I have been watching the progress of the election on TV and so far I have been more impressed by Mr Shorten than Mr Morrison. The Labour Party have the better policies which will help more people. I watched the Q and A on TV with Nan and Koroua last night, and 3 people were good, even thought I didn't think the One Nation guy was all that good about education. The guy from the Liberal Party was crazy wanting to do all the speaking. My choice from last night was Labour, Green, One Nation, Liberal.

Adian,
you said People who understand that you can't reliably predict the effects of actions by viewing them in isolation!

The building industry would take a small hit from Shorten's tax changes if viewed in isolation, but if combined with an interest rate cut, it would probably end up better than the status quo.

Similarly, the tax break cuts would in isolation be very damaging to the economy in the current phase of the economic cycle, but the economic stimulus from the planned spending increases would cancel that out.

BTW nearly all of our government spending goes into the Australian economy, the exception being the small proportion that's spent overseas. This has nothing to do with whether it's wasted; that depends on the usefulness of what they spend it on, but even useless spending goes into the economy

ask any economist and they say lowering interest rates no longer stimulates the economy, in fact it has a negative effect (see Japan)You cant view in isolation, each law has a positive and negative effect. They stopped neg gearing in 1985 and that saw a huge demand for public housing (as no private investors were building homes)and rents went up 40%! over the 3 years until Keating reintroduced neg gearing. Even Keating himself says to alter neg gearing will have a bad effect on the lower income people.

As for planned spending increases will stimulate the economy, is way off the mark, simple 101 economics, the government takes $100 and reinvests $60 and wastes $40. People and private enterprise gets $100 and will spend $100. You are going to stimulate the economy by lower taxes than increasing them. As for the wasted 40%, what about the millions to pay for a human rights commissioner, the millions wasted when a government department changes its name, millions wasted on freebies for public servants and politicians, millions wasted on federal education department which is duplicated with each state.
I could mention more but I am limited to 350 words

indy please, the feminist left meets in a single seat VW combi, and has room left over
He will serve his term
Aiden, house building will not suffer AS IT [NEW HOMES]still gets negative gearing
Liberalism has been badly bruised by its rabbid right
It pays for that on the 18th of next month
But, even if a split forms, will return to its Liberal roots within two terms
Senate [chook pen] will have less very small partys, but maybe a bigger cross bench
One nation Palmers shallow Trump style party will hurt the Liberals more than Labor

kirby483,
An interest rate cut will still stimulate the economy; it just might not stimulate the economy ENOUGH. The lower the interest rates are, the less effective cutting them is likely to be, and therefore fiscal stimulus would be needed instead. However we do have room for more than one interest rate cut - it's just that the RBA has refrained from doing so for fear of overstimulating the property market.

I wasn't in Australia in 1985, but AIUI the big jump in house prices only occurred in the eastern states. And it's a great pity he didn't stick with it, as we then might've avoided the need for the high interest rates of the late '80s and the consequent recession.

Your "simple 101 economics" is itself way off the mark:
>the government takes $100 and reinvests $60 and wastes $40.
You're assuming an extremely high level of wastage, and I doubt the examples you list would add up to anywhere near 1% of total government spending, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument.
If the government does what you described, the government gets $60 of value, and $100 will go into the private sector.
Whereas if the government cuts taxes by $100, the government gets zero value and $100 will effectively go to the private sector.

Do you understand yet? The money the government wastes is not destroyed, but instead goes to the private sector along with the money the government has spent wisely.

There are three differences, though: firstly, with tax cuts, the government will not get the money back quite so quickly so a slightly larger spending increase would be needed to have the same effect.

Secondly, a spending increase could be targeted to parts of the country where the economic stimulus is most needed. The same can't be said far a tax cut.

Thirdly, a spending increase could probably be implemented more quickly than a tax cut, so could stmulate the economy sooner.

The Labour Party have the better policies which will help more people
Wahine,
Is this your first election ?

aidan

You state - I wasn't in Australia in 1985, but AIUI the big jump in house prices only occurred in the eastern states. And it's a great pity he didn't stick with it, as we then might've avoided the need for the high interest rates of the late '80s and the consequent recession."

We were, as people with mortgages during this time, with a mortgages in the 1980's at 17 plus percentage rate are you seriously kidding!

So let's tell the truth - it occurred over ALL states - and not domiciled to the eastern states.

Seriously - please do some investigation into actual facts and come back to us "Aussies" who lived through this area.