And posted elsewhere on the same day…
Ahahaha ■■■■■■■ hell.
1 Like
Was this ghost written by Emma Alberici?
Most of Trumps tax changes only came into effect for the 2018/2019 FY.
Huh. I’d have assumed that the swinging voters would be more ambivalent and the cheerleaders would be the consistent ones.
Re: your second point, there would just be a bunch of ex-player-headlined tickets.
I think that was the assumption also before this study was done.
No doubt swinging voters actually pay attention to what Political Parties are doing or not doing. In fact, other studies have shown that swinging voters are swayed much more by single issues that either effect them directly or is somehitng they are passionate about.
Labor over recent times has been good at targeting specific seats and using programs that appeal to single issues, mostly over jobs and health.
I feel like voluntary voting would turn Australian elections into the cheerleading roadshows they have in the US.
6 Likes
The stupidity of this fool is only matched by those who are his cheer leaders
2 Likes
Maine has tried preferential voting for the first time in US history. Mass confusion expected, fears of reduced turnout and suppression of minority voting.
I’d never considered selecting 1,2,3,4,5 was overly difficult…
1 Like
Have you seen the form used in Maine? I can’t decide if it’s insanely over-engineered or a good way to help people who can’t count to get it right. Probably the former.
Oh, that one I could have told you for free
On the face of it, your argument appears valid. Where it falls down is that the point here isn’t the direct benefits of the tax cut, but the indirect benefits. The tax cuts directly for those not wealthy were always very marginal, but yes, you wouldn’t expect to see them yet. This is the bit you’re referring to with the 2018/19 FY point.
HOWEVER, the Republicans always argued that the “actual” benefits to the non-wealthy would be much higher due to two reasons. The trickle down impact and that companies would invest significantly which would drive more jobs and wages. Not only was this meant to be the driver of any benefits for the non-wealthy, it was also meant to be the drivers of the economy that would lead to the plan not putting a ginormous hole in the budget. On these two fronts, the evidence is already looking very dubious:
- the trickle down is not happening via companies, with them keeping wages suppressed. At the same time, there has been crystallisation of the value for the companies owners via stock buy backs.
- to meet the Republican targets, companies had to have ramped up investment by now (this was partially due to how unrealistic those targets were). This is not happening.
So at the moment, the evidence now coming out is that there isn’t a trickle down effect and companies aren’t investing. Which if that holds true means this has been a huge wealth transfer to the wealthy, that will impact the USA’s budgets for a decade at the cost of the middle and lower classes.
6 Likes
Good points however it is called ‘trickle-down’ effects for a reason, ie the impacts will happen over a period of time. Most companies would still be doing their due diligence in terms of investment before even committing to anything.
Happy to revisit this in 12 months.
You mean 18 months, … surely …??
8 Likes
Haven’t we been revisiting this since Reagan?
2 Likes
You know what they say, “fool me once…”
Well the republicans do struggle with that saying
1 Like
MATE, I wast just about to post it!
2 Likes
Haha, I saw the opportunity and jumped on it.
Kim Jong Un says “Thank you, Donald!”.
“Get in the ■■■■■■■ line!” say Xi and Putin.
Well apparently trickling takes time.
1 Like