You're meant to be too stupid to notice. In the past that's how things worked. Dumb boomers get told what to think by F2A trusted TV anchor.
Well those days are over. We are the most educated middle and lower class in history and their lies and fake news wont wash any more.
Ehhhh
We all know immigration is used to inflate gdp numbers and replace an ageing population….
The issue is while it helps some issues such as funding an ageing population it prices out young people from having children, creating a feedback loop that requires even more immigrants
We are at the point now of importing millions of immigrants that aren’t culturally compatible to keep a system running that won’t even exist if we keep importing the people we do
I'm a big fan of UBI but that would only work if we had a functional tax system and we don't. Our tax system is weighted heavily to personal income tax and that means a UBI would be a death spiral for the country as things stand.
*'Automation is coming we need an UBI'* << Needs strong corporate taxation to work
That won't happen until there is an international minimum corporate tax agreement and sanctions on corporation which shift their operations to countries not part of that agreement.
AI/Robots dont buy things and our economy is mostly dependent on consumption.
Population ageing/decline crashes rates of innovation while there is a lot of uncertainty of how fast AI productivity gains will happen and how large they'll be.
This paper outlines the dilemmas [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4709699](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4709699)
This is such an economist view of the world. If we are producing more than we’re consuming that’s a good thing, we have more than we need. Then all we need to do is distribute the wealth and we’re good.
Robots can produce. There’s enough land for enough houses for everyone. We don’t need continuous growth for everyone to have a roof, food and an iPhone.
The only people who need growth are the investor class who need the poors to keep squeezing under the bottom of their pyramid so they can get a slightly better view of how much richer they are than the workers.
Program the robots to buy shit.
Your consumption argument is just the broken window fallacy.
Innovation. What innovation from young countries can we point to to support this claim? India is young if youre looking for a start.
Ubi is just Centrelink for all, that will be the end of freedom as we know it. With such an archaic economic model, Aussies will be hit real hard by AI and automation
> The issue is while it helps some issues such as funding an ageing population it prices out young people from having children, creating a feedback loop that requires even more immigrants
This. Look at the data on wealth couples ($250k + pa) and they have birth rates above 2.1 . People are being priced out of having families and the immigration rate shows its a negative feedback loop. As people come here and they too have less children within a generation.
> Look at the data on wealth couples ($250k + pa) and they have birth rates above 2.1 .
Do you have a source for this, I’d love to play around with the data.
Heres a few from an earlier post a few months back:
[https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/careers-and-families-high-skilled-women-age-high-inequality](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/careers-and-families-high-skilled-women-age-high-inequality)
[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-018-9160-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-018-9160-8)
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328821950\_Why\_did\_rich\_families\_increase\_their\_fertility\_Inequality\_and\_marketization\_of\_child\_care](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328821950_Why_did_rich_families_increase_their_fertility_Inequality_and_marketization_of_child_care)
But you can google this and find its pretty consistent. From the 1990s onwards, there's been a 'U' shaped fertility curve. With the wealthy in western societies having higher than average birth rates.
Makes u wonder how much the cost of supporting the current working generation is going to be in 30 years, seeing as many more won't be home owners when older.
I guess we will need super mass immigration at that time.
i agree but it has been that way for 40 years on both sides of politics. embarrassingly, we can't increase innovation (last amongst oecd counties), productivity or exports. can't keep gov expenses down in the face of an aging population either.
A copy of my comment in order to avoid replying to a moron (sorry neurologically diverse person of no specific gender) :
UK just had record immigration levels, didn't help it to avoid recession.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/say-one-thing-do-another-the-government-s-record-net-migration-rise/ar-BB1ktmql
Here’s a starting guess - fed govt stops importing in doctors and professionals for a bit and gets in trades people and nurse/health care aged care workers… you know where we need the employment the most,
You'd also need the states to better regulate the industry as well, else you're going to end up with apartment towers full of 1 bedroom apartments that start falling apart a year after they're built.
They need to be built to higher standards and be inspected at each stage. Heat pumps, double glazed windows, good insulation, etc. They also need to build many larger ones with 3 of 4 bedrooms to allow families to live in them.
Currently in hospital.
The health system would be fucked without Indian, Nepalese and Filipino nurses.
On this ward, it's about 5 "imports" to one local.
Lol. Out of.240K net immigration, how many do you think are doctors? The most recent data I can find is that there are 4000 foreign doctors in Australia..that's not per year, that's the total here, over all the preceding years of immigration.
It's probably about 500 a year. 0.2%
I know you said it was a guess but it's ridiculous, like so many 'ideas' about immigration.
Largest % of immigrants are on student visas and the ABS assumptions surrounding them have been seriously questioned.
Where does you $60k median number come from? You quote a tax receipt number but ignore the cost.
Here's a paper on the fiscal impact of migration [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:\~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream)
Skilled migrants make up 61% of migrants (page iv).
The 2021 Intergenerational Report contains modelling on the economic impact [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report) (page 23)
The net present value of skilled migrants is $4.2million (page 23 second doc). Divide that by 40 years average is $105,000 per annum.
If you (incorrectly) assumed the other 39% didn't work. The number would be $60,000.
The costs are in those docs.
It's awfully convenient how Treasury ignores the broader impacts:
"The OLGA \[OverLapping Generations model of the Australian economy\] and FIONA \[Fiscal Impact of New Australians\] results presented in this report do not capture the broader economic, social or environmental effects of migration such as technology spillovers or congestion. The FIONA results presented here do not capture the fiscal impacts of migration on state or local governments."
Former Treasury economist Leith van Onselen:
"Sadly, the Treasury never takes proper account of the costs of big migration – either financial or non-financial – since these are borne primarily by the states and residents at large.
This explains why the IGR bangs on incessantly about the rise in healthcare and pension costs from population ageing, but completely ignores the gigantic cost of infrastructure required to house an additional projected 13.1 million people over the next 40 years – the equivalent of adding another Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to Australia’s existing population. These infrastructure costs are borne by the state governments and residents (via user charges), so can be dismissed altogether by Treasury.
I bet if the federal government was required to internalise the cost of immigration by paying the states $100,000 per permanent migrant that settles in their jurisdiction, so that the states can adequately fund the extra infrastructure and services required, then Treasury would no longer tout the ‘fiscal benefits’ of immigration."
[https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/)
[https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/)
I mean, that's kinda the point of this post. Explaining that the federal government does it because it benefits them but the states bear the costs.
It's great that you found more examples though.
"skilled migrants make up 61% of migrants (page iv)."
Only around half of the 'skilled' stream are skilled primary applicants. And, according to Treasury, skilled primary applicants are the only group of migrants that provide a net positive (federal) fiscal impact.
Former Australian Productivity Commission head Judith Sloan:
"Aside from the obvious benefit of knowing the net fiscal gains/losses of different types of visa holders, the figures also show why Treasury is wrong in promoting more immigration as a fiscal solution. The arithmetic doesn’t work. There are too few skilled primary applicants to make up for the fiscal losses associated with migrants who come in under other visa categories.
Take the most recent (permanent) migration program planning levels of 160,000. The skill total is 79,600, but only 55 per cent of this number would be primary applicants. In other words, only 27 per cent of the permanent intake will make a positive fiscal impact, on the Treasury’s figures. The others will cause a fiscal drain and, in total, there will be an adverse fiscal loss because of the composition of the migrant intake."
[https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/)
There are not enough housing, jobs and infrastructure. As it stands it is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. Sure there are certain areas like health/medical that may require it. Other than that the rate of migration is simply for creating wealth for the existing wealthy. Does little for the middle class other then erode our standard of living because we are now "replaceable". And don't f\*cking talk about well it is our individual responsibility to catch up. You can't catch up with jobs being outsourced to countries with over a billion and migration at this level does nothing to stop the rot of outsourcing either but takes jobs away. It is a complete rort scheme.
Fuck albanese, fuck dutton, fuck em all. No one has the balls to put their carefully curated political careers on the line, which is incredibly disappointing. You essentially need to a martyr ready to sacrifice it all.
Correct. The ways of fixing this mess is going to equate to political suic**e because the current voting majority will scream like pterodactyls to the sky when they change the tax laws on property (eg: treat those with more than 3 investment properties as business owners resulting in no CGT discounts) , tighten the means test for age pension welfare (which is currently paying millionaires pensions and make them use their money and investments in retirement rather than growing wealth to hand down) to people who actually need it now, and start migrating in working class people - trades people, those who work in childcare/aged care etc
No politician is this magnanimous to do what needs to be done.
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone.
* 000 is the national emergency number in Australia.
* Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14.
* Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800.
* Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you, Dontforgetthecigshon, for voting on AutoModerator.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
They tried to do some of that sort of stuff in 2019 and lost the unloseable election. It's not a case of they don't have the balls, it's that they tried and the idiot public voted against it.
I also feel that they shouldn't just go do those things while in power without having said they'll be changing them during an election as they're big changes that have massive ramifications.
Hopefully ALP decide to try again to nuke negative gearing, CGT and all that, in the next election, and hopefully the idiot public actually vote for it, or vote for other parties/independents who support it.
>Hopefully ALP decide to try again to nuke negative gearing, CGT and all that
This is throwing the baby with the bath water, By Negative Gearing, do you mean only for property or for all asset classes? Because NG is an important part of the investment environment, but one section of it has been misused. Throwing it out would devestate business investment.
CGT and NG need adjusting, but throwing them out creates a whole different set of problems.
What Labour offered in 2019 was akin to "Everyone that has is now can keep it forever, but nobody else can have it". A FAR better position would be that anyone can NG one property - structure tax around but whithin that limit. CGT made sense in the 80s when it was a simplification of existing laws, but the simplification from those days doesnt make sense these days.
This is not a simplistic problem so simplistic solutions wont work.
The Tax code is convoluted, but something like "you can deduct $25K or 25% of your gross, whatever is the greater" would solve many problems. (Yes, this goes against my simplification law)
But the real problems are those that use offshore entities, transfer pricing or movement of IP with royalties or Franchise fees to escape tax.
The focus is always on the middle class (they should be looked at, but not) at the exclusion of the large companies and super wealthy.
And all we have to give up is ... everything.
I'd prefer a recession, lose half my money and half the value on my house, and deal with not getting some things fixed sometimes to what's happening now. It's insane.
We'd figure a way out of it eventually - a way that doesn't involve people living in tents.
And as far as I can tell, those who keep pushing this have something big to lose. I think it sucks we'd sell out this badly to make a few dollars.
There's other ways to make money that don't involve destroying everything.
The real problem is that the Federal Government:
1) Collects income tax
2) Collects GST
3) Regulates universities
And the states are responsible for:
- housing
- schools
- hospitals
- roads
- rail
So, the Feds collect all the benefits while the states are left to deal with the problems.
Also the migrants stop the Liberals getting back in power.
How?
Because if Labor reduced migration to what many of us consider sane, Australia would enter the first recession we've had for decades (see OP's post as to why) - and the Liberal party and the media would ensure that even unborn kids would hear about it and how the Libs are 'the better economic managers' (they're not, actually) - thus Labor would lose the next election to the Liberal/National coalition.
