Makena wrote:So Coalition minority government, or a coalition coalition gov if you will, 3 years of getting absolutely nothing done?
Yeah, even if the coalition get a majority gov (unlikely), the senate will be a mess. They might not even control the senate. Even if they do, they will have to deal with the whims of 4-5 independents. From the looks of it, labor would have a better time in the senate if they formed a government as they would likely control it with the greens and Xen.
I wouldn't be surprised if both parties decide to have another election though.
Spooler wrote:Trickle damn economics really bothers me, if you honestly believe in it then a $50Bn tax cut isn't near enough for it to have more than a negligible effect.
Honestly you would get a better ROI if you did almost anything else with that money best use for it though would probably be increasing employer incentive to hire first job seekers.
Yep it's just an excuse for right wing pollies to give money to their rich mates.
IMHO, the concept works when there is massive growth and money is flowing easily - and when inequality is minimal. However, when growth slows down and inequality increases, the whole thing just falls apart. More often than not, the money saved from tax cuts just goes straight to investors pockets - who are already likely wealthy.
Whilst the argument is then that those people use the saved money to invest in other things, helping growth, proving new jobs etc. The government could achieve the same result by directly funding 'things', rather than providing a tax cut. It would also reduce inequality, making it harder for the rich to get richer.