2019 Federal Election Discussion

[RooFlyer]

Whoa! Put the ABC in the 'far right media' group

Under Mr Shorten, Labor pitched steadily toward the left, with the class-envy rhetoric, the redistributionist tax policies and the mantra that this was the "climate change election". After campaigning so hard on these issues and falling so dismally, it's time to retreat.

To set Labor free from its shackles, Albanese would need to dispel the perception that Labor is a paler shade of the Australian Greens.

Time to defund this biased, shameless drain on the taxpayer.

 

[OATEK]

All the conspiracy theories just make me laugh! I keep coming back to one key word that sums up how and why Labor lost - Hubris.

 

[amaroo]

Not true.He controls just over 30% but gets over 70% of the readership.Totally different.

Have no idea if those numbers are correct, but lets assume they are. It's a pretty impressive result given all but one of their mastheads are paywall.

 

[Moody]

All the conspiracy theories just make me laugh! I keep coming back to one key word that sums up how and why Labor lost - Hubris.

No doubt you will have access to dozens of examples of this. Please share them with us so that we can all agree with your concise and unbiased opinion.

 

[RooFlyer]

No doubt you will have access to dozens of examples of this. Please share them with us so that we can all agree with your concise and unbiased opinion.

For the numerous times you have asked for examples of this and that in this thread ... would the provision of same change your mind? I think it goes without saying that we all have unbiased opinions here. I know I do.

 

[Moody]

For the numerous times you have asked for examples of this and that in this thread ... would the provision of same change your mind? I think it goes without saying that we all have unbiased opinions here. I know I do.

Everyone is biased .... but if you want to prosecute your opinion it helps to have at least a skerrick of truth in what you say. For example there will be plenty here who deny that there were attack ads from the coalition that they knew to be a pack of lies. Plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[RooFlyer]

For example there will be plenty here who deny that there were attack ads from the coalition that they knew to be a pack of lies. Plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.

No doubt you will have access to dozens of examples of this. Please share them with us so that we can all agree with your concise and unbiased opinion.

 

[dajop]

Thanks for the link Moody.It was a great laugh.
Just one fact-it says Murdoch controls 70% of the print media.Not true.He controls just over 30% but gets over 70% of the readership.Totally different.

I guess the difference lies in who owns the rural/regional mastheads like the Whyalla News and West Wyalong Advocate.

 

[Moody]

No doubt you will have access to dozens of examples of this. Please share them with us so that we can all agree with your concise and unbiased opinion.

From the liars den itself ....

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1120572560511397888

 

[vetrade]

Where is the lie? I only see evidence of Labor lies. Gillard sure blatantly lied about the carbon tax and Shorten's failed attempt at The Lodge means his statement will never be tested one way or the other, but forewarned is forearmed, so people should rightly consider if they could trust Shorten, especially as he was far from convincing with his evasive stance about the costs of his climate change policies etc. If there was ever a man trying desperately to cherry pick his words to avoid telling the plain truth, it was Shorten.

The question posed was "Can you trust Labor on taxes?" and, given Labor's propensity to both raise taxes and bring in new ones, the short answer is a resounding "No".

 

[OATEK]

BTW Macquaries has Libs in front now by just 7 votes.

 

[OATEK]

BTW Macquaries has Libs in front now by just 7 votes.

And now +140 to ALP. Yoyoing

 

[moa999]

And now +140 to ALP. Yoyoing

And now +284

 

[CaptJCool]

Yo-yo. Back in the day, coca-cola used to bring yo-yo experts to Australia to show all the tricks

Jackman is the Greatest Showman on Earth, and ScoMo the greatest salesman on earth... just saying.

For example. retiree Tax.
This hinges on history.
1987. Franking credits started as a non-refundable tax offset to avoid double taxation but not to create no taxation. Superannuation was taxed. Interest rates were 14% heading to 22%
2001. Bipartisan approach to make it a refundable tax offset. Superannuation was still taxed, interest rates were 7-12% ? Still relatively high
2007. Superannuation was moved to the tax-free column. Interest rates were 6-9% ? Investments outside super then had the benefits of the taxable income thresholds as previously they were stacked on top of super and charged at marginal rate. These two moves expanded the quantum of the refundable tax offset.
2016 unannounced policies legislated without being advertised ahead of an election. 400,000 age pensioners lost age pension as result of two changes. The first because income tests for defined benefits were changed from 50% income exemption to 10% income exemption
The second was the assets test taper rate changed from 3:1 to 1.5:1
2017. $1.6 million ($3.2 million a couple) transfer balance cap introduced so people with assets over that figure were generally not on old age pension but now also needed to pay 15% tax instead of 0% on earnings on the asset above the cap, this resulted in some reduction to franking credits refunds halving the amount. Interest rates are now like 3-5%

So Labor policy was to return these to a non-refundable tax offset.
In a literal sense, it’s not a tax, it’s removal of a concession but it’s main target was the retiree group with NO SUPER or with Super below Cap in an SMSF who are ineligible for age pension,

so in the context of Retiree Tax, it was a tax.