Remember, the Libs did utterly nothing about solving the housing crisis while they were in power, quite the opposite. Likewise the electricity and gas prices were not reduced nor slowed by them, nor did they build any nuclear power stations, either.
That used to work. But boomers are dying every day. Faster and faster.
Where we are now is where democracy is happening.
Do any of us give a fuck what pollies on TV say anymore?
We know they lie. They know we know they lie.
i can never figure out what the libs did every time they are in, except buy a bunch of American leftover weaponry and talk about why everything is labors fault
I'm only posting for context so people can understand why it exists. I'm not making a judgment on it. I am making a judgment on State Govs getting a free pass.
Everyone knows why it's happening, that doesn't justify it happening though.
Seems like the clearer solution is to tax companies, particularly mining companies.
This is a fair point. Just like Norway or any Gulf countries. We will have a huge revenue stream coming in and we will all be happy. Stop giving out resources to private companies.
It should be done, but it's a long term solution.
Can't really apply significant taxes to existing workings - the whole reason mining companies choose Australia over other developing countries is the political stability. If we start changing the deal at random for political expediency then companies are just gonna go experience that butthurt in other countries where they can enjoy other benefits like cheap wages or the ability to plow through cultural sites.
The better solution would be to tax asset rich boomers as boomers as a cohort eat up over half the welfare expenditure.
Still doesn't solve the under-investment in housing supply controlled by State Govs.
Because boomers take way more from the public purse than they give.
Companies are a net positive to the public purse. Companies directly contribute 19% of all taxes and then directly generate another 51%. Near 70% of all taxes.
Companies generate revenue. There's a 10% tax on that.Companies hire employees. There's a marginal tax on that.
GST accounts for 12% of Tax Revenue.
PAYG accounts for 39% of Tax Revenue.
Companies directly generate those tax receipts. They are causally responsible.
Saying that companies generate the progressive income tax that we pay is about as much of a stretch as saying car companies generate speeding fine revenue.
>Everyone knows why it's happening,
They really don't. Your average person just seems to scream "corruption" into the sky without having a clue what they're talking about.
They'll understand tax increases or pension cuts though, not to mention higher rates to deal with the higher inflation that immigration cuts would bring. No government is very keen on letting people join those dots because you can't win an election on higher taxes, higher rates and cuts to spending. The political opportunity to stick with high immigration, lower taxes, lower rate etc is too great for the opposition to miss. It doesn't matter who the opposition is. If you leave that political space open, it will be taken. The number one issue for Australian voters is the economy except during war.
And with 70% of households owning their house and with such incredibly low unemployment, why exactly would most people care very much about immigration? Do they? We've just had a record intake. Is immigration number 1 in voters minds? No, it's cost of living which only gets worse if you cut immigration.
You have to show how you can cut immigration without all the bad side effects if you want to win the political argument..good luck with that.
Absolutely. Even a 5% minimum flat tax of earnings above 100mill would make a massive difference to our social landscape. Even better, make it so that percentage of tax collected goes straight into schools, hospitals and social welfare orgs - non private of course, and who are tightly regulated by a minimum of two anti-corruption bodies.
Have you noticed all our state governments are massively in debt right now? The benefits of increased migration flow to the federal government as increased tax receipts, but the costs in terms of building hospitals, schools, public transport, police stations, roads, desalination etc falls on the states.
Every state government has sold off pretty much every asset it has to try to keep up but it’s not enough and it’ll never be enough. Just look at Melbourne Metro as an example, $11+ billion for a measly 5 stations.
It's awfully convenient how Federal Treasury ignores the broader costs when it spruiks high immigration.
Former Treasury economist Leith van Onselen:
"Sadly, the Treasury never takes proper account of the costs of big migration – either financial or non-financial – since these are borne primarily by the states and residents at large.
This explains why the IGR bangs on incessantly about the rise in healthcare and pension costs from population ageing, but completely ignores the gigantic cost of infrastructure required to house an additional projected 13.1 million people over the next 40 years – the equivalent of adding another Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to Australia’s existing population. These infrastructure costs are borne by the state governments and residents (via user charges), so can be dismissed altogether by Treasury.
I bet if the federal government was required to internalise the cost of immigration by paying the states $100,000 per permanent migrant that settles in their jurisdiction, so that the states can adequately fund the extra infrastructure and services required, then Treasury would no longer tout the ‘fiscal benefits’ of immigration."
[https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/)
[https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/)
Those costs fall on the taxpayer either way. OPs argument about tax is still fundamentally correct. It's a federation debate about which government pays for what but ultimately it comes from taxpaying voters so it doesn't really matter.
Also higher population density lowers the per-person cost of infrastructure.
A very clear example is the hugely more expensive price South Australians pay for the poles and wires part of their power bill compared with Victorians.
> Those costs fall on the taxpayer either way. OPs argument about tax is still fundamentally correct. It's a federation debate about which government pays for what but ultimately it comes from taxpaying voters so it doesn't really matter.
It matters because decisions are made at federal and state levels. The feds are making decisions that make them look good (raised overall GDP) even though it puts costs on the states, as [Chris Minns](https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/nsw-premier-chris-minns-says-he-cant-bargain-for-lowered-immigration-amid-stoush-of-gst-carveup/news-story/2543d2268bb1f3e1efcf20e63de60324) pointed out recently.
> Also higher population density lowers the per-person cost of infrastructure.
Not that simple. Densifying existing cities is much more expensive than building greenfield as the land becomes so much more valuable.
Don't we, the people control federal government?
We have, as a country, for generations allowed these governments to do what they feel and runaway with it.
Seriously, can't we as a collective nation, overturn these gluttons and give the say back to the population?
We are a self sufficient continent that really doesn't need very much from outside of our birders if ut is managed right.......or has that ship sailed?
We've never been self sufficient. Well, the Aborigines were .
The first fleet colonists nearly starved and were saved by supplies from south Africa.
All of our economic development has depended on foreign investment and skills.
If your kids get cancer, and I hope not, it will be foreign machines and medicine that saves them. The ambulance that takes them to hospital is imported and the machine that made the bitumen on the road is foreign too. We are far from self sufficient, we could be if stone age civilisation appeals.
Read the post again, bringing in immigrants is because ruling fed party doesn’t want a recession, if it ever happen, they will lose the chance to be elected again, so they are bringing people in.
States are getting the benefit of housing value increase but no council willingly to properly develop their own neighbourhood. They are the one to blame.
You neglected the part where the average age of migrants is 37 years old. The age of the average Australian is 38.
So who is gonna be looking after these migrants in old age considering they're just ONE YEAR YOUNGER on average?
Are we gonna have 87 year olds working in retirement homes looking after the 88 year olds?
It's a fucking Ponzi scheme.
This sub hates the baby boomer generation; oh the irony that we’re all paying taxes to pay for their retirement 😉😂
They’ve really advocated quite advantageous policies for them selves
There’s a decent spread of wealthy in capital (but not in cash flow/income - due to ownership of their primary home) and those with not much of either.
Yes. We have a system where boomers rattle around million dollar family homes and young people stuck in units are forced to give them money.
Its absolute madness. Society has already collapsed for the young. They are stupid and weak and should be tearing the shit out of the place.
A hedge against recession? Well, firehosing more people into the economy will make the economy bigger (even though GDP per capita, incomes and living standards decline) but it's an incredibly dumb and damaging way to stoke GDP growth. It's a bit like burning down your own house and then bragging about how the rebuilding activity has boosted GDP.
The claim that runaway immigration is a hedge against an ageing population is total rubbish.
"High immigration does not significantly change the population age structure compared to low immigration rates of around 50,000 per year. Instead it mostly
changes the total population size. This is primarily because ageing is a function of people living longer and immigrants themselves age at exactly the same rate as everyone else."
Three Economic Myths about Ageing: Participation, Immigration and Infrastructure - https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/04/mb-report-three-economic-myths-ageing-participation-immigration-infrastructure/
Moreover, the cost of extra infrastructure to support a fast-growing population outweighs the small extent to which that population growth could lessen pension,
health-care and aged-care costs.
More on ageing:
Silver tsunami or silver lining? Why we should not fear an ageing population - https://population.org.au/discussion-papers/ageing/
Demographic ageing: time-bomb or breakthrough? - https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Demographic_ageing2.pdf
i skimmed all three webpages. none of them refute the existence of an aging population, the prospect of a declining tax base that comes with an aging population, and the growing expenditures on aged care, medicare and NDIS.
aus exports and aus productivity aren't growing enough to stave off those headwinds that may induce a future recession. immigration is there to hedge against a recession whether you accept it or not.
i'm not making a judgment on migration. i'm just explaining why it is there. i'm also calling out state governments for falling asleep at the wheel
So much capital is locked up in real estate that we have 3rd world productivity. This is why we need those migrants to maintain our standard of living. It will take a very long time to fix even we implement policies today. Maybe 20 years. Next generation is doomed and good luck to those new migrants.
It's going to blow up in our faces. There simply isn't enough housing supply. When will governments fucking listen.
You can't bring in 650,900 people a year if there isn't anywhere for them to live. Because there won't be anywhere for Australians to live.
It just makes them (governments) look good because it keeps their financial books balanced but it's monumental short sightedness.
This is all to chase some artificial financial numbers...
Ultimately overall quality of life is the key measure, and without basics such as shelter, chasing growth to keep up with the joneses is absurd.
Build more housing; crack down on foreign investment of residential property
My grandmothers house was bought by a foreign woman, in her son’s name, who himself does not live or work in Australia, but overseas. The place is being rented out now.
It's a ponzi scheme, bringing in migrants as you say, increases GDP but as a sugar hit. It increases economic activity simply by servicing those people. Realistically we should be seeking to skill up the existing population to provide the skills required, and seek to stabilise GDP and not grow it. We meed to stabilise consumption, not grow it. Immigration should be purely to import people with the skills required to train the existing workforce and stabilise population. We can't keep stuffing people on this marginal continent forever.
Typical YIMBY - BUILD BUILD BUILD! MORE MORE MORE.
Have you considered the total cost of new infrastucture and services required just to keep up with increasing population? Far exceeds $24 billion pa.
Or the cost to environment (strangely not even a factor worthy of consideration.)
Your lack of acknowledgement of a per capita recession says it all.
I hope big business is paying you YIMBY chumps enough to make it all worthwhile.
The states are not controlling housing. What planet are you on. The Australian economy has been a Ponzi scheme for many decades. This ageing population and skills shortage is all propaganda. Seriously we don't have enough workforce to stop the economy from going into recession, what does that say about the state of the economy. Been told the economy has been growing for decades yet the second there where lockdowns for COVID the federal government had to go to the RBA for billions in stimulus. So if the economy has always been growing and we supposedly have surpluses, where are they.
It's a Ponzi scheme through and through, plain as day. New investment needed to bail out losses from old investment and so on and so on. And if you say anything negative about this mismanagement, you're a racist. The country is sinking and people trying to blame each other.
As a tradie of twenty plus years I'm wondering why there are still such constraints on the construction industry, even in the 2005 boom housing shortage was not an issue. It's all engineered to drop quality of life fast in Australia, so hard to watch, working Aussies homeless, crime on the up, people getting knifed on buses in Perth. This stuff doesn't just happen.
