Crazy how absolutely none of this makes it into the media’s coverage of the campaigns. Just that Scott Morrison says “Labor bad at money” 100 times with no evidence backing him up.
Not at all, probable motive explaining why these basic facts are ignored, misrepresented or given scant coverage or ignored is totally obvious if you analyse amount wealth and the rate at which that wealth increases by the news media proprietors under Labor and Liberal governments then the reason for media proprietors would be inclined to giving one side of politics favourable coverage & misrepresenting the other side unfavourably. Then look at the overall income & wealth of the news media industry as a demographic and it's increase under either side of politics and the overall numbers of people employed in the industry & you will see possible motive for their inclination to support their proprietors possible inclination consciously or otherwise. Combine that analysis with an analysis of the rate of increase in profit margins by corporations that donate to labor and liberal governments add up the total amount of donations in dollars and calculate the percentage that went to Labor or Liberal governments. Finally look at the amount of wealth by various demographics and the decrease or increase in inequality between the demographics & speed with which that occurs under Labor or Liberal governments. If you do all of those things you'll see the reality of what has being happening, why been happening, how it is possible and so difficult to change.
Absolutely fabulous breakdown. I thoroughly enjoyed that. And good job at sticking to facts and statistics. I would say it's probably the most unbiased account I've seen in awhile.
A lot of Howard's ability to spend more can also be traced to how many assets his government sold around the same time, not just a mining boom that they didn't really tax the way they should have, assets that all subsequent Australian governments have now lost the ability to draw down on as streams of revenue worth billions of dollars each per annum.
Not to mention the $50 billion structural deficit Howard left in the Budget with Negative Gearing and halving Capital Gains. However on the note of Howard era selling of assets, the Knee himself Peter Costello sold billions of Australian reserve gold at a significantly lower price than the price of gold at the time. Hurried it out the door at the discount to show a budget surplus no doubt.
@@bofty I thought Howard's reign was somewhat 'the golden age'. I was still in school, then into the defence force during that time so I had zero clue how shit he was in many ways.
You deserve so much more views for putting this video together. This is what should become education, the facts really are able to distinguish what bias cannot. good job!
I found this really informative and appreciate how you keep it non-partisan. Thanks for speaking so clearly and providing accurate subtitles for accessibility! Topical timestamps would be helpful too.
I feel like Albo could have really benefited from listening to your succinct analysis of the statistics before the debates. Then he may have had a chance at shutting down ScoMo’s false claims
Yes, it is strange how Labor doesn't capitalise on the really good talking points which can be verified and that people care about (like climate change, or federal integrity). Instead, they seem to restrict themselves to the same cliché ones which people have heard and are desensitised to and are often harder to back up (like future Medicare cuts). It's like they want to fulfil their stereotyped role and defeat themselves sometimes. Obviously, we have to blame the concentrated media environment we have too, who distort the image. I recommend the channel Knights in Shining Llama who does a good job on explaining some past scandals (which, if they were committed under Labor, one alone would result in a political death sentence).
@@liam3284 yeah, this is the real reason Albo didn't just spit facts. There's only so much time to undo the propaganda that every voter has buzzing around in their head. You have to pick your battles.
Great vid. Just one thing though, Greece doesn't issue it's own currency, so in terms of servicing debt is not in a similar situation to Australia. Japan has a massive GDP to debt ratio and is yet to collapse because of international confidence in their economy, political stability and productive capacity
Fair point. This kind of extra nuancd and detail is exactly what lacks from public discussion of debt and there's so much to say on the subject. Thank you for teaching me a new thing
A lot of Japanese debt is also domestically held. To paraphrase Mark Blyth, "If I borrow money from myself and sell that debt to myself, how much do I owe myself?" *shrug*
I could be wrong, however, when you look at gov. spending being relatively the same between the two parties, you should also look at where that spending goes and who benefits. Labor tends to spend on things that benefit the many and elevate pressure on mid to low income earners; lnp tend to spend on things that benefit the few who are wealthy and quite a bit of it tends to leave the country and therefore doesn't benefit Aussies very much.
This video is pretty poor at looking at nuance in general. When working or middle class voters say they want lower taxes, they generally mean for themselves, so taking the total taxes against GDP ignores the deficit between the median tax rate and the mean tax rate, as well as many other taxes that won't apply to most people e.g. on investment properties.
I think he avoided in saying something like this because it could stretch unbiased and neutral, because one side (likely lnp voters) will say, ‘but those services still existed under us, don’t they?’ And I think the person is trying to avoid certain nuances like this for that reason. But, at the start though he did mention that labor introduced Medicare, the NDIS & more sustained educational funding , and Howard introduced one thing (I forget and I’m too lazy to go back and find it) compared to 3, so an inference can be made.
This is a very enjoyable video, literally had this come on automatically playing in the background while doing work and I had to stop and listen; to good!
2003 was when the oil price jumped. Fuel spiked, Airlines folded, Transport companies gouging, manufacturing shut down as it was cheaper to make things overseas.
"Down down down... Much like the prices at Coles" BRB CACKLING Nah fr tho great jokes aside, these kinds of videos are wildly informative and a really good starting point when trying to understand Australian politics and how stuff has actually changed; trying to find where to start on understanding it all as a whole makes me want to fall into a big despair hole, so thanks!! Really straightforward and concise, while still entertaining!
As an American, these videos are an interesting starting point. What it looks like to me is that we're seeing: 1) Taxes to GDP are rising over time 2) More liberal than labor ministers have been in office in recent years It's also an interpretation of the claim, "Taxes are higher under labor', that isn't necessarily what anybody cares about. Higher for who? What kind of taxes? If liberals are, for instance, gathering more taxes from corporations exporting iron ore during a commodities boom, then it's not clear that the tax to GDP ratio is an accurate reflection of what people care about in tax policy. In fact, we might even like those 'higher taxes', if only a little bit.. Overall the analysis itself, while it may be accurate, gives a fairly one-dimensional view of the situation. I'm not saying a more nuanced view wouldn't come to similar conclusions. But I am saying it definitely *feels* like it's not looking at the right thing.
Tax to GDP ratio was the best way to present overall data. However, if I analysed specific taxes and cuts vs increases I'd have to then argue their impact. They definitely have an impact - but for the sake of not criticising any government I had to exclude some justifiable conclusions that would earned me accusations of bias
Hilarious. Liberals are in bed with the iron ore companies. Most of these mega corporations (and Australian billionaires, who made more money than any billionaires in the world in 2020) pay zero tax. As an Australian, I'm constantly hearing the Liberal party rabbiting on about 'saving the economy', and to hell with everything else. The only thing they're saving is a very few companies & individuals who already have too much money. They only talk about one dimension. That's why this video addresses it.
The biggest tax cut in recent years was a lift in the tax free threshold which if you're american is similar to the non itemised deduction that everyone gets. It means a tax cut of about $2300 per year for every person whos income is above $18200 per year, which is less than the minimum full time wage in Australia. This was a labor governments policy. They didnt even take it to the election. They just announced it one day. You're right though, noone cares if you tax mining companies. Howard didnt tax mining companies enough. He was also able to run surpluses without causing a recession due to these revenues and privatisation of major state assets. Think about your own country where the last govt surplus was followed shortly by a recession, because you dont have a silod outsized sector to tax.
@@AuspolExplained i dont agree that you removed bias. Stopped watching at 19:28 because you are clearly jabbing at the libs. The American cuts to the point. What being taxed is of huge significance and in 2007 Rudd fucked the people with his alcohol tax making a carton of beer TWICE as expensive overnight. Additionally.. liberals are typically better for businesses. Labor typically sell our countrys assets to foreign entities to find money. Everything is relative. I believe breaking down the state premier decisions will be a better representation for economic management. Including how the pandemic was handled by labor (victoria) and liberals (nsw). Everything is relevant.
Tax to GDP ratio doesn't tell me anything. What were those taxes? Was it income tax, corporate tax etc.??? Need more detailed breakdown. And I say this as a Labor voter.
100% this, also matters who suffers the tax burden. A greater tax burden as a result of higher taxes on high income earners is probably better than a slightly lower tax burden that is the result of higher taxes on low income earners.
@@bencohen6407 in rhyme alone. Otherwise rudd and swan were absolute stars on the global stage and hopefully albo takes us back there now that scomo is out on his ass
>Makes unbiased video with nothing but facts >Clearly shows labor is the better government choice Gotta love when facts and figures match up with your claims. Makes you feel like reality is backing you up.
Thanks to the graphic on tax, I've only just realised that Colombia is now part of the OECD. I love Colombia and it is doing way better than it was doing in the 1990s, but I'm kinda shocked it's in the OECD. I remember in 2018, I was in Cartagena, Colombia when I heard Scott Morrison had rolled Malcolm Turnbull. Colombia had just completed an election and having completed his term, the president was going to peacefully concede power to the winner of that election. Compared to Australia where PMs rarely go down at elections, it seemed very civil. Nonetheless... while I was in Colombia in 2018 I couldn't travel to large parts of the country because they were active conflict zones. I didn't know it at the time, but the Catatumbo War was gearing up while I was there. Travelling to La Guajira, there were frequent road blocks and every town was flooded with Venezuelan refugees. Even without Venezuelans, Colombia rivalled all Africa for the sheer number of IDPs (internally displaced persons), surpassed today only by Ukraine and Syria. Which is a long way of saying... Colombia, while I applaud its progress and hope for better days ahead (and expect them!)... doesn't seem like OECD material.
17:05 may have just described a certain massive media conglomerate that own like half of the newspapers in Australia, but that’s just my suspicions though.
Good video & informative but I’d have to double check some of the figures For instance for your GDP growth averages you seem to take an average for each PM then average those averages Ie for Labor (0.69+0.91+0.63)/3=0.74 That’s a bit misleading as it doesn’t take into account the tenure of each prime minister. Using weighted averages based on the tenure of each would give a better representation of the averages
Absolutely valid point and if/when I make an updated one in the future when there have been more PMs, I will take that into account. That makes sense and my apologies for not thinking about that
Fantastic break down, it could be worth doing another element on IAREM rankings, though if politics is your thing this may just be going down an economics rabbit hole that ain’t your thing.
Can we stop calling them liberal? They are Conservative. Let's educate people to start calling them that. Great explanation of government fiscal stuff.
Liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive, especially considering liberalism has been the dominant political strand for the past several centuries. In fact every major party in Western democracy is a liberal party
Something to consider: you speak of the importance of looking at tax and debt with respect to GDP, but then at 21:30 exaggerate the debt growth under the LNP by using absolute when saying debt 'doubled' in X years. It's not consistent, and it's something that ABC fact check called Albo out on for saying in one of the debates. Love the video and appreciate the effort you put into it.
I did cite an ABC fact check about how considerably large pre-covid Liberal debt was in the script so it's not a moot point. But also yes, debt isn't always measured one way so there is leeway in discussions of it
Considering how much party policies, social beliefs, and other things have change. Can either party today really be compared to the party they were 50 years ago?
I agree with you. I touch on this a bit by pointing out Menzies, and the shift in NAIRU, but it's a bigger conversation that you're rightly pointing to. Whitlam was pro-public services and created Medibank, the predecessor to Medicare, but also Keating had a more neoliberal bent and had some selectively targeted privatisation - while Howard especially and Abbott to a lesser extent were quite pro-privatisation. Keating started the selling of Telstra, Howard finished it then sold off a bunch more assets. Menzies expanded public services - something Howard would know as he wrote a biography on him. Albanese campaigned heavily on strengthening the public services that were introduced by prior Labor governments, so it would be fair to say Labor is still more pro-public services and Liberals more pro-deregulation, but if I made that as a broad statement someone would go "but Keating privatised things too!" So yeah, broad statements about a party over a long period of time are difficult and often flimsy. That's really the core of this video. Liberals aren't inherently better economic managers - but I didn't declare anyone a "winner" either. Things are complicated, economic conditions, thinking, and how we respond, shift over time. You're completely right, but the popular attitude is to pick points of convenience and make sweeping statements for political point scoring, which I dislike.
Also I think you ought to mention how much WHO is being taxed matters. It takes a LOT more taxation for the richest 1% to even feel a slight sting, whereas any slight change to the taxes of working class people will have a dramatic impact for better or worse.
Taxing the rich vs taxing the poor is a very interesting discussion. I always assumed that despite them trying their best to avoid taxation, if we just tax the rich enough then we'll at least get a fair chunk of that money. But sadly it is just too difficult to tax the rich like that, they almost always find a way to get out of paying it. And so you'll find that a lot of the highest HDI countries (pretty much all of scandinavia) in the world tax the poor and the rich equally. This is known as a regressive tax system, and it works so well because a.) lower-class people aren't able to avoid taxes as easily as rich people, and b.) there is a lot more people in the lower-class than the upper-class, and so a tax on the lower-class makes a ton more money than one on the upper-class, despite their immense wealth. The catch is that it needs to be ensured that this money is in fact going towards public services, and not being wasted on corruption, military, strengthening government power, or other frivolous/dangerous ventures. Scandinavian countries have amazing social programs that have been well-entrenched for a very long time, so having high tax really isn't a big deal, because you can very easily survive without it. Australia has pretty bad social welfare currently, tho here's hoping under labor it will get better again.
@@stoopidapples1596 I mean you could also... close the loopholes that allow the rich to evade paying their taxes. We are already aware of SO FUCKING MANY of the tricks they use, we just need the social and political pressure to push those restrictions through, and then whilst the rich are reeling, go all in on the progressive taxations. Yes it creates an arms race of loopholes and legislation for a couple decades, during which time we need to avoid losing power, or we'll end up back where we started, with centrist and right wing parties intentionally letting them exploit loopholes AND THEN ALSO lowering the taxes they need to pay. But the results are worth it.
Excise taxes sting the upper class more ,it was labor dick Kevin Rudd that pushed up luxury car tax to 33% , the theshold went up under liberals . Labor worse for car buyers
If anyone is curious, 2003 was when we followed the USA in the invasion of Afghanistan chasing Osama Bin Laden after the twin towers on 9/11, then 2005-07 was when we followed the USA again chasing Sadam Hussein for his "WMDs". War on terror started and huge military deployments began during those years transferring Australia from peace-time army to operational army.
Fraser had a recession. Whitlams wage growth wasn't sustainable and he also had high inflation (so wages were really climbing to be ahead of it). Inflation has generally gone downwards long term from Whitlam to Howard/Rudd, but rose recently under the government just passed. The point isn't to think Whitlam was the golden age of economic performance, just demonstrate that these indicators can change a lot over time and so broad statements like in the opening of the video are over simplified and can't be proven to be true
Fact: Every dollar of dedicit on the Govt budget, is a dollar of SURPLUS amung us (the private sector). And vice versa. See Prof Steven Keen (running in the SENATE in TNL Party) or Prof Stephanie Kelton.
@@Chryosoar Correct. Even more silly when in many countries like Australia, most of the money in circulation is private bank created by the making of loans (credit creation process). See Prof Richard Werner for more info. Or Steven Keen.
To be nitpicky about being "non-partisan" I don't think statistics are as non-partisan as you make them out to be. Plus there is implicit bias in your initial questions. Having said that, I liked the video and have sent it to a few liberal friends of mine.
It's a useful tool for comparisons for economists because it creates its own relative data point for one year vs another. Like if you wanted to be specific about a tax like say income tax and saw that in one decade it was 65% for anyone earning over $100,000 but down to 45% in another decade that looks like a lower tax burden on the surface - but then you'd need to adjust that $100,000 for inflation to compare to another decade, and then what's the average wage of the different time periods, and also that doesn't tell you how many people actually earned over $100,000, etc. Tax to GDP ratio shows you the overall tax "burden" as it's called - so if the GDP of a country goes down, but so does the collective taxes across the nation, then the relative tax burden to economic activity evens out. It makes it also easier to compare between countries because they also will have a relative tax to GDP ratio. It's not an all encompassing comparison, but it's a handy metric when comparing things over several years. Here's more info on the idea of tax to GDP ratios that will hopefully explain it better than me (apologies that it's American): www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-to-gdp-ratio.asp
It’s total tax collected divided by GDP It allows us to compare taxes between governments when the GDP changes, because taxing 1 million dollars in the 30’s is essentially the same as taxing 200 billion today as our GDP has grown.
@@AuspolExplained Modern Monetary Theory. I'll give it my best shot at explaining it, but I'm not an expert. MMT is a heterodox economic theory. It states that governments that have currency sovereignty (create their own money) do not need to raise funds through taxation and bonds to pay for goods, services, and financial assets. This is because it is impossible for governments to go into a forced default, they can just print more money. MMTers do not judge fiscal policy based on debt and deficit, but on the inflationary effects that it will have, and see taxation and bonds as a way of decreasing any inflationary pressure that their spending incurs. They also support automatic stabilisers (Progressive taxation on the inflationary end and Job guarantee, unemployment insurance etc on the recession end) there are many critiques of MMT, the main one I agree with is mainstream economists, are actually already aware of the way that money is created and relates to inflation, and that MMT is a popular way of introducing these concepts to laypeople because it has the veneer of being new and radical (although in Australia you still see much of the political conversation centred around debt and deficit) The other thing that mainstream and MMTers disagree on is the effect of deficit spending on interest rates. Mainstream economists talk about government spending crowding out private sector investment, whereas MMTers believe that spending increases banking reserves which will decrease interest rates, causing an increase in private sector investment. Let me know if any of that is confusing
@@AuspolExplained Modern Monetary Theory. It recently became fashionable among some economists. It effectively advocates the idea that deficits aren't as important as has been previously emphasised. The ABC has a good explainer on it.
Well presented an analysis, should be compulsory viewing for all voters to overcome the deluge of propaganda & spin we are getting from all sides of politics this election. One suggestion if you are trying to project an unbiased image I would review the contents of your bookshelf. The Titles I could make out were Rudd x 2, Beazley, Keating, Calwell & Whitlam (slightly one sided)
There's an entire shelf of Liberal biographies (some of which I held up to demonstrate) the same size as that Labor shelf. It's admittedly not very visible so I understand why that doesn't get noticed
I would rather you show us if Morrison's term was unfair or not by providing us a short analysis of all the economic offsets compared to the GFC. That would make for a more compelling argument than simply implying anything else. Otherwise it is just running on assumptions.
Interesting video and we’ll presented. However, I don’t think it is fair to claim to be unbiased as most of your sources are articles written without that same unbiased promise. Facts are often manipulated and shaped to make points that are biased. I think it undermines what is a very interesting and informative video and leaves me feeling tricked. This is something I don’t think I would have felt if this was presented as a reason to like labor and disprove liberal propaganda. It just feels deceitful to me when you are trying to essentially incept and idea into my head while telling me that you aren’t. