Income Tax Rate For Liberal and Labor?

Layass3 on 30/03/2022 - 19:44
Last edited 30/03/2022 - 19:44

Hi,
I would like to know if there is a difference in the amount of income tax that you pay between liberal and labor government, or does it always stay the same?
If there is a difference, which government would I pay a lower income tax?

I have lived and worked in Australia for a number of years now. However, I only became an Australian citizen last year so I have to vote this year.
I watched the federal budget on TV but wasn't able to find any information on this.

My annual income is $87k.

https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/

Thanks

Financial Tax

Comments

    • Chandler on 31/03/2022 - 00:13
      +69

      For the lazy:

      2018 saw:

      • increase to the middle income threshold: from $87k to $90k

      2018-2020

      Income Tax
      0 – $18,200 Nil
      $18,201 – $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200
      $37,001 – $90,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000
      $90,001 – $180,000 $20,797 plus 37c for each $1 over $90,000
      $180,001 and over $54,097 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

      2016 saw:

      • increase to the middle income threshold: from $80k to $87k

      2016-2018

      Income Tax
      0 – $18,200 Nil
      $18,201 – $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200
      $37,001 – $87,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000
      $87,001 – $180,000 $19,822 plus 37c for each $1 over $87,000
      $180,001 and over $54,232 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

      2012 saw:

      • increase to the tax-free threshold: $6k to $18.2k
      • increase to low income rate: from 15c to 19c if you earned between $18.2 and $37k
      • increase to middle income rate: from 30c to 32.5c if you earned between $37k and $80k

      2012-2016

      Income Tax
      0 – $18,200 Nil
      $18,201 – $37,000 19c for each $1 over $18,200
      $37,001 – $80,000 $3,572 plus 32.5c for each $1 over $37,000
      $80,001 – $180,000 $17,547 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
      $180,001 and over $54,547 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

      2010 saw:

      • increase to lower income threshold: from $35k to $37k
      • decrease to middle/high income rate: from 38c to 37c if you earned between $80k and $180k

      2010-2012

      Income Tax
      0 – $6,000 Nil
      $6,001 – $37,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
      $37,001 – $80,000 $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000
      $80,001 – $180,000 $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000
      $180,001 and over $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

      2009 saw:

      • increase to low income threshold: from $34k to $35k
      • decrease to middle/high income rate: from 40c to 38c if you earned between $80k and $180k

      2009-2010

      Income Tax
      $1 – $6,000 Nil
      $6,001 – $35,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
      $35,001 – $80,000 $4,350 plus 30c for each $1 over $35,000
      $80,001 – $180,000 $17,850 plus 38c for each $1 over $80,000
      $180,001 and over $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

      2008 saw:

      • increase to low income threshold: from $30k to $34k
      • increase to middle income threshold: from $75k to $80k
      • increase to high income threshold: from $150k to $180k

      2008-2009

      Income Tax
      $1 – $6,000 Nil
      $6,001 – $34,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
      $34,001 – $80,000 $4,200 plus 30c for each $1 over $34,000
      $80,001 – $180,000 $18,000 plus 40c for each $1 over $80,000
      $180,001 and over $58,000 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000

      2007 saw:

      • increase to low income threshold: from $25k to $30k

      2007-2008

      Income Tax
      $1 – $6,000 Nil
      $6,001 – $30,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
      $30,001 – $75,000 $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000
      $75,001 – $150,000 $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000
      $150,001 and over $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

      2006 saw:

      • increase in low income threshold: from $21.6k to $25k
      • increase in middle income threshold: from $63k to $75k
      • increase in high income threshold: from $95k to $150k
      • decrease in middle/high income rate: from 42c to 40c
      • decrease in high income rate: from 47c to 45c

      2006-2007

      Income Tax
      $0 – $6,000 Nil
      $6,001 – $25,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000
      $25,001 – $75,000 $2,850 plus 30c for each $1 over $25,000
      $75,001 – $150,000 $17,850 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000
      $150,001 and over $47,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

      2005 saw:

      • increase in middle income threshold: from $58k to $63k
      • increase in high income threshold: from $70k to $95k
      • decrease in low income rate: from 17c to 15c

      2005- 2006

      Income Tax
      $0 – $6,000 Nil
      $6,001 – $21,600 15c for each $1 over $6,000
      $21,601 – $63,000 $2,340 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600
      $63,001 – $95,000 $14,760 plus 42c for each $1 over $63,000
      Over $95,000 $28,200 plus 47c for each $1 over $95,000

      and that'll do I think.

