Ok, We seem to have a few posters who wish to troll threads with party propaganda irrelevant to the thread. So here is their opportunity to make their stance, defend their stance or show why they oppose their opposition to policies. So to kick it off… https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/feb/12/the-government-only-wants-you-to-focus-on-half-the-story-labors-taxes An opinion piece some of which I agree some of which I don’t. Either way, they demonstrate the ALP’s intent to remove opportunity and effectively ignore the plight of the poor to give more advantage to the Rich and do absolutely nothing to inforce increased emphasis on the rich paying their fair share… Considerably opposite to the basis of the party and unconscionable to expect people to actually believe their propaganda. BUT as we see some still do. Well now, looking in many directions for policy of the Coalition to kick this off and frankly I see very little. That in itself is rather telling, that it is more the same from the Coalition which again to me is not exactly acceptable. At a time where it should be now more obvious of the gap between the rich and poor, the apparent acceptability of cutting opportunity and the claim to be supporting the poor while in fact taxing them to pay for policy to pay the rich, I see a distinct lack of real Coalition policy. Early child hood education, to benefit the rich and middle class, moving negative gearing out of the realm of the middle class and lower class to the upper class and rich. Tax cuts for the high end of town, ignoring the reality of HOW the high end of town is taxed deliberately to mislead their supporters to believe who is paying for what and how they will bring them to account… I am sure others will find policy they don’t support and those they do, so now is your chance, convince us swinging voters YOUR party is worth giving a go…
I'll be honest I like the ALP's financial policies, I don't think 3% over ten years will break the economy and if you look at the chart it's only slightly more than the Coalition. The issue here is we are moving into a difficult economic period, everyone is likely to suffer, but the poor always suffer more than the wealthy. Therefore I think it is appropriate for the wealthy corporations to help the poor especially when it's a careful measured assistance over a 10 year period. Let's not forget that without money retailers don't have customers. I also approve of the Negative gearing changes, it contributes to the high cost of real estate and high levels of debt, we must make housing more affordable, bring debt levels down. Policies like Negative gearing should not run open ended, it drove the economy forward when necessary, I think it can be reinstated at some point if needed... we need to be more flexible with these tax benefits, the belief that you cannot remove them once they are instated needs to end, they are tools and should be used accordingly. You know I think the Liberals should have lowered Negative Gearing 3 years ago, it may have helped keep housing and debt in check... about the same time they brought in the Foreign investment legislation.
ok I had to make up my mind today who I'm going to vote for. I actually like Scott Morrison more than Bill Shorten (not that I dislike Bill shorten) and both parties have women in politics I really like, Marisa Payne, Tanya Pilbersek and Penny Wong. But the issue that matters most to me at this point in time is inequality. I think it is very telling that Malcolm Turnbull has returned to Goldman Sachs, he was a PM under which inequality grew at a higher rate than ever before, and even though I like Scott Morrison, I don't think he will be "allowed" ...between elitist party stalwarts like John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull.. to turn the inequality divide around. Therefore I will support Labor on this basis. 4% earn so much money it can provide government with between $600 million and $800 million a year extra at 3% tax increase over 10 years https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...x-hit-to-top-end-of-town-20190510-p51lyj.html
The Liberal party is in a fearful mess and I don’t think that they are a convincing choice for government. I can’t understand how a candidate like Gurpal Singh was allowed to stand. Who does the vetting, or does the liberal party just welcome anyone?
