The election thread - Will the new PM last a full term - who will you futilely vote for?

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 12 18.8%
  • Labor

    Votes: 25 39.1%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Greens

    Votes: 16 25.0%
  • Independant

    Votes: 4 6.3%
  • The Reason Party

    Votes: 4 6.3%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Total voters
    64

johnny

I'll tells ya!
Staff member
Not caring about something because it doesn't affect you is just as shitty a thing to do as voting [1]-Me in your picture.
In this context, I don't think that's a completely fair thing to say. This issue is too complex for the average punter to understand so of course they are going to vote on things based on their interests.

Nobody is fully across every policy of every party they number on the ballot. In that sense, people vote on what they care about and mosts often that's going to be the things that impact them, regards values and interests. They will discount the things they don't understand, even if they are aware of an issue, because one has to draw a line somewhere.
 

Scotty T

Likes Dirt
Dude. Poor people don't have shares. I thought we cleared that up. I care less about people with shares than actual poor people. I am not poor. But i am also not rich enough to have shares on top of mortgage and life.

As I alluded to in my post most of these so called poor are people like my in laws. It galls me that they would see this as important enough to vote on given they have great grandkids. I am voting for climate change. I've made it clear previously so calling me out as voting for me is just plain wrong.

I am for the franking bullshit in principle. If it needs tuning so the genuinely poor, let's call those people likely to run out of money before they die, because the genuinely poor unretired people don't have shares, no worries. It's why we have a Senate.
 
You've really got this arse about. The point is:

  • labour are not supposed to be for the rich;
  • they propose a regressive change to the imputation credit system that is clearly too complicated for the average punter to understand;
  • they are lying when they say its a handout, it is anything but (otherwise if you get a tax refund on your salary do you consider that a handout?);
  • in revenue terms it will take more from the rich than the poor, but taking anything from the poor is a shitty thing to do;
  • it would be simple to have it asset tested and it would not impact the poor.
Not caring about something because it doesn't affect you is just as shitty a thing to do as voting [1]-Me in your picture.
Personally I think they should scrap the refunds for everyone and square the ledger for the genuinely needy another way, whether they previously received the refund or not.
 

Nambra

Postmeridian
Dude. Poor people don't have shares. I thought we cleared that up. I care less about people with shares than actual poor people. I am not poor. But i am also not rich enough to have shares on top of mortgage and life.

As I alluded to in my post most of these so called poor are people like my in laws. It galls me that they would see this as important enough to vote on given they have great grandkids. I am voting for climate change. I've made it clear previously so calling me out as voting for me is just plain wrong.

I am for the franking bullshit in principle. If it needs tuning so the genuinely poor, let's call those people likely to run out of money before they die, because the genuinely poor unretired people don't have shares, no worries. It's why we have a Senate.
Not one to be a smart arse @Scotty T, but if you've got money in super there's a pretty good chance some of it is in shares! Not going to say any more on the subject - promise. You're quite right - it's first world problem stuff and we should be more concerned about the no world problems. Globalisation, capitalism, population growth can piss off too... along with geoblocking. Let's face it, it's all Sram's fault.
 

John U

MTB Precision
Franking credits will impact my parents and in laws. Both sides have had the best run of any generation in history, and the best run any generation is likely to have (my parents acknowledge that). I’ll vote for them, and anyone else to continue to have a reasonable standard of living, a good and affordable services and healthcare. Continued franking credits for them though? No way.
 

Scotty T

Likes Dirt
Not one to be a smart arse @Scotty T, but if you've got money in super there's a pretty good chance some of it is in shares! Not going to say any more on the subject - promise. You're quite right - it's first world problem stuff and we should be more concerned about the no world problems. Globalisation, capitalism, population growth can piss off too... along with geoblocking. Let's face it, it's all Sram's fault.
I am lucky to have decent super, one of the reasons I'm not poor. I even paid my own for 15 years running my own business. Poor people often don't have super or it is inadequate.

I guess on the share thing I'm not talking about me if I decided to SMSF. I'm more thinking of people who use structures and family trusts and so forth to exploit these benefits. People who have extra money to invest, above their expenses and super their employer pays.

We had some shares, cashed them in when times got tough. I also cashed in some super to start my first business in the mid 90's. Thinking of this made me consider the difference in slogan. Have a go get a go. Ie there are two groups, bludgers and workers and your tax will go to bludgers if you vote Labor. As opposed to Fair go for Australia, which doesn't have those connotations. I've always hated that victim blaming attitude and placing so much importance on a small percentage of a small percentage who are genuinely bludging.

Maybe I'd have a tidy portfolio if I didn't do mtb. So that definitely makes it SRAM's fault :)
 

Calvin27

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Maybe I'd have a tidy portfolio if I didn't do mtb.
Most people here saying they don't own shares, but their bike shed is worth a decent share portfolio lols. An anti geoblock single issue party would have got my vote anyday.

It's interesting that labor have gone that hard in terms of policy. You would have thought they could just sit back and win government.But I think they smell blood and want to replicate a Victorian whitewash and increase their control. I don't mind their policies because I'm not a NG anymore and my small share portfolio gets paid at a marginal rate. From an objective perspective though; if you are counting of franking credits to get through, then you are not really self funding your retirement in the first place. The ANU stuff is interesting and I'm glad someone has done the numbers.
 

SummitFever

Likes Bikes and Dirt
The franking credits stuff is insignificant in importance compared to the environment. I posted it up as an example of how the pollies can take advantage of ill-informed voters to get their vote. eg. franking credits = govt. handout to the rich.

I've lived through the same bullshit with the GST. "It'll make the rich pay their fair share of tax" they said. Could not have been more untrue. If you're poor, you spend all of your money, so a consumption tax results in you being taxed on every cent you have/spend. For the rich, you don't consume all of your money so its not all subject to a "consumption" tax. What actually happens though, is the properly wealthly buy lots of stuff through their companies and they get the GST back as an input tax credit so they pay no tax. For example, guy I knew was going to buy a helicopter before GST introduced. Would have paid 20% sales tax on it which could not be claimed back. After GST introduced, paid no sales tax but paid 10% GST which his company got back as an input tax credit. Saved around $6m if I remember correctly. He thought the GST was the best thing since sliced bread.

Introduction of the GST has been good for me too. I knew I would be better off, but I still didn't vote for it. I put ME last in that election because the last thing I want to see is the have-nots turn into have-lesses.
 

Calvin27

Likes Bikes and Dirt
uh oh, here we go again !!!
haha ok I'll stop lol.

I think though a lot of these 'issues' are small piece meal ideas that produce small results compared to broader leadership we have missed for a long time. For example, what exactly is the growth plan for Australia and specifically how does this work with an emission reduction / environment strategy. Answer is 'I don't know' and 'what policy?'.
 
The franking credits stuff is insignificant in importance compared to the environment. I posted it up as an example of how the pollies can take advantage of ill-informed voters to get their vote. eg. franking credits = govt. handout to the rich.

I've lived through the same bullshit with the GST. "It'll make the rich pay their fair share of tax" they said. Could not have been more untrue. If you're poor, you spend all of your money, so a consumption tax results in you being taxed on every cent you have/spend. For the rich, you don't consume all of your money so its not all subject to a "consumption" tax. What actually happens though, is the properly wealthly buy lots of stuff through their companies and they get the GST back as an input tax credit so they pay no tax. For example, guy I knew was going to buy a helicopter before GST introduced. Would have paid 20% sales tax on it which could not be claimed back. After GST introduced, paid no sales tax but paid 10% GST which his company got back as an input tax credit. Saved around $6m if I remember correctly. He thought the GST was the best thing since sliced bread.

Introduction of the GST has been good for me too. I knew I would be better off, but I still didn't vote for it. I put ME last in that election because the last thing I want to see is the have-nots turn into have-lesses.
weren't there income tax cuts at the same time ?
 

Flow-Rider

Wheel size expert
The franking credits stuff is insignificant in importance compared to the environment. I posted it up as an example of how the pollies can take advantage of ill-informed voters to get their vote. eg. franking credits = govt. handout to the rich.

I've lived through the same bullshit with the GST. "It'll make the rich pay their fair share of tax" they said. Could not have been more untrue. If you're poor, you spend all of your money, so a consumption tax results in you being taxed on every cent you have/spend. For the rich, you don't consume all of your money so its not all subject to a "consumption" tax. What actually happens though, is the properly wealthly buy lots of stuff through their companies and they get the GST back as an input tax credit so they pay no tax. For example, guy I knew was going to buy a helicopter before GST introduced. Would have paid 20% sales tax on it which could not be claimed back. After GST introduced, paid no sales tax but paid 10% GST which his company got back as an input tax credit. Saved around $6m if I remember correctly. He thought the GST was the best thing since sliced bread.

Introduction of the GST has been good for me too. I knew I would be better off, but I still didn't vote for it. I put ME last in that election because the last thing I want to see is the have-nots turn into have-lesses.
When GST first came out my boss used to store it into his mortgage loan to reduce interest until it was time to pay the ATO and he also used it as excuse to bump the prices up by saying the accounting costs were higher, which they were but not to the point he raised prices up to.
 

John U

MTB Precision
haha ok I'll stop lol.

I think though a lot of these 'issues' are small piece meal ideas that produce small results compared to broader leadership we have missed for a long time. For example, what exactly is the growth plan for Australia and specifically how does this work with an emission reduction / environment strategy. Answer is 'I don't know' and 'what policy?'.
We need to think bigger than this. Should we have a growth plan? Should we have a sustain plan?
Should we have a reduce plan?

A million species on the brink of extinction would indicate we’ve had enough growth for a while.
 

Calvin27

Likes Bikes and Dirt
We need to think bigger than this. Should we have a growth plan? Should we have a sustain plan?
Should we have a reduce plan?
Yes. I meant that in a generic context - as in how do we grow as a country to be better, not just bigger.

The reduce plan is interesting because it goes against all other economic theories pollies subscribe to. Because we are a resource rich country population growth only serves to dilute per capita wealth. And theoretically as one of the highest per capita emitters, technically you'd not want anyone coming to Australia from and environment perspective!
 

ForkinGreat

Random Krishna
Seriously though, you rekon legalise weed party will have legs? Seems like it has piqued the interest of a lot of people (I put them first preference) and I don't remember them being around last time.
I'd like to think that they will get enough votes to get electoral funding for another tilt next time, if they don't get someone elected this time.
But only if those Burners who Burn and those who want Cannabis legalised for health reasons support them. Aus and NZ were the 2 last countries in the world to legalise eating hemp seed as a nutritional foodstuff. That is beyond lame. The 'muricans have for years.


Go Legal Hemp Party GO!!!!
 
Last edited:

Calvin27

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Aus and NZ were the 2 last countries in the world to legalise eating hemp seed as a nutritional foodstuff.
I was under the impression it was legalisedbut not as food. I remember having a strange conversation with a health food store abut hemp protein and they were kind of avoiding saying that I could eat the stuff. Kind of like raw milk - you can sell it for 'baths' but not for food.
 
Top