The Shakeup: hiring a PI to fight trolls, phone call anxiety + is Albo down bad?
Influencer Indy Clinton got handed a 64-page dossier of all her trolls this week, after hiring a private investigator to track them down. Is this the best way to deal with hate in the comments?
And Trump stood up Albo this week in Canada. Now, the PM is considering going to Europe to try to catch him again. Is it okay to chase someone after they let you down?
Plus is calling someone out of the blue... actually rude? Are we all sending courtesy texts before a phonecall?
Host Dave Marchese is joined by social entrepreneur Eloise Hall and comedian Billy D'Arcy.
Get the whole story from Hack:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
23 minutes ago
- News.com.au
How Susie O'Neill saved Kirsty Coventry from wardrobe malfunction
IOC President-elect Kirsty Coventry has told how Australian swimming legend Susie O'Neill saved her from a wardrobe malfunction.
ABC News
31 minutes ago
- ABC News
Jim Chalmers wants a fight on tax, just like his 'brawler' hero Paul Keating
For those hoping Labor might use its landslide victory to be more ambitious, Jim Chalmers came to the press club with a message: game on. His speech was overshadowed by dramatic developments on the other side of the world, and buried under the dull heading of productivity and tax reform. But there was no mistaking the impression that Chalmers is emboldened by the election result and wants to seize his moment. The speech was light on specifics but lofty in aspiration. The treasurer was explicit that he wanted to use August's reform roundtable to make a lasting change to the tax system — to pick a fight and win it, like his "brawler statesman" hero Paul Keating. Chalmers is several steps ahead of his more cautious prime minister, whose own press club speech about economic reform last week was more grounded in talk of "win-wins" and incremental progress. But creative tension between treasurer and prime minister is the hallmark of all consequential governments, as with Hawke and Keating, or Howard and Costello. And economic reform — especially tax — is what those governments are remembered for, just as the political graveyard is littered with infamous tax failures like Gillard's carbon tax, Hewson's "fightback" and Shorten's negative gearing and franking credits. Tax matters to people, even if its finer details can make the eyes glaze over. So it is no small matter that the treasurer is standing at an open windowsill of opportunity and declaring he wants to jump through it. As one Labor frontbencher in the room remarked, it was the kind of speech the Labor faithful had waited 15 years to hear. For now, reaction from commentators has ranged from ambivalence to outright scepticism — "Rome not yet built on day one", read the opinion pages. And it's true that ambition is often thwarted by the cold light of reality, because anything worth doing on tax is hard to do. But even the whisper of a chance is enough for economists to prick up their ears after years of relentless caution and "safe" incrementalism. And there is much that could be done. For all the rancour, economists, unions, business and welfare advocates agree a lot about what's wrong with the status quo. There are always quibbles, but the broad collected wisdom is as follows: First, Australia taxes working people too much. That picture gets even worse if you factor in transfers (welfare and subsidies), which are below the poverty line for those on the lowest incomes and effectively impose extra taxes on middle earners, because the payments are withdrawn as you earn more. The picture is worse again if you factor in bracket creep — the fact that tax settings are not adjusted for inflation, meaning people pay more tax over time. Second, our tax system is wildly inconsistent in how it treats different types of income. A couple with no assets, both on the minimum wage, could pay more tax than a couple with three homes, a share portfolio, and hundreds of thousands in annual income. In fact, without needing to bend reality too much, it's plausible that the second couple could pay no tax at all. As well as the obvious inequities, these inconsistencies are inefficient, encouraging people to park their money in certain places (especially super and property) over others. At the same time, there are many reasons to expect we will need to raise more tax over time, in part because as people live longer they will require more care. And while there is lively debate over whether some government spending can be cut, there is pressure to spend more in several areas, much of it with strong public support. So if we want to be less reliant on taxing wages, we would need to consider other ways to raise money. Increasing taxes on consumption (GST) or land are among the options that would be more efficient, though not necessarily more equitable. Finally, all of this creates an intergenerational problem, because in the coming years there will be more retirees for every person of working age, piling the tax burden onto the shoulders of the young, a problem which gets worse the longer we neglect it. To summarise: the wrong type of tax, designed badly, and not enough of it, to the detriment of working people and young people, and distorting the economy. And that's before even mentioning corporate tax, fuel tax or cigarette tax — all of which are the subject of their own lively debates. All of that is enough to be overwhelming. But a wealth of problems means a wealth of possible answers. All of the "big ticket" items that feature prominently in political debate — negative gearing, capital gains tax, super tax, raising the GST, ending bracket creep, taxing land — are efforts to address one or another of these agreed shortcomings of the tax system. While Chalmers insists he is happy for all of these to be on the table and is keen not to rule things out, his press club appearance — where journalists tried valiantly to tempt him to do just that — left the impression