Why do workers vote Liberal?

[Johnny Bananas]

Tax avoidance is never legal.

Using the tax act to reduce your tax bill is exactly what the tax system is designed to facilitate.

No, tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is the term used for companies exploiting legal loopholes to pay little to no tax. I'm arguing the system should be reformed to facilitate a lot less tax avoidance from multinational corporations, as it puts a heavier tax burden on small businesses and ordinary workers.

that doesnt stop an uber or amazon who are yet to post a profit because they reinvest all of their earnings in the company

Exactly. That's why we need to find ways to tax them properly. I'm not an expert on tax accounting or business so I couldn't tell you what the solution is. But unless there are caps on the level to which business profits can be shielded from company tax, lost revenue has to be made up for somehow. I would imagine that's a barrier to the removal of payroll taxes.

also, whats "fair"?

It's subjective, of course. In my mind, the fair amount of tax to pay reflects the amount of economic value that a company has extracted from society. The most obvious way to quantify that is as a percentage of total profits made in Australia, but as you know, the attempts to do this directly are often subverted by various accounting tricks such as "licensing fees" paid to overseas parent companies.

Again, I don't know enough to give you a nice, neat solution. Capping reinvestment deductions might be a start, but that would likely have unintended consequences that I haven't thought through.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Exactly. That's why we need to find ways to tax them properly. I'm not an expert on tax accounting or business so I couldn't tell you what the solution is. But unless there are caps on the level to which business profits can be shielded from company tax, lost revenue has to be made up for somehow. I would imagine that's a barrier to the removal of payroll taxes.

Again, Uber and Amazon are not moving profits offshore. They are posting losses, because they are using their revenues to buy new buildings, software, datacentres, staff, etc.

as investors are getting their "profit" from the capital gain in the share price (which they can then use as collateral to get loans on), they are accepting of this to date.

It's subjective, of course. In my mind, the fair amount of tax to pay reflects the amount of economic value that a company has extracted from society. The most obvious way to quantify that is as a percentage of total profits made in Australia, but as you know, the attempts to do this directly are often subverted by various accounting tricks such as "licensing fees" paid to overseas parent companies.

Again, I don't know enough to give you a nice, neat solution. Capping reinvestment deductions might be a start, but that would likely have unintended consequences that I haven't thought through.

every time you put up a wall people will work a way around it. best thing you can do is make a taxation system that is simple and as transparent as possible. Interest groups from the left and the right wont let this happen (remember its the democrats who ruined the GST)

 

[MC Bad Genius]

From what I can see through this thread, here are the options of what people have offered to answer the OP’s question (in order of when they were raised in the thread):

1. Mainstream media (particularly Murdoch-owned media) repeats LNP talking points
2. LNP policy matches better with moral concerns that right-wing people tend to care more about (e.g. loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation) courtesy of the Guardian article linked in the third post
3. LNP voters are stupid and/or can’t see that voting for the LNP is not in their best interests
4. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that LNP are better economic managers
5. They feel LNP policies are better for their employers, and therefore, for them
6. Human nature is to be conservative and fearful of change and fearful of other
7. They might need to govern in minority with the Greens, who are seen as being destructive
8. They see the LNP wanting to tax them less, giving them more money in their pay check

So, unless I’ve missed any these are the potential reasons for why workers vote Liberal. For me, I think the Top 3 in order are:

#8 – The hip-pocket over-rides all other concerns
#2 – Left-leaning voters and political parties care more about the care/harm spectrum of moral concern, but that doesn’t resonate with those on the right
#7 – I’ve heard about the fear of the Greens as a “far-left” bogeyman from many conservative Liberal AND Labor voters

Interestingly, I just did the “Australia Talks” thing on the ABC website and the answer to the below question was quite telling:

There is an overwhelming majority of people that want to see the gap between the rich and poor narrowed. Is an extreme wealth tax not then a very easy sell? Not only does it address this issue, but for the vast majority of people, they will have more money in their back pocket at the end of each pay. It might not be as easy to institute as it is to sell, but why isn't that the approach Labor takes? It feels like a no-brainer to me.

 

[Caesar]

Because they're brainwashed by Murdoch propaganda, Morrison government spin and therefore don't understand the urgency of the climate crisis.

Assuming the reason a whole group of people don't agree with you is because they're too stupid/ignorant/hoodwinked is a dangerous path to go down

 

[Caesar]

I'm not an expert on tax accounting or business

we'll add it to the list

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Again, Uber and Amazon are not moving profits offshore.

