After a threshold. You don’t want to tax some poor pensioner who has lived in the same 2-bedroom cottage in Carlton for 60 years, simply because that location is now worth $2Million.

And now it’s complicated. How do you find that threshold?
If it’s per-person, you’ll find rich people divvying up their portfolios to family members to distribute this tax benefit.
If you grandfather it in so it only affects future property purchases, you disincentivise retirees from downsizing to a smaller place, freeing up some 4-bedroom house.

Taxation policies are hard.

Remember that whole thing 15-20 years ago about “Occupy” and taxing the 1% etc?

This whole thing affects the top 0.3% of the population. 99.7% of us won’t be affected by it. There should be very wide popular support for this.

Hell, I wish I were affected by this policy. This is an awesome problem to have!

Unless you are a teenager, you’ll be retiring far sooner than 50 years. Less than 20, for me (hopefully).

Three million?! Who the hell has that much?

At that point, 5% interest will give you an annual salary of $150k. You can comfortably live off that and never touch the Three Million!

I would be in favour of banning them in the city.
But a complete car ban? That won’t have popular support in the near future.

Full disclosure: I honestly thought everyone could. 😆

As annoying as some escooter users are, I don’t think this is the best solution. Far more idiots cause deaths in cars, no calls to ban those.

That sort of vote manipulation wouldn’t be posted to this community. 😄

I’m a little surprised at how many people have seen this post. More people subscribe to Meta/browse Local than I would have guessed. Whichever it is, I love how engaged our users are in the health of the instance. You guys are great!

You are absolutely allowed to downvote anything you’d like to see less of. Yours was one of the two legitimate downvotes I was speaking of.

Nah, Eureka is legit. He just doesn’t think news should be in Australia. And that’s perfectly fine. There may come a time where we are getting enough content that we’ll want to introduce that as a rule.

It has been reported, yes. I got the report because it was an aussie.zone user who reported it. As an admin, I can remove the post, but that will only remove it for aussie.zone users.

For reports on communities on other instances, I rarely take action unless one of my users is causing issues or the post is spam/something super nasty.

This was my big fear in hiring the dude who played Tarzan. Murderbot is decidedly gender neutral - it’s one of its most prominent descriptive features. Stellan looks male.

I’ve been twice, intending to go again at some point. The kids are keen on Japan being the next holiday destination. Maybe the one after that?

I was going to re-size this image to better reflect the real scale. But the required image was 468,000 pixels wide.

This image is pretty misleading. It’s super easy to overlook that “900km” at the bottom. They would somehow transport the raw product 900km to existing infrastructure. This is on top of the problem of capturing the gas they want, while leaving behind the gas they don’t want (CO2) - which makes up 40% of what’s in there.

These are pretty significant bridges to cross. I don’t want to say that they’re dreaming, because the technology to do this does exist. But it’s going to be super vital to hold them to the whole ‘put the Carbon Dioxide back into the hole’ part of the picture, and not just let them ‘whoopsie, we accidentally let it loose into the atmosphere’.

The competition is built around actions seen in rugby union, rugby league, the NFL and AFL. Opposing individuals – a ball runner and a tackler – stand at each end of a 20m x 4m field, and run full speed at each other with the goal of trying to bowl each other over.

RUNIT Championship League released a statement to Stuff on Tuesday afternoon after news of Satterthwaite’s death was made public, saying it did “not encourage any copying of the sport as it should only be done under the strict conditions”.

I don’t know what to say in response to that. Nobody (even a teenager) who actually thought about it would read this and think it sounds like a good idea. As a dad to a teenage son, it hits a bit close to home - feeling terrible for the family, but also wondering how you teach a teenage boy not do such stupid stuff.

I remember being young and invulnerable as well. I think teenage me could have been talked into doing this. That kid was an idiot.

She’s trying to tarnish the character of her critics by (falsely) suggesting that their own consumption makes it hypocritical to criticise Woodside.

That wasn’t the take I got at all.

“So that human impact and the consumer’s role in driving energy demand and emissions absolutely is a missing space in the conversation.”

She’s basically saying the entire reason they exist and are doing what they do is because of consumer demand. That’s you and me. We just aren’t to accept it if we flick a switch and power doesn’t come on. In the medium term, we still need fossil fuels to support our society.

The correct response to her is to keep developing and employing sources of energy that reduce this demand. And not only for us, but for people globally.

It’s a local council issue 3,600 km away. I would be deeply concerned if it was!

Did you see what was front page news here yesterday? 😆

You’ve completely missed the point. Yes, those companies are driving emissions. Where are they driving those emissions to though? People like you and me who are generating that demand. Nobody is burning fossil fuels for shits and giggles. They’re doing it to make a profit. It is also worth looking at who those companies are - very strong representation in developing nations who are lifting their populations into the modern world. If you are the beneficiary of two centuries of industrial advancement, it’s a bit hypocritical to sit there and claim that people who are trying to join you are the problem.

We’re talking specifically about Australian environmental issues here and an Australian company. In Australia, renewable energy is subsidised and more incentives are on the way. I don’t think you’ll find too many people in Australia who will agree that their home electricity bills are low. They are in fact so high that the federal government has stepped in to help households pay their power bills.

We are also talking about a gas company in WA. WA has a scheme where gas is sold to its domestic market at a lower rate under a very smart quota system, but this is not a subsidy - it is a recognition that the gas is owned by everyone and does not just belong to the company that happens to extract it.

This isn’t wrong, but it would also be a mistake to ignore her altogether. The wider point she is making is that many of the people protesting Woodside’s actions are also consumers. Home energy in particular is something people take for granted. People also don’t think about the energy it takes to order stuff online, or to buy asparagus and avocados from Mexico etc.

Woodside exists to make money. They make money by meeting a demand that we the consumers are providing. I’m no exception here, so this isn’t a soapbox spiel. We need to work toward a renewable future, but simply are not yet in a position where we can avoid burning any fossil fuels as well. If we accept that we need fossil fuels in our world for the moment, it is our responsibility to keep the Woodsides of the world to practices that are as sustainable for the planet as possible, not only sustainable for their profit margins.

Hold these people to a high standard, yes. But don’t ignore the difference millions of people can also make. Don’t simply go “eh, my teeny carbon footprint is insignificant next to Woodside’s” - because collectively all our footprints together are in fact a bit significant.