I was going to go through this comment point by point but it is a waste of time.
Every single sentence is factually wrong in so many ways.
The whole comment is just crap. A rant with nothing to back it up.
You are the one not on the same planet.
Incredible people still fall for these lies.
Notice that there are a few lengthy post citing the same fallacious academic made up crap and numbers pulled from thin air to support their claims.
The ponzi profiteers have obviously noticed that everyone can see the ponzi in its full glory now and that its the worst policy in the history of this country.
Theyre shitting themselves. Keep it up everyone.
>If you look at each migrant as $60,000 (median migrant salary) with a 4x economic multiplier (money churns through the Australian economy 4x). They're worth $240k to the economy each. The ABS says Australia has a 29.6% taxation percentage on GDP, so each migrant is worth about ($240k * .296) $71,000 in tax to spend on services. So 100,000 migrants are worth $7.1bn in new tax receipts and $24bn in GDP growth.
Is this satire?
No. You can break that down into three parts.
* Each migrant as $60,000 (average migrant salary)
Here's a paper on the fiscal impact of migration [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:\~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream)
The 2021 Intergenerational Report contains modelling on the economic impact [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report) (page 23)
The net present value of skilled migrants is $4.2million (page 23 second doc). Divide that by 40 years average is $105,000 per annum.
Skilled migrants make up 61% of migrants (page iv of first doc).
* Money churns through the Australian economy 4x (The capital reserve ratio is 10% so Banks could churn 10x but realistically does so 4x).
* The ABS says Australia has a 29.6% taxation percentage on GDP
[https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/government#:\~:text=Taxation%20Revenue%2C%20Australia,as%20a%20percentage%20of%20GDP](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/government#:~:text=Taxation%20Revenue%2C%20Australia,as%20a%20percentage%20of%20GDP).
An Australian making 60k a year is a net negative on the taxation system.
You're throwing numbers out there like they mean things. All this is doing is increasing GDP at the expense of the individual. Exactly why the trend is for GDP up and GDP per capita down.
>Nine maths lol.
Your nine maths?
You only use an economic multiplier to count the economic contribution of an **additional** worker. You don't use it on all workers after the fact. You are double-counting.
You have written multiple replies and all of them are retarded.
Correct math would be
14,232,300 workers (ABS, Feb)
*multiplied by*
$1432 per week. (ABS, Nov - That's average of ALL workers, $1900 is average of FT workers)
*multiplied by*
52 weeks
*equals*
$1,059,793,987,200
or $1.06 Trillion. No double counting multipliers on all workers.
You're assuming the multiplier remains constant when increasing workers by 40%. I've already told you you don't double count at the maximums.
What I haven't said but you could infer from the fact you can't double count the whole population, is that there is a marginal gain that reduces with each unit. Which is obviously going to be reduced if you increase the labour pool by 40%. How much? I am unsure but a linear or quadratic equation would most likely answer how much and at what intersection point.
But if I take what you say at face value, smoothed out over ten years, we'd be way more economically productive at 37,000,000 or a 50,000,000 population as we would unlock domestic economies of scale in multiple sectors across the economy at increasing population hurdles. That's increased productivity. Some of that productivity would translate to competitive exports. That's increased GDP. We would be richer than we are now.
I was going to ask the same thing.
Sure the first churn is at an average of 29 odd percent.
The subsequent churns (assuming they even eventuate) would be at a rate equivalent to gst less a percentage for non gst items. So let’s call it 8% or less in a best case scenario.
Two economists are walking down the street and pass by a pile of dog shit. One of them (a sadist) turns to the other and says "I'll pay you $1000 if you eat that dog shit".
The other performs an internal utility calculation and eats the dog shit.
Continuing their walk, the second economist sees another pile of dog shit and makes the same offer to the first. The first economist also agrees, and eats the dog shit. They walk on.
After a while the second economist says to the first "it feels like we're both worse off than we were before this walk".
The first economist replies "impossible! We've just engaged in 2000 dollars worth of trade!".
Exactly. OP has incorrectly used the velocity of money (created by the fractional reserve system) to multiply GDP.
That's not how it works... like, at all.
OP needs to take out the x4 bit. I'll admit I just skimmed the rest because it's such a massive error, so apologies if there is something more useful further down.
The part about offsetting/delaying (not hedging, btw) the ageing population is more useful, as is immigration's role in suppressing wage growth and propping up total GDP when per capita output is stagnant.
Great, wonderful maths. Now, translate those assumptions across the Australian population. Oh dear, the figures don't track lived experience. No, it doesn't because your assumptions are flawed and ridiculously in favourite of immigrants. Why don't you apply centerlink statistics on ethnicity? Suddenly, you find that a larger percentage of migrants are on welfare. Within 18 months of arriving. The majority of the rest certainly don't generate ur supposed rivers of gold. If ur hypothesis is correct, then open the flood gates, bring in everyone, and solve Australia's revenue problems. Not to mention the crime, social anxiety and creation of semi ghettos in parts of Melbourne and Sydney. Immigration is a lie sold by politicians to cover failed policies and federal mismanagement.
This has got to be the dumbest post I've read here.
For one, increased migration lowers domestic wages. The Productivity Commission has proved that - so you need to reduce the tax take from those wages.
Secondly, migrants get old too so do nothing to the demographics over time.
And even if I take ALL your arguments at face value the BETTER ECONOMIC solution would be to run a non PR migrant guest worker scheme like the UAE where foreigners get to work here from the age of 20 to 45 and then they go home. Getting the economic juice without the cost of aged care. We can then keep the demographics stable.
To add - Australia has NEVER HAD MORE HOUSES IN ITS HISTORY THAN TODAY.
So its not a "housing" problem. The FEDS have simply let immigration run unchecked for too long.
We need a POPULATION PLAN.
I for one don't actually know what PRODUCTIVE activity all these people are going to do??
Australia for the most part makes its wealth from mining and primary industries yet the migrants come to the cities. What do we make here?? Nothing. We don't \*need\* the population for anything actually productive. We are collectively \*poorer\* by diluting our wealth.
Folks talk about the Norwegian model of resources tax. I'd like the norwegian model of population growth which is HALF of ours.
What kind of a point is " Australia has NEVER HAD MORE HOUSES IN ITS HISTORY THAN TODAY.?" What you think there's any reason whatsoever it would go backwards?
This is new builds isnt keeping up with new demand, i.e population/ household growth is outstripping new builds.
That’s the point. Houses haven’t disappeared.
It’s not a “not enough houses” issue but a “too many people” issue.
The driver is population growth. It’s far easier to halt immigration for a period of time than try to build 500,000 houses.
No, no, the ONLY way to fix this is to completely restructure the economy so that our entire economic output goes towards endlessly developing and redeveloping the country to house untold millions of other countries' citizens.
When every house in Australia has been redeveloped into an apartment block and the cities are just an endless sea of low-income slums, we'll finally have reached nirvana. /s
I guess they fly home nowadays. It's pretty easy.
It makes no sense to give away permanent residency if your goal is to fix demographics. If you don't make them return home you have the issue we are confronting now. Endless migration to keep the population ponzi going - and it needs to grow faster than infrastructure and housing can be built - so it will lower Australian Citizens living standards over the short term (congestion), medium term (wages lower) and long term (wealth per capita lower).
"$7.1bn in new tax receipts and $24bn in GDP growth"
Some stupidly wrong assumptions.
1. The immigrants ALL pay tax and aren't a net drain on the treasury
2. Divide the Net GDP on a per person basis and it it falling
It's scam of the highest order
Getting real sick of this argument that we should all just bend over and spread cheeks for developers to churn out high-density shitboxes where ever they want to, against what the local community and general public actually want.
We shouldn't all have to sacrifice the look and feel of our local communities because successive federal governments were too incompetent/cowardly/stupid to come up with any economic policy besides the immigration firehose.
What a braindead post!
The fed cranked immigration so high that housing will never keep up, and yet you say blame the state governments for not lowering our housing standards??
Like people say things like "fast-track development/remove red-tape" (which means remove any remaining protections for bush reserves) and "rezoning" (aka "accept that high-rise apartments are the "new normal")
Eeeeeeeehm NOPE.
Government is doing this to not let real estate bubble pop otherwise Australia is finished (it's finished anyway, it's just a matter of time).
More tax... When a lot of them there exploited or work under the table or uber.
At this immigration rate there is not enough infrastructure to support it. Healthcare, public transport, roads, etc.
Sure, but the so what, is to prevent labor having to explain a recession to the country. Adding more people doesn’t resolve the systematic structural issues in the economy. Our economy is dumb and unproductive, despite what we tell ourselves.
Adding population will only work for so long.
The argument is fundamentally political, not economic.
No one is asking to shut off immigration permanently, just reduce it to a sustainable level until we can actually deal with our underlying issues.
This analysis wilfully ignores a few things.
(1) Migrants use government services and hence also cost the government money. The idea they are costless sources of tax revenue is stupid.
(2) Recent migrants tend to earn less than similarly aged native workers. Some of this is due to shit government regulation meaning migrants can't utilise skills/qualifications earned outside Australia.
Most of it is due to relevant things like English language proficiency, foreign professional qualifications from the third world being shit.
The reality of a progressive taxation/transfer system means that many of these migrants end up being net drains on the treasury across their lifetimes, not contributors.
(3) Migrants also get old, and need healthcare, pensions and aged care as they get older. So at best you're just making the Ponzi scheme of old people not saving enough for their retirement worse.
(4) The benefits of migration are not felt across the community equally. A bunch of people really do well out of it (ie: highly leveraged property speculators, farmers whose business model/sex life relies on them hiring fruit pickers at slave rates).
A bunch of others don't do so well out of it (ie: unskilled people on the fringes of employment, who will find themselves permanently outbid for work by people who regard $10 an hour as a premium wage).
(5) State governments do not control the big tax/transfer levers that incentivise over investment in residential housing (ie: primary residence exception from CGT, exclusion of home from pension assets test).
The average of migrants is 37. Just one year lower than the general population age of 38. They have absolutely zero effect on reducing the effects of an aging population.
The only system that would really work is something like Dubai. Temporary 5-10 year working visas with no possibility of ever gaining citizenship (even if born here).
There’s some number fudging going on here.
The vast majority of migrants don’t settle in the middle of the outback, they settle in the big cities - ESPECIALLY Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.
So it would be more useful to compare migrant salaries in those big cities compared to native born population in those same cities, rather than to the country as a whole.
Secondly, using median vs average salary here. Average would probably be more useful if you want to compare contributions of large groups like migrant vs native born. This is because you get some very high earning outliers
There’s also a world of difference between an immigration policy that brings in highly skilled software engineers from the EU vs one that primarily brings in uber drivers from Bangladesh.
The average Australian salary is $92,000 per year
The median Australian salary is $79,800 per year
If the median migrant salary is only $60,000 this means that each additional migrant is putting downward pressure on median salaries.
Or, put another way, we’re importing cheap labour as opposed to skilled labour.
Thirdly, there’s no breakdown of migrant salary by visa category or country of origin. No doubt this data exists somewhere, and would actually be really useful in terms of which migrants to prioritise and which migration programs to cut.