      All information from https://www.ato.gov.au/Rates/Individual-income-tax-for-prior…
      Low/middle/high income terms are arbitrary and added by me to easily distinguish between the brackets.

      • spackbace on 31/03/2022 - 00:39
        +11

        Bit bored? 😛

        • Chandler on 31/03/2022 - 02:15
          +74

          Nah, not really… more important things to do tbh.

          I like having facts presented, and I think I just get drawn to particular topics, tax happening to be one of fhem.

          • Chandler on 01/04/2022 - 11:06
            +4

            @Chandler: I appreciate how this comment has more upvotes than the more-effort long comment with actual information on it. You keep doing you, OzBargain.

            • Shunto on 02/04/2022 - 01:28
              +4

              @Chandler: I think it's because once you scroll to the bottom of your effort post it's too far to scroll back up again lol. And you're right down here anyway

      • popsiee on 31/03/2022 - 10:35

        So its about time they lifted the tax free threshold being stuck there for 10 yrs .

        • Chandler on 31/03/2022 - 10:50
          +14

          But are the financial issues some of the populace are facing due to taxation or wage stagnation?

          Sure, we could lift the tax-free threshold; but is that adressing the actual problem? Is the problem that people are losing too much of their wage to taxation - which, as you pointed out, hasn't actually changed in 10 years? Or is it in that 10 years, people are losing the same amount to taxation but the cost-of-living has increased disproportionately to their wage?

          It's why I'm frustrated with the LNP's budget cash splash. Sure, an extra $X or 20cpl off petrol could make a difference for a lot of people, but it's not adressing the actual problem.

        • matt-ozb on 01/04/2022 - 17:14
          -8

          why lifted? they should reduce the tax free threshold to encourage people to work harder .. not work less.

    • HeWhoKnows on 31/03/2022 - 16:57
      +5

      The amount of tax you pay today or tomorrow is not dependent on the party in office at the moment.
      Neither is proposing any tax cuts as such.
      Liberals are proposing minor but temporary rebates and offsets.
      We have to wait till tonight to hear what labor has to say

      But given the huge amount of government debt accumulated, both parties will be looking to collect as much tax as possible both now and in the immediate future.

      • arcticmonkey on 02/04/2022 - 14:43
        +3

        It's a very dumb and narrow minded position to take only looking at income tax rates and not for the services that will be available.

        For example, let's say one party has $500 less income tax but then the person needs to visit the hospital or go for cancer treatments which can result in tens of thousands in out of pocket costs.

        Tax cuts are usually not good as they come with service cuts.

        • HeWhoKnows on 04/04/2022 - 22:01
          -2

          Correct but we are addressing the subject in the post which is INCOME TAX RATES!

          As anyone will tell you

          STICK TO THE SUBJECT PLEASE

        • SlavOz on 18/04/2022 - 15:32

          Tax cuts are usually not good as they come with service cuts.

          That's only true if taxes go exclusively towards public services, which is not the case at all. A fair chunk of taxes go towards the pay packet for politicians and their generous lifetime severance when they lose their job. This is definitely something society can live without.

          Other ways of spending our tax money includes buying the police faster cars or deadlier weapons, more submarines in the ocean, subsidies and covid relief for rich corporations, etc. None of these are beneficial for the average taxpayer.

          Reducing taxes certainly can be beneficial if it's done by trimming the unecessary fat and creating more efficiency within our public services.

