Don't agree with any of you....inequality is bad, sitting on your hands waiting for private industry to do social good is bad, ripping off workers and consumers is bad.... making a buck is not the sole reason for existing. At least the labour party has some egalitarian perspective on this ... the libs have none!
WOW, was that the right way of finishing the podcast? :-)
How anyone in their right mind could vote for the current mob amazes me. More of the same would be a disaster for Australia
I think the key takeaway is I wouldn't put my money with either of these funds. Negative gearing changes will increase the relative value of the stockmarket and franking credit changes will lessen the bias for dividend payouts for tax purposes and more value on reinvestment for future growth. Calling labour a left wing socialist party is a bit weird when the liberals party is aiming to implement asset seizure laws in the energy industry.
The LNP has demonstrated a complete lack of vision. It is way behind where the electorate stands in terms of climate change; sustainable energy; and dealing with growing inequality. Labor may not be as 'business-friendly' as Roger and Matt would want but at least it may introduce some forward thinking policies.
Stockmarket hardly moved since LNP in power, but sure they're all good and Labor are all bad! Energy, mining, manufacturing crying out for leadership and certainty, but sure LNP all good and Labor all bad. If that's the quality of analysis...
Selwyn, "more of the same" has already seen lower unemployment, higher productivity, and lower debt (in fact a budget surplus). Please, give me more of the same! Labor policy will hurt self-funded retirees and investors - the ones who didn't expect the goal-posts to suddenly be moved just to fund unrealistic energy targets.
Folks - good to see some views coming through on this thread and obviously this is a very topical subject with a range of views. Keep the comments coming, however, please try to keep them constructive (i.e. it's absolutely fine to disagree but please do so respectfully).
Totally agree with you. Labor would be a total disaster for the economy. Shorten +Co have lined their own pockets yet Labor is waging a neanderthal 'class war' and punishing self-funded retirees retrospectively. People who've worked for their money and been thrifty and saved for their retirement and planned for it viz franking credits, are now stripped of that saving. I think a lot more people are going to think twice about voting Labor than just 'the rich'.
With the exception of the GST and decimal currency, most of the major economic reforms of the past century happened when Labor was the Government: Removal of exchange controls; floating of the dollar; removal of the gold standard; removal of the Savings Bank vs Trading Bank lending controls (we had Savings Bank and Trading Banks under the one roof but with completely different sets of rules); removal of govt regulations on bank lending both quantitative and qualitative; removal of the Govt setting all Savings Bank Interest Rates; removal of Govt setting all bank lending rates; the Hawk Accord which bought an unprecedented era of growth etc. As my high school economics teacher Mr Murphy explained: Labor has always achieved the reforms the Liberals wanted but were to timid to introduce themselves. So Matthew your guests could do worse than to brush up on their economic history.
I couldn't agree more with David Yabsley's comments, "most of the major economic reforms of this century happened when labor was the government". No such a bad effort from what Mr Rogers call " a left wing socialist government. May be both guest could do with a bit more knowledge of economic history.
Henry, the problem with “social good” is the definition. Who determines what is “good”? The concept of egalitarianism is akin to Animal Farm - some are more equal than others. I would prefer to have the choice of deciding for myself how to spend my hard earned dollars than have some left wing government deciding for me.
How the local market performs in the medium to long term is largely dependent on events in the northern hemisphere. The most we can hope from whichever party is in power is for some long term direction based on expert review of factual information. It's obvious the current incumbents have internal issues which prevent them from doing this. The other side should therefore be given a chance.
Research says impact of ALP change to franking on the XJO is pretty small ... put simply the changes mainly affect SMSFs in pension phase and these are not a huge % of overall money. Given ALP are now odds on, why is the market tearing upwards? If it was really that catastrophic people would be preempting it. Rog then talks down the property market but then talks up PPC on the basis they have dry powder to invest. Rog, here are some views on PPC: 1) management are average (opinion) and very highly paid for their market cap (fact) 2) their long term performance is poor (fact) 3) their Victorian stuff is OK but their QLD stuff (Flagstone) and Perth North (Alkimos) is ground zero for current property carnage. Negative equity central. (facts). Not saying it will crash but definately not an opportunity. Finally, ALP changes to negative gearing will assist in curbing the massive misallocation of capital into residential real estate and hopefully be allocated to productive investment. I thought these types would cheer this on!