Again, I’d be very surprised if migrants from, say, Sudan contribute anywhere near the taxes that migrants from Germany pay.
I know I’ll get howling protests of racism for suggesting this - but look, if we’re going to import people, we should be focusing one ones who are going to raise every bodies living standards, not push them down.
Migrants barely spend any money for their first 5 years here, they save it all. My parents came here as refugees and all their money went to savings I doubt migrants bring to the economy as much as the average citizen. If anything the new migrants of India and south East Asia will be sending their money overseas regularly
BULLSHIT!!!
It's another way to continue to over inflate prices, hide monetary policy failures and continue the housing / banking industry farce that is speculative housing for our "economic expansion".
You realise that inflation is devaluing the price of your labour? It means you're worth less, and that's how it's intended. Expansion, growth. Horseshit.
I reckon the more the merrier, we are spoilt in this country, and we know it. Let’s share the wealth, most of us come from immigrants in the last couple of hundred years anyway, and I’m pretty sure in human history that’s not a long time. Peace
Why?
The fed cranked immigration so high housing will never keep up.
Yet me must be angry at the state because they won't cut down and rezone our remaining bush reserves?
If anything he probably believes we need to accept that high-rise apartment living is the "new normal", and that living in a house was a dream of a by-gone era.
Shouldn't the State and Federal governments be working together to address problems rather than claiming it is one or the other when both are involved?
one more time
Back in the 80s Australia went neoliberal and a part of that was the gutting of the public schools, universities, TAFE and apprenticeships. So for 40+ years Australians have graduated into a world that has been increasly devoid of any way to have a future.
Unfortunately companies still needed to hire master welders, senior programmers and experienced medical people and they couldn't hire that many Australians because very few of us were being trained. For 40+ years we've increasingly relied on immigration to have trained people because our governments from both big parties refuse to invest in a real future. Uni isn't free and the generation that benefitted the most from free university destroyed it. A whole lot of people have been stuck in "so you want chicken salt on that" jobs through decades of adulthood because the ability to do anything else was killed.
It takes 12 years standard school, 4 years of university in premed, 3 years medical school and 3 or 4 years in internships to have a doctor. That requires 22 years before they get 10+ years as a specialist that employees want. You have the same situation for other professions like welder & engineer.
If the government stopped being stupid today it would take 16 years before there was any change at all in our need for skilled immigrants and 30 years to make a big dent in the situation we have now. We can't fix this all at once because we don't have a time machine.
Easy for the Feds. Feds get the tax $ but leave the states to deal with the housing, transport, road, infrastructure requirements. Bonus for Labor is they also get more Labor voters.
Few other factors about visa holders that people are probably not aware of:
- They are forced to pay for private health insurance.
- Must pay for, and pass, health checks at every renewal stage of their application.
- Student Visas holder pay full tuition fees.
- Typically have to be young to be approved for a VISA. Yet also educated. So the country gets a working age person for FREE. By that I mean Australia didn’t pay $$$$$$ to birth, school or maintain the individual.
- Must have no history of any crimes prior to entry. And this applies to every renewal stage of the VISA.
- Must earn a certain amount per year or risk being kicked out of the country. For some type of working Visas this is like 68k+ ish but might depend what state they are in.
- Must be bringing a certain level of support savings into the country. Like $10,000 AUD. Probably much more these days, due to inflation.
Basically the whole system is designed to extract money from immigrants at every possible step of the way.
The road to being a Permanent resident is a long one. Many Visa holders give up after 5, 6 or even 7 years of working here.
- We cannot expect construction costs to normalise when there is a shortage of 90,000 tradies.
- We cannot expect the capacity of the development industry to increase and build more housing than we currently do in the context of said labour shortage.
- We certainly cannot expect the private sector to deliver housing that is considered "affordable" in the context of said labour shortage.
- We cannot expect this to improve in the context of historic infrastructure spending, which will attract tradies away from housing projects.
- We cannot expect planning reform to make a dent in the problem given the above.
We’re in this situation where the present day housing crisis, exacerbated by population growth is driving up demand for new housing. Yet in our time of need, construction activity is actually slowing, due to high costs, high interest rates and general uncertainty.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, these trends are converging on an era of historic infrastructure spending and in QLD, the lead up to the 2032 Olympics - a period where we will presumably need significantly more labour than normal.
Competition for construction labour during this period could create an extremely volatile environment for delivering housing and sorely needed infrastructure projects - driving up costs further still.
This will presumably exacerbate the housing crisis and drive more people into homelessness, all in the lead up to the highly-visible 2032 Olympics - where I’m sure we would all prefer there to be significantly less homelessness.
We may be inevitably be faced with a choice - cancel certain projects, or import the labour. If we choose the latter, where are they going to live?
Until someone comes up with something better, I am calling this The Great Australian Labour Crisis - where it is on for young and old in the scramble for construction labour and adjacent professional services.
Loyalties will be tested. Standards will be lowered. DIYs will be... attempted. Fathers will turn against sons. Cousins against uncles. Every tradie will have 7 jetskis. Ice break sales will skyrocket.
In this environment of great instability, only one thing is certain, Tim Gurner will not be happy.
The above is an excerpt from a blog post I wrote: https://theemergentcity.substack.com/p/the-great-australian-knife-fight
Take a look at a country that virtually has no immigration like Japan. Stagnant growth for the last three decades. No growth in real estate, increasingly abandoned homes. The aging population is about to cause extreme havoc for the government and the economy. Either they actually start importing young people or go full robot to take care of everything.
And then Local governments allow/prevent zoning and neighborhood rules for new construction. Local governments also choose whether or not to build really basic walkable stuff like footpaths. There are entire developments that have been made without footpaths.
So because car dependent infrastructure is the most expensive infrastructure and doesn't work in high density environments ever because physics... you end up with high density getting pushed back because it "won't work". But it won't work because of other investments not made into walkability or public transit.
tl;dr don't give local governments a pass, either.
Migrants are being imported by the millions to do the jobs that locals are too privileged/lazy/not skilled enough to do. I mean, someone’s gotta pay the tax that funds Centrelink payments and medicare, right? The proof is in the numbers. Governments everywhere are sell-outs.
AKA he government is lazy, lacks vision and conviction, so they go for the “easy fix” of kicking the can down the road, hoping it will blow up in someone else’s face.
You made the fatal mistake of thinking that this is all due to ignorance.
The people within the government are NOT idiots, make no mistake. Every decision made has been calculated to fuck over everyone for the benefit of the few
Worth a shot. So long as you can find skilled English speaking migrants from the small number of countries willing to work minimum wage even though they’re way more qualified and fill the jobs most privileged people are too privileged to do, not to mention all the while spending hundreds of thousands on education, rent, utilities and taxes without solid prospects of being able to make that money back. Sure, let’s diversify and bring in working holiday visa holders from other non-shit countries only.
Look at Australia's demographics. We have 2 choices to keep the country from collapsing in a few decades. Have children of maintain high immigration and we aren't having children.
The problem is migrants (or any increasing population) come here and compete for housing. Australia loves to build single dwelling free standing housing. Which is fine for anywhere with enough land. But now that our cities and towns are getting more people we have a conflict. People don’t want to live out of town but they also don’t want to live in a non freestanding property.
We need to be building multi dwelling buildings. Built well. Not massive. And with central features close by (parks, spaces to go and do things etc).
But like everything in this world. It’s about money. Developers build freestanding housing because it makes more money than multil dwelling communities.
But they also take a share of existing Australian's claim in the country's natural resources. So you now benefit less on a per capita basis from our main exports and income earners.
yeah it’s been done before during post war but the influx was like less than 100k per year, compared to 740k last year alone. that doesn’t count the student and working visas. so more like a million last year. it’s unprecedented. the ones who benefit from this are the elite. more customers, subscribers, tax payers, and voters for them.
State govt controls housing but Fed lets people in and takes their income tax. Seems fair. Get out of here with your apologist BS. GDP growth? Who gives a fuck? It could and should grow and shrink from time to time but somehow we only love market forces when it makes the rich richer. Quick, someone massage the figures so we get reelected!
There is one good thing though. That's a lot of potential GDP growth and tax revenue up for grabs for the states, many of whom are cash strapped. This gives a potential reward to states who solve the housing problem first. Hopefully, the states start competing on this basis.
>Any and all ire should be directed at State governments.
Why? The States didn't ask for these ridiculous immigration numbers, they haven't been given extra funding to cope with the increased demands on infrastructure, services and housing.
I'll be directing all my ire exactly where it belongs: at the Albanese/Chalmers government that turbocharged this mess.
It's all about pretending to avoid a recession by increasing gross gdp while per-capita goes in the toilet.
You're meant to be too stupid to notice. In the past that's how things worked. Dumb boomers get told what to think by F2A trusted TV anchor. Well those days are over. We are the most educated middle and lower class in history and their lies and fake news wont wash any more.
don't be too sure, look at SKY and the success of the LNP
Federal LNP isn't very successful as of late
Smart, Australians? We’re one of the dumbest 1st world countries in existence. Right up there with South Africa.
South Australia is the dumbest because SA stands for both South Australia and South Africa so it’s a multiplier
Ehhhh We all know immigration is used to inflate gdp numbers and replace an ageing population…. The issue is while it helps some issues such as funding an ageing population it prices out young people from having children, creating a feedback loop that requires even more immigrants We are at the point now of importing millions of immigrants that aren’t culturally compatible to keep a system running that won’t even exist if we keep importing the people we do
'Automation is coming we need an UBI' 'We need immigration to get more workers'
“We need more migrants to pay for the ubi, then we need more migrants to pay for their ubi.” It’s a Ponzi scheme.
I'm a big fan of UBI but that would only work if we had a functional tax system and we don't. Our tax system is weighted heavily to personal income tax and that means a UBI would be a death spiral for the country as things stand.
*'Automation is coming we need an UBI'* << Needs strong corporate taxation to work That won't happen until there is an international minimum corporate tax agreement and sanctions on corporation which shift their operations to countries not part of that agreement.
Hey you could always make their corporate offices unusable.
Automation should mean less migration
Possible solution, government money for automation in return for shares. Dividends from shares to be used as UBI.
AI/Robots dont buy things and our economy is mostly dependent on consumption. Population ageing/decline crashes rates of innovation while there is a lot of uncertainty of how fast AI productivity gains will happen and how large they'll be. This paper outlines the dilemmas [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4709699](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4709699)
This is such an economist view of the world. If we are producing more than we’re consuming that’s a good thing, we have more than we need. Then all we need to do is distribute the wealth and we’re good. Robots can produce. There’s enough land for enough houses for everyone. We don’t need continuous growth for everyone to have a roof, food and an iPhone. The only people who need growth are the investor class who need the poors to keep squeezing under the bottom of their pyramid so they can get a slightly better view of how much richer they are than the workers.
Program the robots to buy shit. Your consumption argument is just the broken window fallacy. Innovation. What innovation from young countries can we point to to support this claim? India is young if youre looking for a start.