  • TheBilly on 30/03/2022 - 19:48
    +34

    The tax rate is the same. If a new government tries to amend that tax rate, it can change, and then become a new tax rate. But this is very rare and almost negligible because if they do, they only amend it by a very small amount. So there is no point in voting and hoping your vote will result in a better outcome for you.

      • idonotknowwhy on 30/03/2022 - 20:45
        +26

        Yeah, the tax you pay will be the same. The Libs (at least the current mob) seem to be wasting more of that tax money and building up the national debt.

        So I guess all you can do is vote Labour in to reduce the waste. But the tax paid will be the same.

          • ayass3 on 30/03/2022 - 23:02
            -5

            @Scrooge McDuck: Nah not less spending and less tax, and not more spending and more tax.

            However it is now I'm happy with.

            • RMBC on 31/03/2022 - 08:19
              +3

              @ayass3: Then the current tax rates were implemented by the current liberal government, and indeed the upcoming tax cuts legislated in a year or two are also from them.

              Whether you agree, or disagree with anything else they've done is a separate matter

          • smartazz104 on 31/03/2022 - 20:26
            +16

            @jv: How many full times jobs have the LNP created? Counting people working a few hours a week as employed is bullshit.

            • jv on 31/03/2022 - 20:47
              +1

              @smartazz104:

              Counting people working a few hours a week as employed is bullshit.

              Nothing to do with the government, the ABS calculates it like they always have.

              The collect info if you are working full time, part time or casual…. Like they always have…

              • Intoxicoligist on 01/04/2022 - 08:42
                +23

                @jv: Libs have been in power for 10 years and still go on about Labour being worse economic managers. The stats say otherwise.

                  • JayEmmGee on 01/04/2022 - 09:17
                    +18

                    @jv: https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/is-the-coalition-really…

                    Contradicting the Morrison government’s election rhetoric, the facts suggest Labor has a better recent track record on handling the books and reforming the economy.

                      • Intoxicoligist on 01/04/2022 - 09:41
                        +16

                        @jv: https://treasury.gov.au/publication/economic-roundup-issue-2…

                        Go read the treasury stats then.

                          • Intoxicoligist on 01/04/2022 - 10:18
                            +23

                            @jv: But if you know them, why are you so wrong all the time?

                          • SBOB on 01/04/2022 - 10:29
                            +5

                            @jv:

                            I already know the facts

                            https://australiandebtclock.com.au/

                            We use to have a 'debt ceiling'…
                            At the end of the last Labor govt time that was 300 billion dollars, with a gross national debt sitting at 257 billion. We use to have govt collectively agree that we needed to 'borrow more' and up the accepted debt ceiling.

                            Since then, we have removed the debt ceiling, its essentially an infinite number for as long as no one questions it.
                            Current national debt is expected to hit 730 billion dollars at EOFY 2022 and ~$1T in 2024/2025

                            Every budget the 'expected date where we will actually return a surplus' is just kicked down the road another year or 2.

                            How anyone can say the current Liberal govt (which is nothing like the Liberal govt of pre early 2000's) has a proven track record of being fiscally responsible and can 'manage the books' is hilarious (or just completely ignoring actual numbers)

                            (note - I am not saying I think we would be sitting anywhere near surplus is Labour was running the show, I'm just pointing out the hilarity of someone saying the current Liberal govt has a good track record and can use any of its parties 2000's or before track record to show its financially responsible considering their ACTUAL track record over the last 9 years is completely contradictory)

                            • rektrading on 01/04/2022 - 10:41
                              +1

                              @SBOB:

                              Current national debt is expected to hit 730 billion dollars at EOFY 2022 and ~$1T in 2024/2025

                              The AUD will be so rekt by that time.

                              People who are keeping their savings in AUD will feel the pain.

                • Daabido on 01/04/2022 - 23:30

                  @Intoxicoligist: Labor, unless they are talking about the UK Labour Party.

          • payless69 on 01/04/2022 - 11:40
            -1

            @jv: Looks like we bocome loners here. Too many Mao admirers?

