Using socionomics to explain why Labor will win the election

NG is obviously a key thing in this forum, but for the population at large much less so:

Look at it in another way:

If there were 100 Australians:

16 would own an investment property and
84 would not own an investment property.

Of every 100 property investors :

76 had a rental loss (they negatively geared – 1.28 million Australians)
24 had a net rental profit
75 owned just one investment property
19 owned two properties

The number of investors who own multiple properties is rising

[my emphasis]

So only about 12% of voters benefit from NG (which they will keep) and it's a reasonable presumption that the majority of them already vote Lib. Meanwhile a large number on non-owner younger people who perceive (rightly or otherwise) IP buyers as the 'enemy' will see this as something positive. Those who might be swung are those who are thinking that they might buy an IP in the next year or two, but given that property prices are likely to go nowhere in the forseeable future why would you be wanting to buy a property that is losing you money each year? Better to pay a non tax-distorted 10% less for something that washes its face.

 

Maybe...but when those people realize that their rents will also shoot up...it will get rather interesting.....

People are more concerned about the economy...losing jobs...and cost of living....Labor is doing diddly squat to address this....

 

But are the people you are hearing this from representative of the general population.

While I agree with the analysis, NG also applies to shares and other investments, so there may be a slightly higher percentage of people who might be affected.

 

Shown to be FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) over and over again.

Given that mortgage compromised the largest percentage of cost of living, and housing prices it more reflective of easy credit and poor policy decisions by the Coalition, the policy position of ALP should see housing remain stable and direct money into job creating area such as building houses/units (thus seeing more accommodation for rent) rather than flogging off old stock . May also see people direct more money into shares, which one could argue is a more productive use of capital. Please note that these are my opinions, I have not sat down and looked at the simulation or modelling.

 

Well shares with removal of franking credits is going to be very unappealling also...I reckon...that labor may lose this election.

When you have highly paid tradies having a go at Bill Shorten it should get interesting.

I have voted labor...I don't like the coalition in terms of how they treat people...and their blood right wing racist elements...sco mo included..but labors policies are plain stupid

It won't affect me...as I will put up rents when chaos ensues....

 

...un thar goes their voter base....my understanding is that they cannot get excess credits..most are pensioners...

 

Labor won't win the next election. The Coalition will lose the next election. Big difference.

 

And best on field for shooting youself in the foot would have to go to Peter Dutton with a little help from a few others.

 

That must be a tiny percentage of population.

 

Haha yeah...that’s gold.

 

If Labor could have kept their BS chained up, it would have been a certain win.
I'm less certain now - 3 weeks to go ...

 

no. If I’ve read that correctly, it’s only smsf retirees. Gov has not provided that figure that breaks that up...I suspect because it would be insignificant.

 

Doubt it matters...postal votes start soon and people would have made their minds up. Tingle did an analysis, coalition needs to hold 4 marginal seats, looks to maybe gain 2 but has about 10-12 seats that could fall....they’re not flush with money, terrible at managing election campaigns on the ground and to top it off continue to be the story through sheer political incompetence (Dutton, Barnaby to name a few).

 

Right behind him is Barnaby Joyce

 

Most self funded retirees pay tax - therefore they'd be able to claim the credits against the tax they've paid.

If their self-funding is so low can't claim the credits (no tax paid), will probably mean they fall down into the "part-pension" level ... and can claim then

 

Okay. As we're paying tax on our smsf but not yet retired i wasnt 100% over the tax thing. To much in the brain already today to worry about what happens tomorrow. And I did know that but momentarily forgot.

But of they loud smsf-ers not getting the income from the credits, then surely most would drop down into pension, part pension bracket?