Why? Someone’s gotta pay tax for the uncapped demand-driven health services, and only 17% of those aged over 65 pay income tax, and yet they are serious users of govt funds.

It’s not sustainable but in a system where benefits predominantly accrue to those who don’t pay, not surprising. When super matures after 35 years, perhaps it’s a policy for then. That’s another 8 years off

 

[CaptJCool]

The question posed was "Can you trust Labor on taxes?" and, given Labor's propensity to both raise taxes and bring in new ones, the short answer is a resounding "No".

Well since the liberals have aready raised $46 billion on unannounced tax changes, a further $38 billion per annum on top of that, sure No, but only if you don’t tell people ahead of time, you just spring it on them later when they can’t protest.

Mind you, Labor can’t deal with cutting expenditure. Apparently the PBS ran out of money and they simply stopped adding products. Libs came in and cut some out, to make space for new PBS products.

Labor has to show willingness to cut expenditure on non-essential stuff but won’t. Champagne tastes, coca-cola Income. You gotta “cut the cloth” and they won’t

 

[RooFlyer]

Tell you what. Albanese is not seeming to make headway in changing the ALP' way of doing things post election. Kristina Keneally - she of a failed past - has replaced Ed Husic - much touted future leader - in Albanese's shadow cabinet.

 

[drron]

Peter Van Onselen in yesterday's Australian.
.

Behind a pay wall but here is the bit that back's Oatek's comment up thread.

Like many I was surprised by the election result two Saturdays ago. While for many the double of Scott Morrison winning the prime ministership and Tony Abbott losing his seat was the perfect double, I only expected one of those events to unfold.

Bill Shorten’s loss must be personally devastating for him. I’ve heard that his house was half packed up, ready for the move into The Lodge. I know shadow ministers were organising post election briefings with heads of department, as well as lining up new names to take on such roles after the election. Shorten had already planned the timing and agenda of his first cabinet meeting before counting even started.

 

[Pushka]

I can imagine all the unnecessary shredding of documents that had taken place.

 

[Moody]

Where is the lie? I only see evidence of Labor lies. Gillard sure blatantly lied about the carbon tax and Shorten's failed attempt at The Lodge means his statement will never be tested one way or the other, but forewarned is forearmed, so people should rightly consider if they could trust Shorten, especially as he was far from convincing with his evasive stance about the costs of his climate change policies etc. If there was ever a man trying desperately to cherry pick his words to avoid telling the plain truth, it was Shorten.

The question posed was "Can you trust Labor on taxes?" and, given Labor's propensity to both raise taxes and bring in new ones, the short answer is a resounding "No".

Where is the lie? Everything that the Coalition said about death taxes, and not surprisingly ..... everything you have just posted.

Julia Gillard had no intention of introducing a carbon tax because it was political suicide (Australians being a nation of coal-lovers who couldn't give a rats cough about the environment). Then the voters decided that neither major party deserved to rule in their own right, and the price the Greens extracted for their support was to form a multi-party committee on climate change. The solution they came up with was an ETS that was based on the cap-and-trade model, but was initially uncapped and fixed price. Thus the climate deniers could scream "She's a witch!", and have a good old fashioned stoning (with coal, obviously).

So "lied" is harsh but arguable. "Blatantly lied" infers a level of dishonesty at near ScoMo levels, which is a stretch.

And Bill Shorten absolutely and unequivocally rejected the Labor Death Tax Lie as soon as it emerged from the cesspit of the alt-right. So what did the Coalition do? They rode that sucker all the way to the polls with a win at all costs glee that only the soulless would support.

But I can see that right-wing lies have a certain currency on this site, so I won't bother showing them up for what they are.

 

[moa999]

All the parties use similar tactics.
Eg. labors Medicare campaign in the 2016 election and the SMSs that appeared they came from 'Medicare'.

Kerry Phelps used Purple on all her campaign materials, and in areas where Sydney and Wentworth intersected some of Plibersek's signs were also in Purple with no visible party logos.