            • ThithLord on 01/04/2022 - 11:49
              +3

              @payless69: Are you referring to the LNP and their cataclysmic f-up of leasing the Darwin port to ChYnA for 99years? It's so bad that they had to announce another port in Darwin in the budget! So much egg on their face, they could make an omelette

              • payless69 on 01/04/2022 - 12:00

                @ThithLord: I guess carting a coal rock into a Parliamentary session is going to catch up with "Scotty"
                Letting us being fried with a substandard comms system? It will haunt him.
                States usually decide what is being sold for how much. FRIB is just a sick watchdog that has failed in Darwin's case.
                Before the last election I took the time to actually meet up with former hopeful Shorten. He was a bit short of leadership. If he had to run against Turnbull he would have had an easy case to win.
                The media is going to brainwash the public into a hung parliament. Then the selling and buying of independents is going to be messy!

              • littlegreenman on 01/04/2022 - 22:51
                +1

                @ThithLord: You mean the 99 year lease the NT Labor government approved and that the federal government at the time had no power to block?

      • coray8 on 30/03/2022 - 23:40
        +14

        You don't have to vote anyone if you don't want to. You just have to get your name marked off. You can just leave the ballot paper blank.

      • USER DC on 30/03/2022 - 23:41
        -2

        you apparently will get fined if you don't vote.

        To my knowledge it's not full truth.

        You just need to go to voting booth and get your name ticked of (or in nowadays scanned your QR code), you not putting the ballot paper in the collection box will not always result you in getting fine. From my past jobs have had some idiot managers flaunt at me they just go and draw dcks at paper and put that in box (no voting just making dcks on paper, and leaving)
        Keep in mind their are exceptions as well, for e.g. someone who's at overseas how the heck are they supposed to vote ? common sense prevails

        • p1 ama on 31/03/2022 - 00:12
          +7

          someone who's at overseas how the heck are they supposed to vote ?

          Go to the embassy

        • Chandler on 31/03/2022 - 00:17
          +12

          Do the electoral workers a favour and put your ballot in the box - blank or otherwise. Saves them having to specially deal with it (discarded ballot), or trying to account for it being missing.

          • USER DC on 31/03/2022 - 00:18
            +2

            @Chandler: I never did that stupid sh_t , i just said that's what some of managers flaunted to me at one of my past jobs. I voted properly in the last SA election for a change, and yes there was a change clearly happened. One party staying in power for too long is generally not a good idea either.

            • Chandler on 31/03/2022 - 00:20
              +2

              @USER DC: Sorry - wasn't implying you did that stuff. Was pointing out for others that what they do with their ballot can cause the workers a headache later.

        • huwcar on 31/03/2022 - 14:03

          Just tell them you couldn't vote because you were in iso. No fine.

        • jacross on 31/03/2022 - 19:04

          It is very much compulsory voting and not compulsory attendance.

          Voluntary voting was one of the random political opinions I had in my 20s that I felt very strongly about. The Electoral Act is very clear about voting being compulsory and the relevant case law has unequivocally back this up. I'll go and look for all of this if you're interested. I don't really care about the issue anymore but I do still find 'what is the law' questions fun (except when I get paid to do it and then it is horrifically boring.

          Practically, if you get your name ticked off and walk out the AEC casual employee probably won't do anything about it. If you leave your vote blank and put it in the box (which is against the law), they obviously can't do anything about it.

          Those who have done these acts in a deliberate and pointed way as a point of activism, have demonstrated via the ensuing case law that these actions are against the law, despite the practical fact that transgression is very very rarely punished.

        • whatgift on 31/03/2022 - 22:57
          +2

          I find it hilarious that you would go to all the time and effort in going to the polling booth, signing in, going to the box and putting in an invalid vote???

          • rektrading on 01/04/2022 - 03:44
            -1

            @whatgift: People do it to avoid being taxed.

            • yokel on 02/04/2022 - 09:56
              +1

              @rektrading: That’s just boomer lore. They don’t understand analytics and data matching.

      • Chandler on 31/03/2022 - 00:26
        +3

        Just remember the process is there for everyone to have their say. With everyone "participating" (through mandatory voting), candidates have to appeal to all electors, not just a demographic that they can incite to go and vote (like you see happen in the US).