I didn't suggest they specifically were. There are various other MNCs that do this though.

They are posting losses, because they are using their revenues to buy new buildings, software, datacentres, staff, etc.

How long can they keep that up for?

every time you put up a wall people will work a way around it.

Then you figure out which path they've taken to get around it and put up another wall there.

best thing you can do is make a taxation system that is simple and as transparent as possible.

And you don't think that people will find a way around it, no matter now simple and transparent it is?

 

[NSWCROW]

From what I can see through this thread, here are the options of what people have offered to answer the OP’s question (in order of when they were raised in the thread):

1. Mainstream media (particularly Murdoch-owned media) repeats LNP talking points
2. LNP policy matches better with moral concerns that right-wing people tend to care more about (e.g. loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation) courtesy of the Guardian article linked in the third post
3. LNP voters are stupid and/or can’t see that voting for the LNP is not in their best interests
4. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that LNP are better economic managers
5. They feel LNP policies are better for their employers, and therefore, for them
6. Human nature is to be conservative and fearful of change and fearful of other
7. They might need to govern in minority with the Greens, who are seen as being destructive
8. They see the LNP wanting to tax them less, giving them more money in their pay check

So, unless I’ve missed any these are the potential reasons for why workers vote Liberal. For me, I think the Top 3 in order are:

#8 – The hip-pocket over-rides all other concerns
#2 – Left-leaning voters and political parties care more about the care/harm spectrum of moral concern, but that doesn’t resonate with those on the right
#7 – I’ve heard about the fear of the Greens as a “far-left” bogeyman from many conservative Liberal AND Labor voters

Interestingly, I just did the “Australia Talks” thing on the ABC website and the answer to the below question was quite telling:
View attachment 1136092
There is an overwhelming majority of people that want to see the gap between the rich and poor narrowed. Is an extreme wealth tax not then a very easy sell? Not only does it address this issue, but for the vast majority of people, they will have more money in their back pocket at the end of each pay. It might not be as easy to institute as it is to sell, but why isn't that the approach Labor takes? It feels like a no-brainer to me.

You're bang on about the Labor/Greens bullshit.


The amount of ****heads playing " Mine's bigger " on Twitter is a disgrace.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem - zero tolerance from me on that.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I didn't suggest they specifically were. There are various other MNCs that do this though.


How long can they keep that up for?


Then you figure out which path they've taken to get around it and put up another wall there.


And you don't think that people will find a way around it, no matter now simple and transparent it is?

I used to work for a firm that got busted for transfer pricing, so I know it happens. BUT, offshoring is massively over-rated, as govts have cracked down on it extensively since the 80's (just look how the issues of the Panama Papers were handled)

in terms of how long capitalizing profits can occur, as long as shareholders allow it

the point of a simplified tax system is to remove loopholes. every exemption you give creates a loophole AND adds to the cost of compliance

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Assuming the reason a whole group of people don't agree with you is because they're too stupid/ignorant/hoodwinked is a dangerous path to go down

But you agree the Murdoch press monopoly is a propaganda arm of the coalition and the coal lobby?
Every editorial in the last election said vote Liberal, apart from the NT news, even though Labor was overwhelming favourite.

 

[Christopher Buttersnip]

personal tax forms a higher proportion of government revenue in Australia than anywhere in the OECD bar Denmark

Wrong! There are many countries who have higher personal income tax rates than Australia.

 

[Caesar]

Wrong! There are many countries who have higher personal income tax rates than Australia.

I didn’t say anything about rates

 

[Saint]

Assuming the reason a whole group of people don't agree with you is because they're too stupid/ignorant/hoodwinked is a dangerous path to go down

Yes, but the USA is an extreme case proving it to be a large and true phenomenon and is amplifying it in an Australian context (because we consume so much US politics in our media).

There's no doubt that in the US people don't agree with the current President because they're a mix of stupid/ignorant/hoodwinked.

It's naive to think it's not happening here.

Pointing it out to those people isn't going to win them over though (and that's where the dangerous path is).

In a sensible discussion you can't ignore the fact that people are en masse voting against their own economic interests on a large scale. Hell, I did it last election when I voted against the LNP. I did it knowingly. I'm sure there are people in lower socioeconomic positions who do not.

(i.e. nobody in the upper or middle class actually thinks or has any evidence of trickle-down economics working, but many in the lower classes think it does, I hear it all the time from people I know)

 

[Chief]

The ALP can promise anything they like, but until they reassure workers that they won't come after their shrinking paycheques they will never get their votes

Being the only responsible money managers is a tough gig.

