I contest this as someone aspiring to own an investment property soon and "lives in the real world" (as the bills in my mailbox will attest) in the over $90k earning bracket that would objectively be financially better off under the Libs (not that they'll get their policies through by the financial new year because they put the election so far back) but my vote went with my ideals, not my wallet.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who put their personal financial interests ahead of their ideals when casting their vote. After all, I'm sure not everyone who voted or preferenced the Libs own a coal mine or media empire lol

What do you mean?

You included the Greeny vote and added that to the ALP primary and came up with 43% Vs 41.7% or whatever it was.

Well, why can't we include the One Nation and Clive Palmer vote on ours then? They are mostly LNP voters doing a protest vote.

Every worker will be better off. When there are tax cuts, the brackets and rates change usually to address bracket creep. So if the bottom bracket gets a cut, it also applies to all the upper brackets too.

I posted the official Two Party Preferred in the next post and even gave the link, not sure what your problem with me is.

Yeh, the TPP was 52 to 48...

I don't have a problem with you. I am just trying to understand what your argument is all about.

Well said.
  

Its simplistic and arrogant thinking like this that cost Labor the election. As if your own "ideals" are in any way "superior" or more virtuous to anybody else's ideals who didn't vote Labor

Shorten and Bowen were the two most divisive political figures in living memory.  Theirs would not have been a government that unites but a government that divides: young against old, low income earner against middle income earner, home owner against renter, pensioner against self-funded retiree, employer against worker.

Voters rejected the virtue signalling of the Left, the hypocrisy of their intolerance to any contrary voice, the relentless attack on free speech, their social engineering, their attack on aspiration, their politics of envy and class division. the shameless lies and misinformation by Shorten and Bowen that sought to exploit the financial illiteracy of the general populous, and the demonizing of those who pay the vast bulk of everything as the Top End of Town.

Offering no middle ground because they "had a moral mandate" theirs would have been a government that sought to fuck over anyone who stood in their way 

Australia dodged a bullet.

What is "social inequity"?

I don't think Pala is suggesting people voting for their ideals is wrong. It's completely reasonable. Of course he thinks his ideals are superior and virtuous otherwise why would he have them over others in this "marketplace of ideas"? 

You're pretty naive if you think the LNP aren't dividing the community. They're actually the ones putting in policies in place to go after welfare recipients, attack worker rights and give tax cuts to the wealthy. 

I'll agree that some middle ground on franking credits policy might have helped them with self-funded retirees. These people are getting a benefit they really should never have gotten but the voting bloc is too big.

It's a pity that some pretty modest reforms that wouldn't have affected a small number of people for the benefit of many is considered ambitious and can be attacked so easily.  

https://www.dictionary.com/

I do live in the real world...

I think it’s wrong to assume that the people who voted Liberal did so because of tax cuts and financial selfishness.  Firstly, the tax cuts were modest at best, nobody is going to become a millionaire.  Secondly those that would obtain the most benefit from tax cuts representing a tiny fraction of the voting population.  It’s also worth noting that despite all the film flam about Labor’s lofty values and ideals, their primary go to ideal each election campaign is to try to buy the election by taxing the “top end of town” and redistribute it to lower income groups.  All the poorest, highest unemployment tend to vote Labor because it usually means more benefits and free money.

Voters didn’t reject Labor because of tax cuts and financial self interest, they rejected Labor because their ideals sucked and were based on class division, raiding peoples incomes and destabilising the economy through lavish spending commitments and fiscal mismanagement.  Put simply Labor can’t manage money and this was the bill Australia couldn’t afford.

LOL cringe.

-PB

RBA cuts are a sign of a struggling economy - Joe Hockey

-PB

Yes very naive to believe that LNP voters voted because they wanted a tax cut. That is a very small factor.

They voted LNP for many reasons. For instance, the LNP is widely regarded as being the party that is a better manager of finances and the economy. They are recognized as generating more jobs and to be tougher on borders and security.

In addition, the thing that was very noticeable in this election was the fact that the LNP was not as divisive as the ALP was. They were not going after certain parts of the community and they didn't engage in classicism.