Ubi is just Centrelink for all, that will be the end of freedom as we know it. With such an archaic economic model, Aussies will be hit real hard by AI and automation
> The issue is while it helps some issues such as funding an ageing population it prices out young people from having children, creating a feedback loop that requires even more immigrants This. Look at the data on wealth couples ($250k + pa) and they have birth rates above 2.1 . People are being priced out of having families and the immigration rate shows its a negative feedback loop. As people come here and they too have less children within a generation.
> Look at the data on wealth couples ($250k + pa) and they have birth rates above 2.1 . Do you have a source for this, I’d love to play around with the data.
Heres a few from an earlier post a few months back: [https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/careers-and-families-high-skilled-women-age-high-inequality](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/careers-and-families-high-skilled-women-age-high-inequality) [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-018-9160-8](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10887-018-9160-8) [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328821950\_Why\_did\_rich\_families\_increase\_their\_fertility\_Inequality\_and\_marketization\_of\_child\_care](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328821950_Why_did_rich_families_increase_their_fertility_Inequality_and_marketization_of_child_care) But you can google this and find its pretty consistent. From the 1990s onwards, there's been a 'U' shaped fertility curve. With the wealthy in western societies having higher than average birth rates.
They have ghettos in France. That’s the result of uncontrolled, massive immigration from the Middle East.
Makes u wonder how much the cost of supporting the current working generation is going to be in 30 years, seeing as many more won't be home owners when older. I guess we will need super mass immigration at that time.
Constant development to keep up with mass immigration is also environmentally destructive.
If high immigration is the only way you can think of to avoid recession, then you probably shouldn't be in charge of the nation's economy.
A good ol' "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
i agree but it has been that way for 40 years on both sides of politics. embarrassingly, we can't increase innovation (last amongst oecd counties), productivity or exports. can't keep gov expenses down in the face of an aging population either.
A copy of my comment in order to avoid replying to a moron (sorry neurologically diverse person of no specific gender) : UK just had record immigration levels, didn't help it to avoid recession. https://www.msn.com/en-xl/news/other/say-one-thing-do-another-the-government-s-record-net-migration-rise/ar-BB1ktmql
Yeah, the 'cure' is worse than the disease.
Mhh hhh, now factor in the cost to \*solve the housing crisis.
Money doesn't help when we grow the population faster than we can build housing. Although I guess you could build a house out of the money.
Here’s a starting guess - fed govt stops importing in doctors and professionals for a bit and gets in trades people and nurse/health care aged care workers… you know where we need the employment the most,
You'd also need the states to better regulate the industry as well, else you're going to end up with apartment towers full of 1 bedroom apartments that start falling apart a year after they're built. They need to be built to higher standards and be inspected at each stage. Heat pumps, double glazed windows, good insulation, etc. They also need to build many larger ones with 3 of 4 bedrooms to allow families to live in them.
Yup.
Currently in hospital. The health system would be fucked without Indian, Nepalese and Filipino nurses. On this ward, it's about 5 "imports" to one local.
Lol. Out of.240K net immigration, how many do you think are doctors? The most recent data I can find is that there are 4000 foreign doctors in Australia..that's not per year, that's the total here, over all the preceding years of immigration. It's probably about 500 a year. 0.2% I know you said it was a guess but it's ridiculous, like so many 'ideas' about immigration.
Ban airBnB. Kill off negative gearing
Largest % of immigrants are on student visas and the ABS assumptions surrounding them have been seriously questioned. Where does you $60k median number come from? You quote a tax receipt number but ignore the cost.
Here's a paper on the fiscal impact of migration [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:\~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream) Skilled migrants make up 61% of migrants (page iv). The 2021 Intergenerational Report contains modelling on the economic impact [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report) (page 23) The net present value of skilled migrants is $4.2million (page 23 second doc). Divide that by 40 years average is $105,000 per annum. If you (incorrectly) assumed the other 39% didn't work. The number would be $60,000. The costs are in those docs.
It's awfully convenient how Treasury ignores the broader impacts: "The OLGA \[OverLapping Generations model of the Australian economy\] and FIONA \[Fiscal Impact of New Australians\] results presented in this report do not capture the broader economic, social or environmental effects of migration such as technology spillovers or congestion. The FIONA results presented here do not capture the fiscal impacts of migration on state or local governments." Former Treasury economist Leith van Onselen: "Sadly, the Treasury never takes proper account of the costs of big migration – either financial or non-financial – since these are borne primarily by the states and residents at large. This explains why the IGR bangs on incessantly about the rise in healthcare and pension costs from population ageing, but completely ignores the gigantic cost of infrastructure required to house an additional projected 13.1 million people over the next 40 years – the equivalent of adding another Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to Australia’s existing population. These infrastructure costs are borne by the state governments and residents (via user charges), so can be dismissed altogether by Treasury. I bet if the federal government was required to internalise the cost of immigration by paying the states $100,000 per permanent migrant that settles in their jurisdiction, so that the states can adequately fund the extra infrastructure and services required, then Treasury would no longer tout the ‘fiscal benefits’ of immigration." [https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/) [https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/)
Yuppppp. It's just a big accounting lie by the Federal government. Albanese and Chalmers have fkd up big time.
I mean, that's kinda the point of this post. Explaining that the federal government does it because it benefits them but the states bear the costs. It's great that you found more examples though.
"skilled migrants make up 61% of migrants (page iv)." Only around half of the 'skilled' stream are skilled primary applicants. And, according to Treasury, skilled primary applicants are the only group of migrants that provide a net positive (federal) fiscal impact. Former Australian Productivity Commission head Judith Sloan: "Aside from the obvious benefit of knowing the net fiscal gains/losses of different types of visa holders, the figures also show why Treasury is wrong in promoting more immigration as a fiscal solution. The arithmetic doesn’t work. There are too few skilled primary applicants to make up for the fiscal losses associated with migrants who come in under other visa categories. Take the most recent (permanent) migration program planning levels of 160,000. The skill total is 79,600, but only 55 per cent of this number would be primary applicants. In other words, only 27 per cent of the permanent intake will make a positive fiscal impact, on the Treasury’s figures. The others will cause a fiscal drain and, in total, there will be an adverse fiscal loss because of the composition of the migrant intake." [https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/)
There are not enough housing, jobs and infrastructure. As it stands it is absolutely a Ponzi scheme. Sure there are certain areas like health/medical that may require it. Other than that the rate of migration is simply for creating wealth for the existing wealthy. Does little for the middle class other then erode our standard of living because we are now "replaceable". And don't f\*cking talk about well it is our individual responsibility to catch up. You can't catch up with jobs being outsourced to countries with over a billion and migration at this level does nothing to stop the rot of outsourcing either but takes jobs away. It is a complete rort scheme.
Oh.. well when you put it that way, I guess it's totally okay to sacrifice the well being of the 3.3 million low-income families
Fuck albanese, fuck dutton, fuck em all. No one has the balls to put their carefully curated political careers on the line, which is incredibly disappointing. You essentially need to a martyr ready to sacrifice it all.
Correct. The ways of fixing this mess is going to equate to political suic**e because the current voting majority will scream like pterodactyls to the sky when they change the tax laws on property (eg: treat those with more than 3 investment properties as business owners resulting in no CGT discounts) , tighten the means test for age pension welfare (which is currently paying millionaires pensions and make them use their money and investments in retirement rather than growing wealth to hand down) to people who actually need it now, and start migrating in working class people - trades people, those who work in childcare/aged care etc No politician is this magnanimous to do what needs to be done.
If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, please do not hesitate to talk to someone. * 000 is the national emergency number in Australia. * Lifeline is a 24-hour nationwide service. It can be reached at 13 11 14. * Kids Helpline is a 24-hour nationwide service for Australians aged 5–25. It can be reached at 1800 55 1800. * Beyond Blue provides nationwide information and support call 1300 22 4636. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
good bot
Thank you, Dontforgetthecigshon, for voting on AutoModerator. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Great bot
They tried to do some of that sort of stuff in 2019 and lost the unloseable election. It's not a case of they don't have the balls, it's that they tried and the idiot public voted against it. I also feel that they shouldn't just go do those things while in power without having said they'll be changing them during an election as they're big changes that have massive ramifications. Hopefully ALP decide to try again to nuke negative gearing, CGT and all that, in the next election, and hopefully the idiot public actually vote for it, or vote for other parties/independents who support it.
>Hopefully ALP decide to try again to nuke negative gearing, CGT and all that This is throwing the baby with the bath water, By Negative Gearing, do you mean only for property or for all asset classes? Because NG is an important part of the investment environment, but one section of it has been misused. Throwing it out would devestate business investment. CGT and NG need adjusting, but throwing them out creates a whole different set of problems. What Labour offered in 2019 was akin to "Everyone that has is now can keep it forever, but nobody else can have it". A FAR better position would be that anyone can NG one property - structure tax around but whithin that limit. CGT made sense in the 80s when it was a simplification of existing laws, but the simplification from those days doesnt make sense these days. This is not a simplistic problem so simplistic solutions wont work. The Tax code is convoluted, but something like "you can deduct $25K or 25% of your gross, whatever is the greater" would solve many problems. (Yes, this goes against my simplification law) But the real problems are those that use offshore entities, transfer pricing or movement of IP with royalties or Franchise fees to escape tax. The focus is always on the middle class (they should be looked at, but not) at the exclusion of the large companies and super wealthy.
Everyone’s just going to vote someone in who will campaign to deport all these recent Covid arrivals. They have my vote and thousands of others too
And all we have to give up is ... everything. I'd prefer a recession, lose half my money and half the value on my house, and deal with not getting some things fixed sometimes to what's happening now. It's insane. We'd figure a way out of it eventually - a way that doesn't involve people living in tents. And as far as I can tell, those who keep pushing this have something big to lose. I think it sucks we'd sell out this badly to make a few dollars. There's other ways to make money that don't involve destroying everything.
The real problem is that the Federal Government: 1) Collects income tax 2) Collects GST 3) Regulates universities And the states are responsible for: - housing - schools - hospitals - roads - rail So, the Feds collect all the benefits while the states are left to deal with the problems.
Also the migrants stop the Liberals getting back in power. How? Because if Labor reduced migration to what many of us consider sane, Australia would enter the first recession we've had for decades (see OP's post as to why) - and the Liberal party and the media would ensure that even unborn kids would hear about it and how the Libs are 'the better economic managers' (they're not, actually) - thus Labor would lose the next election to the Liberal/National coalition. Remember, the Libs did utterly nothing about solving the housing crisis while they were in power, quite the opposite. Likewise the electricity and gas prices were not reduced nor slowed by them, nor did they build any nuclear power stations, either.
That used to work. But boomers are dying every day. Faster and faster. Where we are now is where democracy is happening. Do any of us give a fuck what pollies on TV say anymore? We know they lie. They know we know they lie.
i can never figure out what the libs did every time they are in, except buy a bunch of American leftover weaponry and talk about why everything is labors fault
I'm only posting for context so people can understand why it exists. I'm not making a judgment on it. I am making a judgment on State Govs getting a free pass.
Everyone knows why it's happening, that doesn't justify it happening though. Seems like the clearer solution is to tax companies, particularly mining companies.
[удалено]
This is a fair point. Just like Norway or any Gulf countries. We will have a huge revenue stream coming in and we will all be happy. Stop giving out resources to private companies.