        Looking through the rate history (through the link provided by spackbace) it hasn't substantially changed since 2012.

      • jorf on 31/03/2022 - 10:53
        +22

        I am only voting because you apparently will get fined if you don't vote.

        This attitude is so depressing, especially coming from a new citizen. You live here now, you should care about your government and what they do or don't do for you and the rest of the population.

        • Nebargains on 01/04/2022 - 07:16
          +6

          I'm not sure voting should be mandatory, a lot of people just vote whatever they were brought up being told to vote by their parents like it's a football team.

          I'm in my 30s, I'm hard pressed to find anyone I know who really cares about politics or understands the differences in policies between the parties and many just vote a particular way because they always have without consideration for their policies, some just vote for the incumbent because they are satisfied with the status quo.

          Basically IMO mandatory voting leads to a lot of uninformed voting not based on anything by people who largely don't care.

          • buckster on 03/04/2022 - 07:40
            +2

            @Nebargains: But when voting isn't mandatory, you have outcomes like in the USA. Their electoral system is broken but then they have a lot more issues beyond optional voting making it a ridiculous marketing event

            • rektrading on 03/04/2022 - 08:00
              -4

              @buckster: A voluntary voting system is fairer than a compulsory voting system.

              Citizens that don't know or have no interest in politics should not be pressured to vote.

      • lgacb08 on 31/03/2022 - 13:47

        If you don't want to vote, just ignore the AEC enrolment form they gave you when you became citizen, but I guess it's too late for you now.

      • Herbse on 31/03/2022 - 15:46
        +12

        Why did you come to this country and become a citizen?

        If it was for the good health care, education, safety, benefits if you are ever unable to work. Then I wouldn't be trying your level best to pay the least amount of tax possible.

        • rektrading on 31/03/2022 - 16:00
          -7

          People who don't try and reduce their tax liability deserve to pay more.

          • Kevin07 on 02/04/2022 - 23:41

            @rektrading: I dont know why you are getting negged…

            prompt reminder from 1991 from kerry packer and his
            "Of course I am minimising my tax. And if anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax, they want their heads read, because as a government, I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra!" famous tax speech:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBg7DnQjjcY

      • TailsK on 31/03/2022 - 16:59
        +2

        What a shameful view of democracy and a narrow view of politics.

        Lower tax rates are one thing, but what if you cost of living goes up because of the party's other policies?

    • HeWhoKnows on 31/03/2022 - 16:58

      But its worth considering the temporary 6mth 22c/L cut in fuel excise

  • rektrading on 30/03/2022 - 19:51
    +7

    I only became an Australian citizen last year so I have to vote this year.

    I hope you kept your dual citizenship just in case you change your mind.

    • ayass3 on 30/03/2022 - 20:07
      +3

      Yep dual citizenship.

      Very happy to be living here the last 13 years though.

    • techlead on 30/03/2022 - 20:18
      +3

      Only if your other country allows you to be a dual citizen. China, Japan and Saudi Arabia don't allow dual citizenship

      • Carmen Sandiego on 31/03/2022 - 13:18

        South Korea too

        • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 13:22
          +2

          There's a long list of countries that don't allow dual citizenship, I just picked the major ones. I don't think anyone wants to be a dual citizen of Belarus, not with the "special military operation" going on, so I didn't mention them.

          • Carmen Sandiego on 31/03/2022 - 13:24

            @techlead: That's fair enough.

            Also, if you look at the countries who don't allow dual, most of them have issues with conflict, active or not.

            • techlead on 31/03/2022 - 13:49

              @Carmen Sandiego: That may be true (regarding the statistic), but I don't think the reason is due to conflict, it could most likely be due national preference. I don't think Japan has any issues with conflict, maybe a few arguments over some rocks around its borders, but nothing major.

              • Carmen Sandiego on 31/03/2022 - 13:51

                @techlead: In Australian news, it doesn't look like Japan has any issues but, listening to my parents talk about Korean news, it turns out that Japan is constantly picking fights with SK, and they want to bulk up their military and using NK as an excuse.

