landslide in 96, and that was shaved down by Kim Beasley in 98, and that was because of that capital gains tax, which is what we were talking about, in the sense that if you brought all this stuff to elections, you open up scare campaigns and then you take a hit for it.

SPEAKER_03 54:16

Because like I Australians are very multi-com multi-um complex people. Multi-complexed in a lot of way. I think in a lot of way they have a lot of common sense, but in a lot of ways, they have common sense, but they they're also very gullible in Australia.

SPEAKER_01 54:34

Yes, they're cautious, yes. And I mean, can you blame them? Like, I mean this this is important stuff. Like, you know, you're supposed to be cautious. But they're very yeah, weary. I think weary is probably the better word. Yes. Because cautious, you know, is fair, but weary is a big thing.

SPEAKER_03 54:46

And I I and I think this because it no matter what we think, there is a perception that Albanese more than ever broke a promise. I think it was 86% said he broke a promise. And I there that there is a perception that he is more of a liar now. Yes, and I think sorry, yeah, no, no, no, you're not. And I think because of that, in a way, that might um systemically um make people more weary of the government. And d do I really believe what the government's like.

SPEAKER_01 55:14

In the sense that you you open you kind of open that door where you're questioning, you know, yeah, the integrity of the government. Because I guess with the tax conditions, yes.

SPEAKER_03 55:22

Right, stage three tax cuts were a kind of big thing in the last term, right? And but I think a lot of Australians thought, you know what, this was before COVID and that this was gonna happen. Things have changed very much since then.

SPEAKER_04 55:34

Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 55:35

And, you know, it's the right thing to do. Everyone still benefits, everyone's still got a tax cut, even the rich got a tax cut, which I think shouldn't have happened, but you know, the people who were on the lower end actually got a tax cut who would have got which would have gone to the rich.

SPEAKER_01 55:47

It's all about winning the argument, right? They won the argument with the stage three. I am concerned that they're not gonna win the argument, and right now I don't think they are winning the argument with this, right? Which is why I've been very animated in in you know, explaining this and calling us out and exposing the bias and all the people, you know, the hate media and shit. You know, so um, yeah, you need to win that argument, but as well, I like the fact that, you know, I mean they're not using the words broken promise because they don't want to be clipped in an ad, but they're using the words change of view. I like that they're being upfront about that because I think what people want above all else is they want conviction politics, right? In the sense that I think they're okay with people breaking promises if they believe that's in their best interest, which is why the messaging's important. But as well, I think I admire the fact that they have been upfront and just said, yeah, we have changed our view on this, because you know, in the 2014 budget, Tony Abbott tried to gaslight PK and claim that you know there were no cuts to health or education. When I mean there were fucking cuts written all over that budget. So I like that, and I also think that the budget generally and these measures addressing intergenerational inequality and stuff like that, I mean this is really broad, but it also stems the rise and will in future stem the rise of populism in Australia because we are actively um now assisting working class people, so they do feel, and this is like what we were talking about last week with euphoria and capitalism. Now people can feel like they have a stake in the economy because they can get into their first home as yeah. Do you get what I'm saying? We're giving people incentive to be part of a mainstream Australia and have that Australian dream. It's about people won't feel as disenfranchised, meaning they won't be voting as far right or even as far left as they have been. Do you get what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_03 57:30

Yeah, it's tackling structural inequality. As I said, it's going back to the is the Australian dream really about um negatively gearing your seventh house, or is it about purchasing your first? Yep. And for too long in this country it's been about um the first one. Yep.

SPEAKER_01 57:47

Well, I think we've basically covered pretty much everything at the budget. Uh we definitely had a lot to say. Go on to Angus Taylor, Angus Taylor's budget reply speech. Oh fuck, we haven't even spoken about that. Oh my god, we actually do. You know what? You heat to save that whole thing. We're gonna go over an hour of the dark. Seriously. So oh my god. Seriously, that budget reply was an absolute shocker. Do you do you want to how about you take it away? I might cut you off and go on the back.

SPEAKER_03 58:15

So the budget reply is the opposition leader in like the Liberal Party, Angus Taylor's response, like their vision of what the budget should be. Yeah. And their vision was pretty much a fucking dystopian for as far as it goes, and just full of li it was just full of lies as well. Like, okay, essentially the big picture thing is apart from health and education, non-citizens shouldn't be eligible for any form of welfare or anything like fruit like free in this country, right? Even though, and he said it in there, they that they don't pay tax or some shit. They pay tax. Like it's just the fact I've never seen someone just blatantly lie about.