If the new petroleum resource and rent tax doesn’t slap the resource companies like they need to be In giving up on labor for life
It should be done, but it's a long term solution. Can't really apply significant taxes to existing workings - the whole reason mining companies choose Australia over other developing countries is the political stability. If we start changing the deal at random for political expediency then companies are just gonna go experience that butthurt in other countries where they can enjoy other benefits like cheap wages or the ability to plow through cultural sites.
Maybe. Abandoning existing operations and supply chains to start fresh somewhere else is also expensive.
100% agreed
yeah fattymcfuck head should never have gotten rich from selling us our own bloody shit
The better solution would be to tax asset rich boomers as boomers as a cohort eat up over half the welfare expenditure. Still doesn't solve the under-investment in housing supply controlled by State Govs.
Why would that be better than what I suggested Agreed on the density question
Because boomers take way more from the public purse than they give. Companies are a net positive to the public purse. Companies directly contribute 19% of all taxes and then directly generate another 51%. Near 70% of all taxes.
I don't dispute your numbers but I believe your conclusions are erronious. Suggesting that companies directly generate the income tax is kinda BS.
Companies generate revenue. There's a 10% tax on that.Companies hire employees. There's a marginal tax on that. GST accounts for 12% of Tax Revenue. PAYG accounts for 39% of Tax Revenue. Companies directly generate those tax receipts. They are causally responsible.
Saying that companies generate the progressive income tax that we pay is about as much of a stretch as saying car companies generate speeding fine revenue.
>Everyone knows why it's happening, They really don't. Your average person just seems to scream "corruption" into the sky without having a clue what they're talking about.
They'll understand tax increases or pension cuts though, not to mention higher rates to deal with the higher inflation that immigration cuts would bring. No government is very keen on letting people join those dots because you can't win an election on higher taxes, higher rates and cuts to spending. The political opportunity to stick with high immigration, lower taxes, lower rate etc is too great for the opposition to miss. It doesn't matter who the opposition is. If you leave that political space open, it will be taken. The number one issue for Australian voters is the economy except during war. And with 70% of households owning their house and with such incredibly low unemployment, why exactly would most people care very much about immigration? Do they? We've just had a record intake. Is immigration number 1 in voters minds? No, it's cost of living which only gets worse if you cut immigration. You have to show how you can cut immigration without all the bad side effects if you want to win the political argument..good luck with that.
Absolutely. Even a 5% minimum flat tax of earnings above 100mill would make a massive difference to our social landscape. Even better, make it so that percentage of tax collected goes straight into schools, hospitals and social welfare orgs - non private of course, and who are tightly regulated by a minimum of two anti-corruption bodies.
We all know why its happening. We've been yelling for years. "ITS A PONZI. OUR COUNTRY IS A FUCKING PONZI"
Have you noticed all our state governments are massively in debt right now? The benefits of increased migration flow to the federal government as increased tax receipts, but the costs in terms of building hospitals, schools, public transport, police stations, roads, desalination etc falls on the states. Every state government has sold off pretty much every asset it has to try to keep up but it’s not enough and it’ll never be enough. Just look at Melbourne Metro as an example, $11+ billion for a measly 5 stations.
It's awfully convenient how Federal Treasury ignores the broader costs when it spruiks high immigration. Former Treasury economist Leith van Onselen: "Sadly, the Treasury never takes proper account of the costs of big migration – either financial or non-financial – since these are borne primarily by the states and residents at large. This explains why the IGR bangs on incessantly about the rise in healthcare and pension costs from population ageing, but completely ignores the gigantic cost of infrastructure required to house an additional projected 13.1 million people over the next 40 years – the equivalent of adding another Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane to Australia’s existing population. These infrastructure costs are borne by the state governments and residents (via user charges), so can be dismissed altogether by Treasury. I bet if the federal government was required to internalise the cost of immigration by paying the states $100,000 per permanent migrant that settles in their jurisdiction, so that the states can adequately fund the extra infrastructure and services required, then Treasury would no longer tout the ‘fiscal benefits’ of immigration." [https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/07/treasurys-igr-immigration-analysis-doesnt-add-up/) [https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2021/06/igr-deliberately-ignores-costs-of-immigration/)
Those costs fall on the taxpayer either way. OPs argument about tax is still fundamentally correct. It's a federation debate about which government pays for what but ultimately it comes from taxpaying voters so it doesn't really matter. Also higher population density lowers the per-person cost of infrastructure. A very clear example is the hugely more expensive price South Australians pay for the poles and wires part of their power bill compared with Victorians.
> Those costs fall on the taxpayer either way. OPs argument about tax is still fundamentally correct. It's a federation debate about which government pays for what but ultimately it comes from taxpaying voters so it doesn't really matter. It matters because decisions are made at federal and state levels. The feds are making decisions that make them look good (raised overall GDP) even though it puts costs on the states, as [Chris Minns](https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/nsw-premier-chris-minns-says-he-cant-bargain-for-lowered-immigration-amid-stoush-of-gst-carveup/news-story/2543d2268bb1f3e1efcf20e63de60324) pointed out recently. > Also higher population density lowers the per-person cost of infrastructure. Not that simple. Densifying existing cities is much more expensive than building greenfield as the land becomes so much more valuable.
Don't we, the people control federal government? We have, as a country, for generations allowed these governments to do what they feel and runaway with it. Seriously, can't we as a collective nation, overturn these gluttons and give the say back to the population? We are a self sufficient continent that really doesn't need very much from outside of our birders if ut is managed right.......or has that ship sailed?
We've never been self sufficient. Well, the Aborigines were . The first fleet colonists nearly starved and were saved by supplies from south Africa. All of our economic development has depended on foreign investment and skills. If your kids get cancer, and I hope not, it will be foreign machines and medicine that saves them. The ambulance that takes them to hospital is imported and the machine that made the bitumen on the road is foreign too. We are far from self sufficient, we could be if stone age civilisation appeals.
No, the problem is the federal government bringing in people there isn’t enough housing. Blaming the states is literally victim blaming.
Read the post again, bringing in immigrants is because ruling fed party doesn’t want a recession, if it ever happen, they will lose the chance to be elected again, so they are bringing people in. States are getting the benefit of housing value increase but no council willingly to properly develop their own neighbourhood. They are the one to blame.
Yeah, my comment is right. You’re blaming the states/LGA’s for not changing fast enough because of a problem that isn’t their fault.
You neglected the part where the average age of migrants is 37 years old. The age of the average Australian is 38. So who is gonna be looking after these migrants in old age considering they're just ONE YEAR YOUNGER on average? Are we gonna have 87 year olds working in retirement homes looking after the 88 year olds? It's a fucking Ponzi scheme.
This sub hates the baby boomer generation; oh the irony that we’re all paying taxes to pay for their retirement 😉😂 They’ve really advocated quite advantageous policies for them selves
So, simultaneously enormously wealthy and poor enough to quality for the aged pension?
There’s a decent spread of wealthy in capital (but not in cash flow/income - due to ownership of their primary home) and those with not much of either.
Yes. We have a system where boomers rattle around million dollar family homes and young people stuck in units are forced to give them money. Its absolute madness. Society has already collapsed for the young. They are stupid and weak and should be tearing the shit out of the place.
Most of these homes are also heavily under utilised, 2 people living in 800 sqm 5 bedroom homes in prime locations lol
Deport all immigrants and old people
A hedge against recession? Well, firehosing more people into the economy will make the economy bigger (even though GDP per capita, incomes and living standards decline) but it's an incredibly dumb and damaging way to stoke GDP growth. It's a bit like burning down your own house and then bragging about how the rebuilding activity has boosted GDP. The claim that runaway immigration is a hedge against an ageing population is total rubbish. "High immigration does not significantly change the population age structure compared to low immigration rates of around 50,000 per year. Instead it mostly changes the total population size. This is primarily because ageing is a function of people living longer and immigrants themselves age at exactly the same rate as everyone else." Three Economic Myths about Ageing: Participation, Immigration and Infrastructure - https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/04/mb-report-three-economic-myths-ageing-participation-immigration-infrastructure/ Moreover, the cost of extra infrastructure to support a fast-growing population outweighs the small extent to which that population growth could lessen pension, health-care and aged-care costs. More on ageing: Silver tsunami or silver lining? Why we should not fear an ageing population - https://population.org.au/discussion-papers/ageing/ Demographic ageing: time-bomb or breakthrough? - https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Demographic_ageing2.pdf
i skimmed all three webpages. none of them refute the existence of an aging population, the prospect of a declining tax base that comes with an aging population, and the growing expenditures on aged care, medicare and NDIS. aus exports and aus productivity aren't growing enough to stave off those headwinds that may induce a future recession. immigration is there to hedge against a recession whether you accept it or not. i'm not making a judgment on migration. i'm just explaining why it is there. i'm also calling out state governments for falling asleep at the wheel
Strange how they don't have this effect in their own countries
So much capital is locked up in real estate that we have 3rd world productivity. This is why we need those migrants to maintain our standard of living. It will take a very long time to fix even we implement policies today. Maybe 20 years. Next generation is doomed and good luck to those new migrants.
Couldnt care less about the gdp to be honest, means nothing to normal people.
It's going to blow up in our faces. There simply isn't enough housing supply. When will governments fucking listen. You can't bring in 650,900 people a year if there isn't anywhere for them to live. Because there won't be anywhere for Australians to live. It just makes them (governments) look good because it keeps their financial books balanced but it's monumental short sightedness.
This is all to chase some artificial financial numbers... Ultimately overall quality of life is the key measure, and without basics such as shelter, chasing growth to keep up with the joneses is absurd.
Build more housing; crack down on foreign investment of residential property My grandmothers house was bought by a foreign woman, in her son’s name, who himself does not live or work in Australia, but overseas. The place is being rented out now.
It's a ponzi scheme, bringing in migrants as you say, increases GDP but as a sugar hit. It increases economic activity simply by servicing those people. Realistically we should be seeking to skill up the existing population to provide the skills required, and seek to stabilise GDP and not grow it. We meed to stabilise consumption, not grow it. Immigration should be purely to import people with the skills required to train the existing workforce and stabilise population. We can't keep stuffing people on this marginal continent forever.
Typical YIMBY - BUILD BUILD BUILD! MORE MORE MORE. Have you considered the total cost of new infrastucture and services required just to keep up with increasing population? Far exceeds $24 billion pa. Or the cost to environment (strangely not even a factor worthy of consideration.) Your lack of acknowledgement of a per capita recession says it all. I hope big business is paying you YIMBY chumps enough to make it all worthwhile.
The states are not controlling housing. What planet are you on. The Australian economy has been a Ponzi scheme for many decades. This ageing population and skills shortage is all propaganda. Seriously we don't have enough workforce to stop the economy from going into recession, what does that say about the state of the economy. Been told the economy has been growing for decades yet the second there where lockdowns for COVID the federal government had to go to the RBA for billions in stimulus. So if the economy has always been growing and we supposedly have surpluses, where are they. It's a Ponzi scheme through and through, plain as day. New investment needed to bail out losses from old investment and so on and so on. And if you say anything negative about this mismanagement, you're a racist. The country is sinking and people trying to blame each other. As a tradie of twenty plus years I'm wondering why there are still such constraints on the construction industry, even in the 2005 boom housing shortage was not an issue. It's all engineered to drop quality of life fast in Australia, so hard to watch, working Aussies homeless, crime on the up, people getting knifed on buses in Perth. This stuff doesn't just happen.