Tax business? LNP: Dey tuk yer jerbs!

Tax labour? LNP: Dey tuk yer money!

Tax nothing? LNP: Dey borrowed and tuk yer kids future!

All these lies backed up by the right wing media, hiding the fact the LNP taxes, borrows, and spends more than anyone else, all to benefit rich donors.

 

[random260]

But you agree the Murdoch press monopoly is a propaganda arm of the coalition and the coal lobby?
Every editorial in the last election said vote Liberal, apart from the NT news, even though Labor was overwhelming favourite.

Nope. The left have abc, sbs, the guardian and big tech. Not to mention abc is literally tax payer funded which is total bs.

We are the stakeholders. But a good portion dislike. I guarantee if you ran a poll on whether Australians should pay for media companies they would say no.

 

[Caesar]

Pointing it out to those people isn't going to win them over though (and that's where the dangerous path is).

No - I just think that when you start treating a significant portion of the electorate as people who fundamentally can't be trusted to know what's good for them, you're starting to adopt a fairly anti-democratic mentality

Being the only responsible money managers is a tough gig.

Tax business? LNP: Dey tuk yer jerbs!

Tax labour? LNP: Dey tuk yer money!

Tax nothing? LNP: Dey borrowed and tuk yer kids future!

All these lies backed up by the right wing media, hiding the fact the LNP taxes, borrows, and spends more than anyone else, all to benefit rich donors.

I don't necessarily disagree, but that doesn't mean that Labor has to make it easy for them

The most recent round of tax cuts offered Australians on $200,000 a year a 5.76% discount on their bill, whilst only giving a tenth of that to someone earning $60,000. Absurd inequality, but nonetheless that measly 0.6% tax break was still better than what was offered to those workers by the ALP.

It shouldn't be hard to compete with that, yet for some reason the opposition struggles

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

Nope. The left have abc, sbs, the guardian and big tech. Not to mention abc is literally tax payer funded which is total bs.

We are the stakeholders. But a good portion dislike. I guarantee if you ran a poll on whether Australians should pay for media companies they would say no.

Ok so you're happy with our democracy to be hijacked by a biased press because it suits you?

 

[Not Important]

No - I just think that when you start treating a significant portion of the electorate as people who fundamentally can't be trusted to know what's good for them, you're starting to adopt a fairly anti-democratic mentality


I don't necessarily disagree, but that doesn't mean that Labor has to make it easy for them

The most recent round of tax cuts offered Australians on $200,000 a year a 5.76% discount on their bill, whilst only giving a tenth of that to someone earning $60,000. Absurd inequality, but nonetheless that measly 0.6% tax break was still better than what was offered to those workers by the ALP.

It shouldn't be hard to compete with that, yet for some reason the opposition struggles

i'm more interested in it being made easing for the ordinary punter. not harder like removing security. emboldening employers to put take-it-or-leave-it contracts in front of employees. creating underemployment. fighting workers pay rises.

everytime a relo of mine goes to the supermarket she encounters a cashier who has a degree, who can't get full time work even from the supermarket chain because casualisation saves them money. the liberals are anti worker which makes you wonder why so many vote for the pestilence.

 

[Caesar]

i'm more interested in it being made easing for the ordinary punter. not harder like removing security. emboldening employers to put take-it-or-leave-it contracts in front of employees. creating underemployment. fighting workers pay rises.

everytime a relo of mine goes to the supermarket she encounters a cashier who has a degree, who can't get full time work even from the supermarket chain because casualisation saves them money. the liberals are anti worker which makes you wonder why so many vote for the pestilence.

Sure, but it's hard to sell an intangible like "we'll reduce casualisation" when the other guy is telling workers he'll put more cash money in their hand the minute he's elected

 

[Father Jack]

Nope. The left have abc, sbs, the guardian and big tech. Not to mention abc is literally tax payer funded which is total bs.

We are the stakeholders. But a good portion dislike. I guarantee if you ran a poll on whether Australians should pay for media companies they would say no.

If you think any of these are equivalent to the Murdoch media in either bias or influence then it's quite clear you have never watched or read any of them. In fact the only way you could reach this conclusion is from the Murdoch media.

The ABC is not 'for the left', it just looks that way to someone with your hopelessly skewed worldview. Insiders these days does a sterling job of repeating LNP talking points.