                All a matter of perception.

                • payless69 on 01/04/2022 - 11:51
                  +2

                  @Carmen Sandiego: Some strive to become superior. Calling it "constantly picking fights" is just an expression of perceived superiority.
                  Nothing really new. Just former empires fading.
                  Reading history, there used to be French arrogance, even Dutch arrogance perhaps the worst was using religion as a cover to justify wars.

                  Dual citizenship is not straight foreward: Australia requires a special permit to keep its own. Say an Astronaut requires to become a Yank to fly for NASA he usually gets a special permit.
                  Some aquire citizenship by birth or marriage. My wife has 2 1/2 citizenships, half by birth, 2nd by marriage, 3rd by naturalisation. Obligations from birth country only stop when one formally recinds a citizenship by agreement of both states. Just ask our beloved Barnaby J.

                  • Carmen Sandiego on 01/04/2022 - 12:02

                    @payless69: As someone who used to have 3 citizenships, 1 by birth, 2 by naturalisation, I concur. Also, I would have given up said citizenship faster had I known what it meant to keep it (aka. they would have rights over all my future children). A very sharp "f that" from me.

                    I call it "picking fights" because I have been biased to see it through the Korean eyes. And honestly, Japan's actions haven't helped, especially their brutality towards Korea between WWI and WW2. They did that in my grandparent generation so, it's relatively recent and burned into collative memories - just watch "Pachinko".

                    As for Dutch arrogance, if you hadn't already, read up on the origins of Indonesia. It's actually horrible what they did and makes me slightly glad they weren't the nation who took over/invaded Australia.

                    • payless69 on 01/04/2022 - 12:12

                      @Carmen Sandiego: Japan is a bit of a "basket" case. 200 years of isolation and no need for literacy of numeracy as the west knows it.
                      But during that time they have had spies and messengers watching the world being invaded over and over again.
                      Imported intelligence goes against arrogance. Sad to see that the largest country is now using weapons to harm humans just because diplomacy has gone lost.

                      • Carmen Sandiego on 01/04/2022 - 13:31
                        +1

                        @payless69: I'd agree with the sentiment.

                        They're still an over proud nation so, I stare at them warily. They'll use any excuse to fulfil "Make Japan great again".

                        Diplomacy is a skill long forgotten by over proud nations and their leaders. Also, pride and ego are married so, weapons are (unfortunately) the most surefire way to bring any country to their knees since no people = no soldiers to fight.

                        • buckster on 03/04/2022 - 07:50

                          @Carmen Sandiego: I would trust Japan ahead of modern China and Russia though, as well as a number of countries.

                          I think like Germany, Japan has realised the error of expansionist ambitions and I doubt we'll see anything from them in the future

                          They're still a proud people but so are so many others

                          • Carmen Sandiego on 04/04/2022 - 08:21

                            @buckster: Agreed with the wariness of trust towards China and Russia. That's a fair call.

                            I honestly wish that was the case. I still see horrific images and still remember the stories of the Japanese and what they did, and what they're still capable of. They're not a nation anyone should take lightly.

      • JungliChilli on 01/04/2022 - 07:24
        +1

        India too

  • Drakesy on 30/03/2022 - 19:54
    +33

    Liberals have generally had a history of lower tax rates
    HOWEVER
    This is to be taken with a grain of salt.
    Just because you're getting more money in your wallet doesn't mean that you're actually better off overall.

    With inflation going the way it is, you would need to have a tax break of $3,400 to earn the same as you did the previous year (that $450 return that we're meant to thank them for isn't looking so great now).

    Bracket creep is a real thing and as our wages inflate and the brackets stay the same the government is inevitably earning more money each year.

    Also the take home message is that you can't pay off a $1 trillion debt by reducing tax. It's counter-intuitive.
    There budget was and is a short term sugar hit.

