But look at the example where he kept having a go over the "majority of wealthy Australians support a repeal on the tax cuts" because it was less than 50% who did. He knows the electorate doesn't work that way, he knows if there was a vote on it his preference would lose based on that survey (over 50% of all people surveyed supported), but he kept at it, as if donkey votes are counted and only the view of beneficiaries of the cuts matters.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, you may want to at least be accurate about it.
What I ACTUALLY said was a minority of those surveyed support repealing, which is correct (47%).
You can't count the non responses in the support for repeal either. You can't make assumptions about their decision not to vote either.
Quote below for reference
But lets just unpack the 150k earners for a sec - 47% support repealing, 29% oppose and the other 24%? Probably abstained from answering so as not to have communists jump down their throat for opposing (don't blame them
).
But in all seriousness without knowing where the other 24% stand, we can say that a minority has supported repealing them, being 47% and all.....if i had to be technical.
I also didn't say that only "only the view of beneficiaries of the cuts matters". The assertion I made (which was to counter the unsubstantiated claim that the majority of wealthy people support repealing) was the only data that would
objectively prove that the "majority of wealthy people support repealing" would be a survey exclusively made up of those that actually stand to gain the full breadth off cuts, for which the data doesn't exist.
A nationally representative sample by definition tells you that the demographics in the sample will be more weighted to lower and average incomes. Why wouldn't the majority of that demographic surveyed feel poorly and a minority feel positive towards tax cuts for the rich? The survey demographic basically dictates the result. Anything that is nationally representative where only a the wealthy stand to directly benefit something will come up with same results.
If you surveyed only billionaires with yachts if they should donate them to the low and middle income segment of society, most of them would tell you to get fucked. But you surveyed only the "normal" part of society that would never ever own one or likely even ever step foot on one, if billionaires should sell their yachts and donate the money to them, they'd likely overwhelmingly vote yes.
If you get a nationally representative sample and ask the same question, a large proportion of them will vote for "give me your yacht money, cunt" and smaller proportion will be "no way".
Why is this difficult to grasp?
Anyway this is a dead horse. If you have blinkers when discussing this stuff and cant work within context, then most positions taken are going to be biased