he wants to avoid ideas with too much baggage. If he chose negative gearing, he would be accused of reheating leftovers and presented with a highlight reel of all the times he or the PM has promised not to revisit it, with the Coalition likely opposed and the Greens likely taking credit. If he chose the GST, he would risk creating "sticker shock" and be the treasurer who delivers a temporary price rise on everything, an option unlikely to appeal so soon after a nasty bout of inflation, especially since the states would get to keep all the money. And if he chose to go further on super tax concessions, he would embolden the scare campaign already amassing against his current push to lift the tax on earnings, which visibly irritates him every time he is asked about it. None of these seems especially likely. But if the treasurer is searching for a defining reform, there are options on the shelf with more dust but fewer enemies. Perhaps the most popular among economists — and yet still fairly obscure to the general public — is a dual income tax. That tax, common in Scandinavia, treats wages and salaries ("active" or "labour" income) differently to investments and capital gains ("passive" or "savings" income). Australia currently treats some investment income the same way as wages but other types completely differently. A dual tax could close loopholes and treat investment more consistently on the one hand, and lower taxes on wage earners on the other hand, while still being revenue neutral or even raising money. It's an idea with a long lineage, discussed at length in the famous Henry tax review in the early days of the Rudd government. Ken Henry, the treasury secretary who gave that review its name and who helped Chalmers with a draft of his press club speech this week, has become something of a "godfather of tax reform", and his hefty report still carries authority. But there's little to show for that reputation — 15 years on, politicians have intoned their reverence for the Henry review while politely ignoring almost all its recommendations. The reason? Because there is no such thing as meaningful tax reform that does not create both winners and losers. And for some time now, governments skirting on the edges of electoral defeat have been nervous about losers, preferring instead to promise higher spending and lower taxes. The Morrison government made an artform of this "double carrot", carefully designing its tax cuts to ensure no taxpayer was ever made worse off by even a cent. For this it was rewarded, winning a 2019 election against a Labor opposition with a substantial and controversial tax reform agenda who told the losers that if they didn't like it, they could vote for someone else, which they did. That's the price tag of reform. But with its colossal majority, the Albanese government could decide it can afford it. Chalmers, at least, thinks so. Perhaps his most pointed comment this week was that he did not believe the media narrative that Labor was assured of a third term. Translation: time is of the essence.
Daily Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Daily Telegraph
Lizzo reveals secret to her slimdown — and finally sets the record straight on Ozempic use
Don't miss out on the headlines from Celebrity Life. Followed categories will be added to My News. It's about damn time. Lizzo has spoken about her weight loss journey - and clarified her Ozempic use - months after clapping back at rumours about the drug. 'I've tried everything,' the singer, 37, said on Trisha Paytas' Just Trish podcast on Thursday, per Page Six. The Grammy winner explained however that she abandoned the semaglutide, which has not been approved for use for weight loss in Australia, early into her journey. 'Ozempic works because you eat less food, yeah? So if you eat right, it makes you feel full,' she said. 'But if you can just do that on your own and get mind over matter, it's the same thing.' Ozempic is also associated with a number of side-effects including most commonly gastrointestinal disorders like nausea, diarrhoea and vomiting, in a way that doctor-approved changes to diet and exercise are not. Lizzo opened up about her recent body transformation. Picture: Instagram She spoke candidly about losing weight. Picture: Instagram Lizzo revealed that she saw the best results when she ditched her vegan diet. 'When I was vegan, I was consuming a lot of fake meats, I was eating a lot of bread, I was eating a lot of rice and I had to eat a lot of it to stay full,' she recalled. 'When I started actually eating whole foods and eating, like, beef and chicken and fish, I was actually full and not expanding my stomach by putting a lot of fake things in there that [weren't] actually filling me up,' the songwriter continued. She said she tried 'everything' throughout her weight loss journey. Picture: Instagram Performing at the Brit Awards in 2020. Picture:She went on to defend those who use weightloss drugs. 'It's not easy,' Lizzo insisted. 'It's a drug to help somebody with something they're struggling with.' She added that 'telling someone they're cheating' is a 'way of being fatphobic.' According to the TGA in Australia, 'Ozempic has been included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This means that the medicine has been evaluated by the TGA for its safety, quality and efficacy for that indication only.' Lizzo made headlines in September 2024 for hitting back at an Instagram hater questioning whether she was taking the type II diabetes drug. 'Whyyyy [sic] do u follow me?' she asked at the time. The following year, Lizzo explained that she had, instead, applied 'a calorie deficit' and cut 'sugary stuff' from her diet. 'Everybody's body is different,' she reminded her social media followers in April. 'Find out what works for you.' This article originally appeared in Page Six and was reproduced with permission. Originally published as Lizzo reveals secret to her weight loss and finally sets the record straight on Ozempic use