    Oh and without getting too deep, the liberals are hell bent on importing labour into Australia to artificially boost the economy size. If you want wage growth, they're not the ones to vote in. (current wage growth is only because they were forced to turn off the taps during covid, prior to that they were letting it rip and Australia's infrastructure was getting crushed because of it.)

    • mskeggs on 30/03/2022 - 20:09
      +71

      I'm going to chime in and say the Liberals today are like Blaupunkt audio or Mambo board shorts or Red Tulip chocolate - brands that used to connote certain high qualities that sold out and are now cheap junk. If you see the brand on the shelf and haven't bought it for years you might think you are still getting the old product, but now you are getting cheaply made knock offs licensing the brand name.

      Since the Howard government sold Telstra to cover their deficit spending, Australian Liberal governments have spent and borrowed in a very fiscally imprudent way. They have traded on the memory of generations ago when they kept the country on an even keel during the baby boom until Labor unleashed pent up spending to deliver stuff like healthcare, education etc. under Whitlam.

      Since 1980 I think it is pretty clear that both sides of government have spent more, though I would argue Labor spending at least aims to raise taxes if they spend more, which is more honest than just leaving the bill for the next generation by adding to debt.

      I see no evidence that this generation of LNP politicians are better financially, if anything, they are sloppy and short sighted.

      • techlead on 30/03/2022 - 20:27
        +57

        I think its a myth that the Coalition are better at managing the economy. I don't see any actual evidence of that.

        • Aureus on 30/03/2022 - 20:59
          +15

          Maybe you need to spend more time reading news.com.au and facebook.com then?

        • poboy on 30/03/2022 - 21:12
          +35

          There is no evidence that the coalition is better at managing money. The evidence of past governments show that Labor has the superior record.

          • tomfool on 31/03/2022 - 14:35
            -4

            @poboy: They are pretty much both the same, one is centre of left one is right from left. Both of them are to scared to make any significant changes and their leaders are ruled by the 24 hour media. Some good leaders on both sides have been undermined by the media and minority extremists in their party both Julie and Malcolm had some forward thinking policies that got both of them turfed.

            Labour will likely win the next 2 elections but it will be much of the same.

            • ThithLord on 31/03/2022 - 14:49
              +11

              @tomfool: Jesus mate, what a horrible interpretation of politics.

              Sit down.

              Also, it's Labor, not Labour

            • ThithLord on 01/04/2022 - 07:27
              +5

              @jv: GFC, where was Australia's economy in the scale? Number one performing economy in the OECD during a recession. Bro.

              • Intoxicoligist on 01/04/2022 - 08:45
                +8

                @ThithLord: Dont bother with JV, he's not living in the same universe as the rest of us. Facts, Figures and Logic mean nothing when you drink the coolaid.

            • payless69 on 01/04/2022 - 11:53
              -2

              @jv: once again Mao freaks disagree lol…

            • May4th on 01/04/2022 - 13:56
              +6

              @jv: Hate to break it to you jv but bold print and capital letters actually doesn't make your arguments any more valid.

              Someone had to do it..

      • SBOB on 30/03/2022 - 20:51
        +41

        The greatest trick the Coalition every pulled, was convincing people they were better economic managers and fiscally responsible

      • Ade99 on 31/03/2022 - 07:44
        +3

        Like all pollies they are focused on getting elected again in 3 years time to ensure they stay on the gravy train.

        • ThithLord on 31/03/2022 - 14:50
          +3

          Y'know except for all the tangible assets Labor actually generate for Australia, n stuff. Other than that massive omitted fact - ThEy bOtH tHe sAmE

    • ThithLord on 31/03/2022 - 11:08
      +7

      Liberals have generally had a history of lower tax rates

      Is there any evidence of this? Other than the LNP and their cheerleaders saying this, I don't think it's true.

      • Drakesy on 31/03/2022 - 12:07
        +12

        *Sorry should've clarified.

        Liberals have a history of lower tax rates for the middle to upper income brackets.
        Labor tends to favour the middle to lower income brackets.

        One makes fat cats fatter, the other stops people from ending up on the streets and gives them a chance to buy a house.

        I know which one i'd choose.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join