Actually Scarlet, Changes to negative gearing does nothing to making affordable housing. Availability is the greatest issue with the housing market, that has nothing to do with negative gearing… But, negative gearing is how people can start to grow their wealth. That is you can offset your costs against the income to help grow your capital. If you have not positively geared the property after 10 to 15 years, then you need to exploit the capital gains tax rules and sell the property as you can only negative gear the property for so long. Eventually no justification can be made for the cost. Now, when changing to positive geared property, who do you think suffers from that??? Not the investors, not the government. No, the people to suffer are the renters who pay higher rents. Now, I am assuming you know what negative gearing, capital gains and so on are. So with those points in mind, who do you think benefits from negative gearing NEW properties??? There is huge speculation of how this change will effect housing markets. Since there is a distinct lack of housing availability, don’t you think this one change will drive prices of new housing up??? Considering investors will not be purchasing back into older housing, don’t you think that will lower prices of established housing??? Now that sounds great that established housing will be cheaper for first home owners but when they decide to sell who will buy??? Vicious circle of depression in the housing market. Now, again assuming you know how the tax works, how do you think you can negative gear a new property??? After all it is about off setting cost to income. So the only people to benefit are the rich who, to do so, will have to buy several properties and combine the costs… Sorry, the changes to negative gearing and capital gains are in fact the two worst policies I can see from the ALP, as it directly removes opportunity for the middle to lower class and promotes the wealthy to take opportunity from the poor to reduce their tax liability while artificially bolstering the housing market… Last time a government artificially bolstered the housing market in such a fashion, Australia saw the recession we had to have…
OMG, you can vote for whomever you want, but posting a quote from an ALP candidate that simply insults people is not a good look. So you think a 3% tax increase will garner so much more from the top 5% of the people in Australia??? Errr, I have stayed silent on these issues due entirely to the fact, it shows most people don’t understand the Australian tax system one iota. That fact is, the top end of town doesn’t pay much income tax because they don’t earn much income. That might sound stupid to you but they earn their wealth from their investments… SO they are taxed very differently than majority of Australians. Now when you understand what taxes they do pay, then you might look at these changes proposed by BOTH sides and realise that both of them are too scared to tax the top end of town and the ALP are actually telling you they are giving more to them while taxing the lesser to pay for it… So while you might like voting for this or that, don’t tell us it is because they are supporting the people… As for Bowen, 96% of Australians won’t be affected??? Either he is so inept he doesn’t understand the impact of his own policies or he is just telling lies…
I am voting One Nation in the House (out of lack of alternatives), Liberal Democrat and Shooters' and Fishers in the Senate. I won't be touching the coalition with a 10ft pole, as they are increasingly a bunch of social justice tyrants, aren't legitimately pro-small business, and continue to disastrously swap PMs in the middle of their term. Also, gun policy is important to me and the coalition is just as bad as the ALP on this issue.
Yeap, as long as you hate gays and lesbians, Muslim, Greens and commus, Labor, unions, vegans, school teachers, university lecturers and anyone else with an open mind you are a most welcome Liberal. Not that difficult really, and ups I forgot you must be a coalhugger.... Reg.
Okay, but after maikng that first preference (which you know is irrelevant) what is important is who you later preference before the other.....Labor/Libs. That is where your vote will count.
That ia a fair point, but my vote won't count no matter what I do as: 1. I am one person, elections are rarely swung by one vote. 2. This is a strong labor seat. I will preference ALP last, greens second last, Libs third last.
All the grunt work ends up with the state parties. That might help to explain why the Victorian Libs have had so many candidates forced out. They are a rabble who just had to sell their ow headquarters to raise some cash. The previous state President, Michael Kroger, took major donor the Cormack Foundation to court before the last election to try to gain greater control over its workings. He won, but it has been a bit on the phyrric side. They didn't dole out the expected funding before the state election, and are apparently cutting off funding after the federal election. Throw in a bunch of infighting between the hard right and the not so hard right and you don't have the ideal environment for proper vetting of candidates. The Libs also pre-selected a lot of candidates late this election. Not sure exactly why, though infighting in NSW & Vic (and probably further afield) played a role. That makes it harder to weed out the problem candidates. The ALP has had a couple of stuff ups too, but nothing on the scale of the Libs. No wonder Morrison is trying to pretend he is a government of one and numerous LNP candidates are refusing to use the party name or logo on their electoral material.
So why pretend that you are not a Liberal voter? That is where your vote will end up. You might as well preference them first. Just grab a blue HTV thing on the way in to the Booth, and vote that way. Same outcome.
I don't have to like someone to vote for them, it's all about policies. Taxing the wealthy to provide Australia with money for Education, Health, Infrastructure etc is 100% something that appeals to me.... above all other.
Anyone see the Liberal launch? Initially a Labor bash broken up by pathetic ads, then the Morrison women came on stage so Morrison could give his Mother and Wife a bunch of flowers...all very spontaneous of course and not carefully choreographically arranged, then Morrison went into Hillsong Sermonising including a referral to some strange beast called the 'Promise of Australia," whetever that is. The only new thing was a miserable $M53 to female depression. It was a flat as the Lady who sang the National Anthem.
I like this vvv strategy, I think it's very effective... not enough for me personally, but I'm sure it will make first home buyers strongly consider the liberals Liberal campaign launch: Morrison makes election pitch with first-home scheme https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-makes-election-pitch-with-first-home-scheme
Wasn't there a nasty sting in the 'tale?' It is not 'free money,' and there is some connection to increased equity in the Home (which he said was a given.....hahahaha.....) under the Libs and there then had to be some pay back?
It clearly ain't no gift and Labor has announced it will do the same. https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...ower-deposit-requirement-20190512-p51mha.html
Yes...in addition to that homes are still expensive comparative to wage levels, even after 10-20% drop and personally I'm of the opinion that debt levels are too high... we are more likely to enter a period of stagnation... all in all it's worth a shot for swing voters, desperate to buy into the housing market.