SPEAKER_01 58:51

And then it I mean it raises it it's not ethical, it's not moral that you know people are paying for them services. It's racist. No, but even then, but I I'm just talking about it, you know, in an objective fact, without putting labels on it. It is racist, right? But you know, it's not ethical, it's not moral. Is it even like constitutional that people are paying these yet they can't access these services? Yeah, like surely this shit's gonna go to the high court. Yeah. I actually I sent you a video on TikTok the other day. There was a a girl um who came over, you know, when they had the whole stop the boats thing under Kevin Rudd, and they basically put through some policy that said that if they enter the country they can't ever become Australian citizens, and um basically every six months they have to apply for a new refugee visa. Right. She's grown up in Australia all her life, she was one or two, she's like our age now, right? Yeah, she's never gonna become an Australian citizen. So this girl who has, you know, and she's extremely, you know, she's done high school, she's in uni. This girl who's been Australian all her life, uh just as Australian as we all are, she's not gonna have access to shit like that. Well, yeah, I know, because And I mean that's obviously a niche case, guys.

SPEAKER_03 59:57

Like I'm I mean I'm talking about very well that asked what do you think the definition of being what an Australian is, he said of being a citizen. I don't think that's the case. People who have been people who have been born here, right, who have left, like people who were born here who are leaving, do you think they're more Australian than someone who's been here for 20 years but hasn't been gone to citizenship? Because when you look, especially this really um negatively affects Chinese and Indian people because those governments don't allow dual citizenship. Yeah, so if you if you're not so if you if this policy was to come into action, those people would be forced to either leave or um be forced to be take become citizenship.

SPEAKER_01 1:00:40

And I think that would playing playing devil's advocate. I'm sure all these you know people that support Angus and you know, all them on the right, they'd probably say, Well, good, you know, you should uh you know if you move to Australia, you should choose Australia above everything else, etc. But I agree with you in the sense that that makes it really hard for them to travel back to their country, access services in their country and they're visiting family. I mean, it's it just doesn't make sense. Chinese and Indian migrants are overwhelmingly skilled migrants who are feeling shortages in the country. We had this discussion with um with an Uber driver. I was saying, and I've done research into this, right? Um he's getting fucking shit tons of phone calls. Don't worry, we'll wrap it up in a sec. Um, because we've gone way over time. So basically, um uh, you know, yeah, migrants make up a large chunk of our skilled labor force. Migrants are employed at a higher rate than Australians are. They have a higher employment rate than Australians do in their respective groups, right? They make up like 16% of the workforce. Like we need, we need immigrants. Oh, yeah, you know. These are the people performing services, etc. Like, you know, you you won't have an economy without immigrants.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:41

We have an immigration distribution problem, I believe, not an actual number.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:46

Yes, in the sense that they shouldn't all everyone should not be focused in s in necessarily Sydney or Melbourne. They should move to different cities and different cities. And there should be incentives.

SPEAKER_03 1:01:54

Like, I don't think people should be forced out there after the other.

SPEAKER_01 1:01:56

No, of course, you need job opportunities, you need to build up that infrastructure. And there are, but that's not even an immigration distribution, that's just population distribution generally. That's right. I agree with you. Um, and as well, look, so then moving on from that as well, he also wants to tie um he wants to tie uh immigration rate to the housing, which is very vague because it's like what are you doing the average amount of people that live in one household? Like, do you get what I'm saying? Because not one person lives in one house. Yeah, I was thinking that actually when it's and what's gonna happen is the idea of what's a house, I mean, they're gonna walk down the street, oh that cardboard box, that's a house. They can basically chop and change what their definition of a house is based on how many people they want to let in. Yeah, this stuff is so broad, and then here's stuff with bracket creep, um, all this stuff, all the actual economics behind it that isn't just immigration. None of this stuff's costed. So look, you know, and starting to wrap this up, we have a deeply unserious plan um that is basically uh pointing to immigration as you know the issue of everything, right? Which is just not the case. There's many issues. Yeah.

SPEAKER_03 1:02:57

Why didn't house prices fall during COVID? Exactly, because immigration was down. You're right, it was actually net migration was negative. More people were leaving than coming in.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:05

Yep, exactly. Um so we have a deeply unserious plan uh that wants to target you know immigrants and all of that and beat down on people instead of lifting people up. Um and then we have a budget that is actually doing the hard things that aren't always going to be a hundred percent popular, but doing the things that help first home buyers and help people actually have a stake in the country. Um so I think yeah, that's our massive budget rant and our budget coverage. There we go. I'm not sure how many people are still here. Seriously, like if anyone is fucking still listening to this, like message us and you'll get a reward or some shit. Like, seriously, like it's in impressive if you listen to this point.

SPEAKER_03 1:03:42

Alright, well, thanks for listening, everyone. We'll be back in a fortnight. Yes, spewing god knows what propaganda then.

SPEAKER_01 1:03:49

He hee. Yep.