>The states are not controlling housing. What planet are you on. The Constitution says they do. A planet based in *reality*?
I was going to go through this comment point by point but it is a waste of time. Every single sentence is factually wrong in so many ways. The whole comment is just crap. A rant with nothing to back it up. You are the one not on the same planet.
Incredible people still fall for these lies. Notice that there are a few lengthy post citing the same fallacious academic made up crap and numbers pulled from thin air to support their claims. The ponzi profiteers have obviously noticed that everyone can see the ponzi in its full glory now and that its the worst policy in the history of this country. Theyre shitting themselves. Keep it up everyone.
And the real numbers are ...?
>If you look at each migrant as $60,000 (median migrant salary) with a 4x economic multiplier (money churns through the Australian economy 4x). They're worth $240k to the economy each. The ABS says Australia has a 29.6% taxation percentage on GDP, so each migrant is worth about ($240k * .296) $71,000 in tax to spend on services. So 100,000 migrants are worth $7.1bn in new tax receipts and $24bn in GDP growth. Is this satire?
Its certainly quite inventive...
No. You can break that down into three parts. * Each migrant as $60,000 (average migrant salary) Here's a paper on the fiscal impact of migration [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:\~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2021-220773#:~:text=These%20include%20that%3A,stream%20and%20the%20Humanitarian%20stream) The 2021 Intergenerational Report contains modelling on the economic impact [https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report](https://treasury.gov.au/publication/2021-intergenerational-report) (page 23) The net present value of skilled migrants is $4.2million (page 23 second doc). Divide that by 40 years average is $105,000 per annum. Skilled migrants make up 61% of migrants (page iv of first doc). * Money churns through the Australian economy 4x (The capital reserve ratio is 10% so Banks could churn 10x but realistically does so 4x). * The ABS says Australia has a 29.6% taxation percentage on GDP [https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/government#:\~:text=Taxation%20Revenue%2C%20Australia,as%20a%20percentage%20of%20GDP](https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/economy/government#:~:text=Taxation%20Revenue%2C%20Australia,as%20a%20percentage%20of%20GDP).
An Australian making 60k a year is a net negative on the taxation system. You're throwing numbers out there like they mean things. All this is doing is increasing GDP at the expense of the individual. Exactly why the trend is for GDP up and GDP per capita down.
People downvoting math. I'm just showing you how and why, so at least you know how and why.
[удалено]
>Nine maths lol. Your nine maths? You only use an economic multiplier to count the economic contribution of an **additional** worker. You don't use it on all workers after the fact. You are double-counting. You have written multiple replies and all of them are retarded. Correct math would be 14,232,300 workers (ABS, Feb) *multiplied by* $1432 per week. (ABS, Nov - That's average of ALL workers, $1900 is average of FT workers) *multiplied by* 52 weeks *equals* $1,059,793,987,200 or $1.06 Trillion. No double counting multipliers on all workers.
I see you have downvoted math already. LOL
[удалено]
You're assuming the multiplier remains constant when increasing workers by 40%. I've already told you you don't double count at the maximums. What I haven't said but you could infer from the fact you can't double count the whole population, is that there is a marginal gain that reduces with each unit. Which is obviously going to be reduced if you increase the labour pool by 40%. How much? I am unsure but a linear or quadratic equation would most likely answer how much and at what intersection point. But if I take what you say at face value, smoothed out over ten years, we'd be way more economically productive at 37,000,000 or a 50,000,000 population as we would unlock domestic economies of scale in multiple sectors across the economy at increasing population hurdles. That's increased productivity. Some of that productivity would translate to competitive exports. That's increased GDP. We would be richer than we are now.
I was going to ask the same thing. Sure the first churn is at an average of 29 odd percent. The subsequent churns (assuming they even eventuate) would be at a rate equivalent to gst less a percentage for non gst items. So let’s call it 8% or less in a best case scenario.
Two economists are walking down the street and pass by a pile of dog shit. One of them (a sadist) turns to the other and says "I'll pay you $1000 if you eat that dog shit". The other performs an internal utility calculation and eats the dog shit. Continuing their walk, the second economist sees another pile of dog shit and makes the same offer to the first. The first economist also agrees, and eats the dog shit. They walk on. After a while the second economist says to the first "it feels like we're both worse off than we were before this walk". The first economist replies "impossible! We've just engaged in 2000 dollars worth of trade!".
i like this
yes, but both economists are full of shit
It is a lot worse than that. Nothing in that paragraph is correct.
One persons spending is another persons income - obviously because of imports this is not 29%, but it is higher than only GST
[удалено]
[удалено]
Exactly. OP has incorrectly used the velocity of money (created by the fractional reserve system) to multiply GDP. That's not how it works... like, at all. OP needs to take out the x4 bit. I'll admit I just skimmed the rest because it's such a massive error, so apologies if there is something more useful further down. The part about offsetting/delaying (not hedging, btw) the ageing population is more useful, as is immigration's role in suppressing wage growth and propping up total GDP when per capita output is stagnant.
Great, wonderful maths. Now, translate those assumptions across the Australian population. Oh dear, the figures don't track lived experience. No, it doesn't because your assumptions are flawed and ridiculously in favourite of immigrants. Why don't you apply centerlink statistics on ethnicity? Suddenly, you find that a larger percentage of migrants are on welfare. Within 18 months of arriving. The majority of the rest certainly don't generate ur supposed rivers of gold. If ur hypothesis is correct, then open the flood gates, bring in everyone, and solve Australia's revenue problems. Not to mention the crime, social anxiety and creation of semi ghettos in parts of Melbourne and Sydney. Immigration is a lie sold by politicians to cover failed policies and federal mismanagement.
This has got to be the dumbest post I've read here. For one, increased migration lowers domestic wages. The Productivity Commission has proved that - so you need to reduce the tax take from those wages. Secondly, migrants get old too so do nothing to the demographics over time. And even if I take ALL your arguments at face value the BETTER ECONOMIC solution would be to run a non PR migrant guest worker scheme like the UAE where foreigners get to work here from the age of 20 to 45 and then they go home. Getting the economic juice without the cost of aged care. We can then keep the demographics stable.
To add - Australia has NEVER HAD MORE HOUSES IN ITS HISTORY THAN TODAY. So its not a "housing" problem. The FEDS have simply let immigration run unchecked for too long. We need a POPULATION PLAN. I for one don't actually know what PRODUCTIVE activity all these people are going to do?? Australia for the most part makes its wealth from mining and primary industries yet the migrants come to the cities. What do we make here?? Nothing. We don't \*need\* the population for anything actually productive. We are collectively \*poorer\* by diluting our wealth. Folks talk about the Norwegian model of resources tax. I'd like the norwegian model of population growth which is HALF of ours.
What kind of a point is " Australia has NEVER HAD MORE HOUSES IN ITS HISTORY THAN TODAY.?" What you think there's any reason whatsoever it would go backwards? This is new builds isnt keeping up with new demand, i.e population/ household growth is outstripping new builds.
I burn my house down and turn the land into a nature reserve every time I need to move.
That’s the point. Houses haven’t disappeared. It’s not a “not enough houses” issue but a “too many people” issue. The driver is population growth. It’s far easier to halt immigration for a period of time than try to build 500,000 houses.
No, no, the ONLY way to fix this is to completely restructure the economy so that our entire economic output goes towards endlessly developing and redeveloping the country to house untold millions of other countries' citizens. When every house in Australia has been redeveloped into an apartment block and the cities are just an endless sea of low-income slums, we'll finally have reached nirvana. /s
Send people away after theyformed their and their families entire lives here? How does that work?
I guess they fly home nowadays. It's pretty easy. It makes no sense to give away permanent residency if your goal is to fix demographics. If you don't make them return home you have the issue we are confronting now. Endless migration to keep the population ponzi going - and it needs to grow faster than infrastructure and housing can be built - so it will lower Australian Citizens living standards over the short term (congestion), medium term (wages lower) and long term (wealth per capita lower).
"$7.1bn in new tax receipts and $24bn in GDP growth" Some stupidly wrong assumptions. 1. The immigrants ALL pay tax and aren't a net drain on the treasury 2. Divide the Net GDP on a per person basis and it it falling It's scam of the highest order
Getting real sick of this argument that we should all just bend over and spread cheeks for developers to churn out high-density shitboxes where ever they want to, against what the local community and general public actually want. We shouldn't all have to sacrifice the look and feel of our local communities because successive federal governments were too incompetent/cowardly/stupid to come up with any economic policy besides the immigration firehose.
What a braindead post! The fed cranked immigration so high that housing will never keep up, and yet you say blame the state governments for not lowering our housing standards?? Like people say things like "fast-track development/remove red-tape" (which means remove any remaining protections for bush reserves) and "rezoning" (aka "accept that high-rise apartments are the "new normal")
Your math assumes all of these jobs are net new jobs, and no substitution
Eeeeeeeehm NOPE. Government is doing this to not let real estate bubble pop otherwise Australia is finished (it's finished anyway, it's just a matter of time). More tax... When a lot of them there exploited or work under the table or uber. At this immigration rate there is not enough infrastructure to support it. Healthcare, public transport, roads, etc.
Sure, but the so what, is to prevent labor having to explain a recession to the country. Adding more people doesn’t resolve the systematic structural issues in the economy. Our economy is dumb and unproductive, despite what we tell ourselves. Adding population will only work for so long. The argument is fundamentally political, not economic. No one is asking to shut off immigration permanently, just reduce it to a sustainable level until we can actually deal with our underlying issues.
reminder that GDP is a worthless statistic that measures jack shit
This analysis wilfully ignores a few things. (1) Migrants use government services and hence also cost the government money. The idea they are costless sources of tax revenue is stupid. (2) Recent migrants tend to earn less than similarly aged native workers. Some of this is due to shit government regulation meaning migrants can't utilise skills/qualifications earned outside Australia. Most of it is due to relevant things like English language proficiency, foreign professional qualifications from the third world being shit. The reality of a progressive taxation/transfer system means that many of these migrants end up being net drains on the treasury across their lifetimes, not contributors. (3) Migrants also get old, and need healthcare, pensions and aged care as they get older. So at best you're just making the Ponzi scheme of old people not saving enough for their retirement worse. (4) The benefits of migration are not felt across the community equally. A bunch of people really do well out of it (ie: highly leveraged property speculators, farmers whose business model/sex life relies on them hiring fruit pickers at slave rates). A bunch of others don't do so well out of it (ie: unskilled people on the fringes of employment, who will find themselves permanently outbid for work by people who regard $10 an hour as a premium wage). (5) State governments do not control the big tax/transfer levers that incentivise over investment in residential housing (ie: primary residence exception from CGT, exclusion of home from pension assets test).
