Unless the pre-poll votes say otherwise IMO Australia escaped complete ruin last night by the narrowest of margins. I base that assessment of the performance of the previous Labor government, which I believe to be the worst in our history. Labor simply does not not deserve to govern ever.

Not that the LNP is much better after they elected Turnbull as leader. Morrison has shown he will be capable I am sure. Maybe not brilliant, but capable.

Well Belly, who claimed to be all knowledgeable about politics, has fallen in a heap, as has Foxy, Paul and Co. Why should anyone take heed of what your lot say in future? Most Labor supporters claimed the election was a referendum about climate change, well the voters clearly said otherwise.

After the disastorous SSM plebasite I had fears that my country had lost its mind, after being deceived. I do not now gloat but am relived as I think that those of the next generation can face a better future.

There is still some hope for us. We need to change our immigration policy though, ASAP. Multiculturalism is another false ideology that deceives people.

Both parties can take away something from this narrow win.

NG: Limit it to 10K in a FY, say, while maintaining carry forward of losses beyond the limit to write down against profits in future FY's.

CGT: Allow choice of two paths at payment time. One with indexation of the cost base at full marginal rate, one with 25% concession.

Imputed credits: This is not well thought through but I'll fly a kite here. Allow the same amount credited as is allowed to be earned by welfare-based pensioners (%300 per fortnight, 7.8K p.a.). Thereafter, those pensioners would have their welfare payments affected as now while self-funded retirees would either be taxed on credits received beyond the same amount.

Energy policy: There must be a conversation with the public about the enormous failure of the German renewables experiment on cost and emissions, and nuclear energy. I believe support will be there and enough progress can be made over the next three years to provide a platform to take to the next election. The first step is to legalize nuclear in this parliament.

Well sink the slipper in, probably deserve it, but my side may want to do that too
Like me they tried to hide concerns Shorten was no longer the man who entered the house
We [internally] asked when would he just be himself, he never was
ALBO may not get it, we wanted him six years ago, voted him in, but the party's owners caucus, ignored our wishes
We Will do it tough until reform and leadership brings the middle back to us
Scomo may well be the next Howard, even Menzies
He trounced us, will continue to think this country lost yesterday
But not unlike Abbotts loss for the LNP Shortens will be of help, see many never ever forgave him for his knifing two leaders

Luciferase,

You may have a good idea here (re NG): - "..maintaining carry forward of losses beyond the limit to write down against profits in future FY's."

And, maybe also here:

"CGT: Allow choice of two paths at payment time. One with indexation of the cost base at full marginal rate, one with 25% concession."

But, regarding "Imputed credits" you have it wrong. Why? Because these 'Franking Credits' are in fact tax paid by a dividend provider at a concessional rate of taxation on those very dividends, and are paid to the ATO 'on behalf of' the investor. It is a deduction to taxable income of the relevant dividend-provider, yes, as also are the dividends themselves paid out to the investors.
Tax is thus paid once on each dividend, on behalf of the investor, in the form of a franking credit - a credit which may rightly be claimed by the investor against their total personal or business tax payable.
In this respect, franking credits are no different to PAYG credits, and both may be claimed as tax already paid, against the individual's total tax debt.
Then, whether PAYG or Franking Credit(s), if the tax paid exceeds the tax payable, then the individual is rightly entitled to a tax refund - in full, no ifs, no buts! End of story.

Everyone who has been getting this wrong, mixed-up or otherwise, needs to wise-up, get with the program, and stop the bleating!
Go pinch someone else's savings.

Continued:

Climate Change is real; but, Oz contributes 5/8ths of zilch to the 'anthropogenic' global emissions causation; we (Oz) need 'mitigation' so much more than we need to reduce our already negligible emissions.
Land of droughts, flooding rains and 'reliable as death and taxes' bushfires, need to take action to drought and flood 'proof' Oz.

Dams, Bradley Scheme, Hydro 2.0, environmental husbandry and management (at which, Oz' farmers are the greatest conservationists on this planet, bar none!).
Too much digital 'science' and nowhere near enough 'hands-in-the-dirt' plain old years and generations of experience, knowledge, and expertise.
So, cows burp methane, do they?
But, they eat an awful lot of regenerative/sustainable grass and grain, and poop a lot, and in the end result contribute so much more to sequestration, sustainability and environmental management than any detraction by those paltry emissions.

Get with the program; heads out of the sand; think for yourself, and refuse outright to be led by the nose by 'spin merchants'.

Shorten had it wrong; Zali Steggell has it wrong; all the glitterati have it wrong (in their ivory towers in St Kilda, etc), and Bob Brown has it way wrong. Only Morisson has it right!

We have the best of a 'good lot' in front of us; let's not waste it by bickering over rubbish.

I'm not confused about dividend imputation. It was introduced by Keating to stop double taxation then Costello dissolved the distinction between a company entity, and its shareholders, by allowing direct payment of imputation credits and not just a tax-offset. The initial intent of removing double taxation was not to dissolve the distinction.

Angry opposition and a scare campaign may have helped win this election but maybe not the next one. Labor didn't lose by so much that its position on this and other matters was totally rebuked, IMO. I was concerned about the unequal treatment of different classes of retirees in Labor's plan and my proposal above brings some equity to tax-payer funded retirees while giving the self-funded scope, albeit reduced, to supplement super income. Shares can be shifted to be under the super umbrella to mitigate the impact.

All of my proposals assume Labor will win the argument and the power at some future point then act precipitously if sensible compromises are not made prior.

On climate change, you're on the wrong side of the electorate, Saltpetre. I don't believe Labor lost because of general skepticism of man's impact, or, that Oz's contribution is so small that we ought not contribute strongly to a solution. 15 years-olds now will be voting in three years, and 12 year-olds in six, so dinosaurs will progressively yield to youth, as has already happened in some seats. I want we baby-boomers to remove all obstacles to the only reliable, affordable solution to emissions that will keep Oz competitive in the world, and to get started with it.

The fossil-fuels lobby knows which way the wind is blowing, even if you don't, Saltpetre. It supports renewables because it knows the need for 100% backup with these fuels will endure. It doesn't care that emissions will continue to rise, or that the cost to the tax-payer and consumer of the combined infrastructure is enormous. It hates nuclear because it strands its assets, so together with the renewables lobby it will oppose nuclear in Australia with whatever mud they can find to throw.