 

[Not Important]

Sure, but it's hard to sell an intangible like "we'll reduce casualisation" when the other guy is telling workers he'll put more cash money in their hand the minute he's elected

so we agree many voters are thick. invariably those who benefit most from tax cuts etc are the wealthy. don't think having choice in employment, security in employment, being paid a fair (and the right) wage. not having wage rises arbitrarily halted (like at qantas)etc. selling those things shouldn't be tough. although scare campaigns are effective and labor isn't that good at electioneering.

 

[sherb]

A lot of answers have already been covered but a big one in Australia is hip pocket voting

Australia is the second-highest taxing country in the world and at the last election, the ALP did not come close to matching the Coalition's tax cuts for low-to-middle income earners ($40-$120K)

Who do you think middle-income families being squeezed on wages growth are going to vote for in that situation?

The ALP can promise anything they like, but until they reassure workers that they won't come after their shrinking paycheques they will never get their votes

The paycheques are shrinking after years of Coalition government.

It kinda backs up the point of the OP. `

 

[Caesar]

so we agree many voters are thick.

Not at all - more that people living in a precarious financial situation week-to-week don't have the luxury of thinking too big

You need to give people short-term fixes before they can focus on long-term ones

The paycheques are shrinking after years of Coalition government.

It kinda backs up the point of the OP. `

Again - promising big complex fixes are a hard sell compared to someone promising to cut your tax bill tomorrow

The Coalition may very well be to blame for long-term stagnant wages, but it's a hard point to prosecute and harder still to convince people you can fix it - meanwhile your opponents are literally handing out cash to voters

There needs to be some level of awareness here that the people you are trying to win the votes of are in a tough situation. If someone promises them an immediate effective wage increase, however small - they will grab it. The Coalition know this, know that if they offer a trickle to the workers they can ram through the big cuts for the top end with no issues.

The ALP consistently lets the Coalition outflank them when it comes to handouts to lower-middle earners, and I don't understand why.

 

[sherb]

Not at all - more that people living in a precarious financial situation week-to-week don't have the luxury of thinking too big

You need to give people short-term fixes before they can focus on long-term ones


Again - promising big complex fixes are a hard sell compared to someone promising to cut your tax bill tomorrow

The Coalition may very well be to blame for long-term stagnant wages, but it's a hard point to prosecute and harder still to convince people you can fix it - meanwhile your opponents are literally handing out cash to voters

There needs to be some level of awareness here that the people you are trying to win the votes of are in a tough situation. If someone promises them an immediate effective wage increase, however small - they will grab it.

I'm not referring to the parties here - I'm referring to the voter. Which is the point of the thread.

"My wages/conditions/hours are shrinking/being eroded. Who will I vote for? Oh, the mob who has overseen all that".

"Oh, all good, they are throwing some cash my way. That will mean I don't have to think about things".

 

[Caesar]

I'm not referring to the parties here - I'm referring to the voter. Which is the point of the thread.

"My wages/conditions/hours are shrinking/being eroded. Who will I vote for? Oh, the mob who has overseen all that".

"Oh, all good, they are throwing some cash my way. That will mean I don't have to think about things".

I am also referring to the voter. You are missing my point. You seem to think that the worse the Coalition makes things for the lower-class voter - the tougher things get - the more they are likely to turn to the big fixes of the ALP.

It's proven to be quite the reverse. The tougher things get, the more short-term your view gets. You can't wait for Labor to implement their grand plans to cut casualisation and boost wages, which may or may not work and may or may not benefit you a few years from now. You need that tax cut that the government promises you'll have by June, so by god you'll vote for it.

Who caused the problem ceases to enter into the equation, because you're now so desperate that you just want the best offer anyone puts in front of you - as soon as possible. That doesn't mean that Labor has to abandon long-term big fixes, but it does mean they can't cede the ground on short-term handouts to the government.

Or I guess you can just assume they're all thick. Whatever works.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

I am also referring to the voter. You are missing my point. You seem to think that the worse the Coalition makes things for the lower-class voter - the tougher things get - the more they are likely to turn to the big fixes of the ALP.

It's proven to be quite the reverse. The tougher things get, the more short-term your view gets. You can't wait for Labor to implement their grand plans to cut casualisation and boost wages, which may or may not work and may or may not benefit you a few years from now. You need that tax cut that the government promises you'll have by June, so by god you'll vote for it.

Who caused the problem ceases to enter into the equation, because you're now so desperate that you just want the best offer anyone puts in front of you - as soon as possible. That doesn't mean that Labor has to abandon long-term big fixes, but it does mean they can't cede the ground on short-term handouts to the government.

Or I guess you can just assume they're all thick. Whatever works.

Or, as what I think your point is, whatever demonstrably doesn't work ...