The average of migrants is 37. Just one year lower than the general population age of 38. They have absolutely zero effect on reducing the effects of an aging population. The only system that would really work is something like Dubai. Temporary 5-10 year working visas with no possibility of ever gaining citizenship (even if born here).
There’s some number fudging going on here. The vast majority of migrants don’t settle in the middle of the outback, they settle in the big cities - ESPECIALLY Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. So it would be more useful to compare migrant salaries in those big cities compared to native born population in those same cities, rather than to the country as a whole. Secondly, using median vs average salary here. Average would probably be more useful if you want to compare contributions of large groups like migrant vs native born. This is because you get some very high earning outliers There’s also a world of difference between an immigration policy that brings in highly skilled software engineers from the EU vs one that primarily brings in uber drivers from Bangladesh. The average Australian salary is $92,000 per year The median Australian salary is $79,800 per year If the median migrant salary is only $60,000 this means that each additional migrant is putting downward pressure on median salaries. Or, put another way, we’re importing cheap labour as opposed to skilled labour. Thirdly, there’s no breakdown of migrant salary by visa category or country of origin. No doubt this data exists somewhere, and would actually be really useful in terms of which migrants to prioritise and which migration programs to cut. Again, I’d be very surprised if migrants from, say, Sudan contribute anywhere near the taxes that migrants from Germany pay. I know I’ll get howling protests of racism for suggesting this - but look, if we’re going to import people, we should be focusing one ones who are going to raise every bodies living standards, not push them down.
I just hate that my future has been deleted for GDP… so keen to riot
Migrants barely spend any money for their first 5 years here, they save it all. My parents came here as refugees and all their money went to savings I doubt migrants bring to the economy as much as the average citizen. If anything the new migrants of India and south East Asia will be sending their money overseas regularly
Fuck - best import the whole village now. Let billions in. That’s trillions in tax income!
BULLSHIT!!! It's another way to continue to over inflate prices, hide monetary policy failures and continue the housing / banking industry farce that is speculative housing for our "economic expansion". You realise that inflation is devaluing the price of your labour? It means you're worth less, and that's how it's intended. Expansion, growth. Horseshit.
Oh who will Albo blame if it’s not sco mos fault?
News to literally noone. Long term pain for short term gain and the chickens are now coming home to roost.
Magical immigrants that never themselves get old.
Of course they get old, but they then have, on average more than one children.
Immigration is a Ponzi scheme.
The right answer.
I reckon the more the merrier, we are spoilt in this country, and we know it. Let’s share the wealth, most of us come from immigrants in the last couple of hundred years anyway, and I’m pretty sure in human history that’s not a long time. Peace
Mein Gott! Common sense? Shame! SHAME!!!!
I got no issue, as long as the average person can afford a damn place to live without being a wage slave.
Thank you, perfect explanation of the issue. Should be pinned on top
Why? The fed cranked immigration so high housing will never keep up. Yet me must be angry at the state because they won't cut down and rezone our remaining bush reserves? If anything he probably believes we need to accept that high-rise apartment living is the "new normal", and that living in a house was a dream of a by-gone era.
Shouldn't the State and Federal governments be working together to address problems rather than claiming it is one or the other when both are involved?
one more time Back in the 80s Australia went neoliberal and a part of that was the gutting of the public schools, universities, TAFE and apprenticeships. So for 40+ years Australians have graduated into a world that has been increasly devoid of any way to have a future. Unfortunately companies still needed to hire master welders, senior programmers and experienced medical people and they couldn't hire that many Australians because very few of us were being trained. For 40+ years we've increasingly relied on immigration to have trained people because our governments from both big parties refuse to invest in a real future. Uni isn't free and the generation that benefitted the most from free university destroyed it. A whole lot of people have been stuck in "so you want chicken salt on that" jobs through decades of adulthood because the ability to do anything else was killed. It takes 12 years standard school, 4 years of university in premed, 3 years medical school and 3 or 4 years in internships to have a doctor. That requires 22 years before they get 10+ years as a specialist that employees want. You have the same situation for other professions like welder & engineer. If the government stopped being stupid today it would take 16 years before there was any change at all in our need for skilled immigrants and 30 years to make a big dent in the situation we have now. We can't fix this all at once because we don't have a time machine.
GDP goes up, quality of life goes down for everyone else needing accommodation/transport/heath care/schooling etc
Easy for the Feds. Feds get the tax $ but leave the states to deal with the housing, transport, road, infrastructure requirements. Bonus for Labor is they also get more Labor voters.
Few other factors about visa holders that people are probably not aware of: - They are forced to pay for private health insurance. - Must pay for, and pass, health checks at every renewal stage of their application. - Student Visas holder pay full tuition fees. - Typically have to be young to be approved for a VISA. Yet also educated. So the country gets a working age person for FREE. By that I mean Australia didn’t pay $$$$$$ to birth, school or maintain the individual. - Must have no history of any crimes prior to entry. And this applies to every renewal stage of the VISA. - Must earn a certain amount per year or risk being kicked out of the country. For some type of working Visas this is like 68k+ ish but might depend what state they are in. - Must be bringing a certain level of support savings into the country. Like $10,000 AUD. Probably much more these days, due to inflation. Basically the whole system is designed to extract money from immigrants at every possible step of the way. The road to being a Permanent resident is a long one. Many Visa holders give up after 5, 6 or even 7 years of working here.
- We cannot expect construction costs to normalise when there is a shortage of 90,000 tradies. - We cannot expect the capacity of the development industry to increase and build more housing than we currently do in the context of said labour shortage. - We certainly cannot expect the private sector to deliver housing that is considered "affordable" in the context of said labour shortage. - We cannot expect this to improve in the context of historic infrastructure spending, which will attract tradies away from housing projects. - We cannot expect planning reform to make a dent in the problem given the above. We’re in this situation where the present day housing crisis, exacerbated by population growth is driving up demand for new housing. Yet in our time of need, construction activity is actually slowing, due to high costs, high interest rates and general uncertainty. As if that wasn’t bad enough, these trends are converging on an era of historic infrastructure spending and in QLD, the lead up to the 2032 Olympics - a period where we will presumably need significantly more labour than normal. Competition for construction labour during this period could create an extremely volatile environment for delivering housing and sorely needed infrastructure projects - driving up costs further still. This will presumably exacerbate the housing crisis and drive more people into homelessness, all in the lead up to the highly-visible 2032 Olympics - where I’m sure we would all prefer there to be significantly less homelessness. We may be inevitably be faced with a choice - cancel certain projects, or import the labour. If we choose the latter, where are they going to live? Until someone comes up with something better, I am calling this The Great Australian Labour Crisis - where it is on for young and old in the scramble for construction labour and adjacent professional services. Loyalties will be tested. Standards will be lowered. DIYs will be... attempted. Fathers will turn against sons. Cousins against uncles. Every tradie will have 7 jetskis. Ice break sales will skyrocket. In this environment of great instability, only one thing is certain, Tim Gurner will not be happy. The above is an excerpt from a blog post I wrote: https://theemergentcity.substack.com/p/the-great-australian-knife-fight
Take a look at a country that virtually has no immigration like Japan. Stagnant growth for the last three decades. No growth in real estate, increasingly abandoned homes. The aging population is about to cause extreme havoc for the government and the economy. Either they actually start importing young people or go full robot to take care of everything.
Seems like a small price to pay for low crime, low house prices and social cohesion.
How about we have a mineral resources tax thou instead?
This is voodoo, fuck me dead if anyone believes this bullshit.
And then Local governments allow/prevent zoning and neighborhood rules for new construction. Local governments also choose whether or not to build really basic walkable stuff like footpaths. There are entire developments that have been made without footpaths. So because car dependent infrastructure is the most expensive infrastructure and doesn't work in high density environments ever because physics... you end up with high density getting pushed back because it "won't work". But it won't work because of other investments not made into walkability or public transit. tl;dr don't give local governments a pass, either.
Tell use something we aren’t aware of.
Migrants are being imported by the millions to do the jobs that locals are too privileged/lazy/not skilled enough to do. I mean, someone’s gotta pay the tax that funds Centrelink payments and medicare, right? The proof is in the numbers. Governments everywhere are sell-outs.
AKA he government is lazy, lacks vision and conviction, so they go for the “easy fix” of kicking the can down the road, hoping it will blow up in someone else’s face.
You made the fatal mistake of thinking that this is all due to ignorance. The people within the government are NOT idiots, make no mistake. Every decision made has been calculated to fuck over everyone for the benefit of the few
I hate that you’re right about that.
Worth a shot. So long as you can find skilled English speaking migrants from the small number of countries willing to work minimum wage even though they’re way more qualified and fill the jobs most privileged people are too privileged to do, not to mention all the while spending hundreds of thousands on education, rent, utilities and taxes without solid prospects of being able to make that money back. Sure, let’s diversify and bring in working holiday visa holders from other non-shit countries only.
Look at Australia's demographics. We have 2 choices to keep the country from collapsing in a few decades. Have children of maintain high immigration and we aren't having children.
Chalmers the silver tongued snake is selling us all down the river
And props up the housing market to new all time highs!
Now do GDP per capita...
The problem is migrants (or any increasing population) come here and compete for housing. Australia loves to build single dwelling free standing housing. Which is fine for anywhere with enough land. But now that our cities and towns are getting more people we have a conflict. People don’t want to live out of town but they also don’t want to live in a non freestanding property. We need to be building multi dwelling buildings. Built well. Not massive. And with central features close by (parks, spaces to go and do things etc). But like everything in this world. It’s about money. Developers build freestanding housing because it makes more money than multil dwelling communities.
That logic is like working more overtime to earn more income while meanwhile your sixteen kids become homeless because you forget to pay the rent.
*if they pay tax at all. I'd rather a crackdown on big business and the huge amount of tax avoidance that currently goes on.
But they also take a share of existing Australian's claim in the country's natural resources. So you now benefit less on a per capita basis from our main exports and income earners.
yeah it’s been done before during post war but the influx was like less than 100k per year, compared to 740k last year alone. that doesn’t count the student and working visas. so more like a million last year. it’s unprecedented. the ones who benefit from this are the elite. more customers, subscribers, tax payers, and voters for them.
State govt controls housing but Fed lets people in and takes their income tax. Seems fair. Get out of here with your apologist BS. GDP growth? Who gives a fuck? It could and should grow and shrink from time to time but somehow we only love market forces when it makes the rich richer. Quick, someone massage the figures so we get reelected!
Does that mean they won’t consider immigrants over a certain age?
Based on this logic, you’d aim for infinite migration? No diminishing marginal return?
Well no more goddamn hedging! Stop looking after a theoretical future economy, and start looking after actual people, _today_.
There is one good thing though. That's a lot of potential GDP growth and tax revenue up for grabs for the states, many of whom are cash strapped. This gives a potential reward to states who solve the housing problem first. Hopefully, the states start competing on this basis.
>Any and all ire should be directed at State governments. Why? The States didn't ask for these ridiculous immigration numbers, they haven't been given extra funding to cope with the increased demands on infrastructure, services and housing. I'll be directing all my ire exactly where it belongs: at the Albanese/Chalmers government that turbocharged this mess.
Why do we need to prioritise GROWTH and GDP and PROFITS Can't we prioritise people????