MisterFrog

I'm only for this if card providers can't charge the retailer stupid rates because some people want to use rewards cards, and this would mean all customers, cash or card, would have to cover this cost. Which is a subsidy for the people who can be approved for rewards cards.

I'm actually in favour of the opposite approach. I want it to be mandatory to pay the card fee (but not the payment provider fee). The retailer should be required to pass on the card fee.

This would stop things like Square charging a flat rate for every single type of card, despite EFTPOS being vastly cheaper in most cases.

So, the merchant passes on the cost of their payment provider fee equally to everyone (included in the price), and depending what type of card you use determines how much you pay in transaction fees.

This would incentivise card fees to be low, making EFTPOS much more attractive. And incentivise payment providers to be competitive in their fees (and ban them from charging the same rate for all cards)

I am not in favour of getting rid of card fees unless we bring in a government controlled payment platform that is run at cost, and all these other cards still have to pay fees.

Getting rid of transaction fees entirely just wraps them all into the cost, and means there is no incentive for consumers and retailers to prefer low cost options. It actually creates a perverse incentive for consumers to choose the cards with rewards points, which is terrible for everyone accept the card provider (and to a lesser extent the user of those cards)

Luckily for us, most of society (in Australia, at least) disagrees with you.

The death penalty is barbaric, and has had many, many, many cases of being committed on innocent people in the US.

The justice system isn't omnipotent, it's just humans, afterall. Why yes, let's make the consequence for getting it wrong death, that seems logical /s

This guy is a piece of shit, and in my opinion deserves more than 6 years of prison and a lifetime ban on operating any motor vehicle (or any heavy machinery full stop), but killing him?

This isn't Gilead, and eye for an eye is not most Australians values.

Part of living in a society is paying taxes, and some of those taxes will go to things you don't personally like, but society does (corruption, lobbying and inefficient notwithstanding).

And society has decided we're living in 2025, not the middle ages. We don't kill people. We aspire to giving people a second chance. In the grand scheme of things, prisons represent a tiny fraction of Australia's budget.

I'd say it's totally worth it if it means people's family members aren't being killed for doing something illegal.

There are some cases where the person is question is irredeemable, but I see this as the "cost of doing business" so to speak.

It's the same reason we have innocent until proven guilty, better to let some guilty people walk free than lock up innocent people. And better to let some awful people live, rather than accidentally kill someone who doesn't deserve it.

There's a reason most civilised countries don't have the death penalty anymore.

Based !fuckcars@lemmy.world enjoyer?

May I also interest you in: https://www.standards.org.au/news/revised-standard-recommends-larger-parking-bays-across-the-country

Luckily, they got massive backlash, and haven't yet actually updated the standard after almost 2 years since.

I'm gonna be really angry if they do increase parking bay sizes.

Gotta love urban sprawl

This reads as you would expect from Newscorp. The way it's written is clearly biased towards a US agenda.

"Targeting our cities" seems like a weird way to put this, seems like emotionally charged language.

At no point does the article actually mention how the Chinese were targeting Australia cities.

Unless they're actually firing something at a city, is it targeting? Intimidating perhaps? Even then, they just passed by.

The deputy PM's response makes way more sense than what this piece seems to be implying.

It then straight up puts forward the American agenda on military spending and the strategic interests of Taiwan. Unlike the Australian side where it just quotes, it straight up takes a position for the Americans.

There's so much actual stuff to be criticising China for, but this passing by isn't one of them.

This shit is manufacturing consent for a future war with the US and China. If the US want to get into a war over Taiwan, that's none of our business. We are a middle power, and have a tiny military. Joining another war for the US would be a huge mistake. Especially against another superpower.

The current government seems on the money on this one, and absolutely fucking stupid when it comes to backing the US strikes again Iran.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergon_Energy

You're in the situation what we wish to get back to in Victoria, you should feel lucky, not complaining.

"Bargain hunting" for a electricity retailer is absurd. Because the privately owned electricity distributors set the rates, and the retailers just repackage the wholesale rates as fixed cost supply and usage charges. There is no "choice". (This is the situation in Victoria)

There should be one electricity distributor, the government (this is buy-in-large, your situation), who provides electricity at cost. Because it's a natural monopoly, there's no use of having parallel energy transmission wires owned by different companies, which is why that isn't done anywhere in Australia (in most cases).

This is exactly why our costs are way higher than in Queensland. "Competition" of privatisation doesn't work.

Thanks Kennett (the Liberal Premier who sold off the Vic SEC).

The Sydney Morning Herald

I'm mean, it's better than newscorp, but let's not pretend like any Nine-Fairfax companies don't toe the right wing corporate line.

They are the embodiment of the teals (our socially progressive, economically right wing politicians).

The guardian which is not Australian ranks highest in my mind here. ABC is okay, but after their funding cuts under the LNP they're way less critical of the government.

Part of the problem is that private health exists, but it can't cover you for anything other than hospital.

"Extras" aren't really insurance, it's a incentive scheme but you basically pay whatever you're using at cost.

The solution here is not to allow private health to cover the gap between Medicare and the out of pocket cost. The solution is to say, if you charge more than the rebate then it's 100% private, you won't get a cent of Medicare.

Watch as private healthcare absolutely bottoms out because they'll actually have to cover the whole cost, and therefore premiums will rise like crazy.

How we we afford this? We're already affording it. We subsidise private health, we pay insurance premiums. If you can convince people: oh hey, want cheaper health insurance? Oh hey, what's this? You can pay LESS in universal healthcare than you do in premiums!

Lots of people would go for it. A lot of us have private health insurance because of how the incentives are currently set up. We don't want it. Before the tax concessions no one wanted it.

You'd have to couple it with a massive investment in Medicare, completely removing all tax concessions for private health (which they should have never implemented in the first place). Better pay for medicos.

But we can damn well afford it now, just that it's politically difficult, especially with the corporate media, and everyone wanting taxes to go down (which I personally think is dumb as fuck).

We need to put private health in the bin where I belongs. Hybrid systems are shit.

I second this, but make it +0% or else 100% private.

Honestly, we need most medicos to be employees (of the government), and they can start a union to keep conditions and pay appropriate.

Our subsidy system is just funneling money into practice owner's pockets, who set prices based on supply and demand, which is a fucked way to run a healthcare system.

Let's just pay the average medico more, while skipping all the profits were subsidising.

We recently did have protests because of the recent death in custody in the NT. But you're right, they're not terribly large.

Even the weekly Palestinian protests are larger.

They can't form a political party. Right? We do not have freedom of speech in this country. Hate speech is illegal. At least, I would think so?

Ignoring their 3:30AM flashmobs seems prudent.

Don't give them the light of day

Private providers in a public system is ridiculous in my opinion. Here's an idea, hire them directly instead of paying for a profit margin. :O (this opinion extends to Medicare providers, also)

What I recall being ridiculous was the wait on Centrelink applications. (It's been a number of years since being off Centrelink so don't haven't paid attention recently)

Waiting 3 months was an option for me, but Christ, I can't imagine how shit that must be who need immediate stability.

I also very much hope Labor update payment rates. Where are you gonna find a place anywhere near services and public transport to rent cheaply enough in order to actually get by?

If only we heavily invested in public housing, I'd wager we'd either end up saving a bunch of money not going to private landlords, or otherwise massively increase the amount in the pockets of people on Centrelink, because it wouldn't be going to landlords...

Alas.

Make $100,000 from selling your labor. 2024-25 FY: $20,788 (not including deductions)

Make $100,000 from selling your appreciating assets: $5,788.00

Gotta love that capital gains discount...