They also were not going to make drastic changes to negative gearing which was seen to potentially reduce property prices and raise rents. That could have proven to be catastrophic as some people could potentially owe more money that their properties are worth. This is how the Banking collapse in Europe occurred.

There are so many reasons to vote LNP. Another one was the fact that ScoMo came across as a lot more genuine and sincere - he passed the pub test.

ScoMo has a great opportunity to connect with Howard's Battlers and be the PM for the next 6 to 9 years. The LNP are on the correct path.

The ALP is seemingly adrift with no purpose.

It's a bit naive to suggest politics is anything but different groups of people being pitted against each-other - be it along racial, religious, geographic or economic lines. 

Inb4 Labors fault despite being in government for only 6 of the last 24 years

Labor locked in the economy apparently...

More to the point, does that mean high interest rates are a sign of a good economy? No... All circumstantial like the current situation.

You are completely incorrect. These are the kinds of politics most people reject and are sick and tired of,

They want a politician to unite people, not be divisive. Only few politicians have been successful.

What people had to choose was from one side which was particularly divisive, and another which was markedly less so. They picked the latter.

Every now and then we get politicians that unite - we call them Statesmen. Bob Hawke would be a good example of such a politician.

I'll let you in on a little secret because I'm assuming you're too young to remember. 

The highest interest rates in Australia were under Fraser when John Howard was treasurer.  They peaked at 21.4% but don't worry about that because someone here will tell you it was all labour's fault or bring up Paul Keating. 

They might throw up another 'fact' to try and skirt around that inconvenient truth by saying that at the time housing interest rates were only 13%.......  Very true until you're told that the housing rate was capped at 13%.  That's right, when the Liberals were in there was an artificial cap or put it another way, market interference, on interest rates. 

Of course because housing rates were capped at 13% banks didn't want to lend to home owners when you could lend to a small businessman at 18, 19 or 20%. 

You can imagine what happened next.

But shhhhh.....don't say anything and maybe it'll all go away.

You need to get your facts right because that is completely untrue.

Here uis a complete list of interest rates going back to 1959 and they were never that high under Fraser and Howard.

https://www.loansense.com.au/historical-rates.html

You need to pull your head out of your arse because they're home loan rates.  Learn to read.

And what is the difference Einstein?

The RBA sets the rate.

And when we say Interest Rates under Keating were 18%, we are referring to the home loan and business loan rated (usually 2% higher)

The RBA rate would have been a bit lower.

They are all related.

Listen,

it ain't that hard!

If the home loan rate under Fraser peaked at 13.5% then the RBA official rate would have been slightly under that.

If the home loan rate peaked under Keating at 17%, then the RBA rate wouild have been about 3.5% higher than Fraser.

^^

You have not provided any data. You need to provide information about the RBA cash rate.

I provided evidence that home loans were 3.5% cheaper under Fraser than Keating. That says it all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard

Federal Treasurer (1977–83)

The economic crises of the early 1980s brought Howard into conflict with the economically conservative Fraser. As the economy headed towards the worst recession since the 1930s, Keynesian Fraser pushed an expansionary fiscal position much to Howard's and Treasury's horror. With his authority as treasurer being flouted, Howard considered resigning in July 1982, but, after discussions with his wife and senior advisor John Hewson, he decided to "tough it out".^[25] The 1982 wages explosion—wages rose 16 per cent across the country—resulted in stagflation; unemployment touched double-digits and inflation peaked at 12.5% (official interest rates peaked at 21%).^[31]

April 1982. 21.4%
https://web.archive.org/web/20070729185829/http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/Bulletin/F01hist.xls

Happy to accept your apology whenever you deem it appropriate.

Regards

Muz.

he RBA

For what. I still want a source not some web archive nonsense!

If you actually look into it, the RBA was not setting interest rates in Australia because the AUD wasn't floated at the time. It was floasted by Keating.

So it had nothing at all to do with Howard or Fraser.

https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/f13hist.xls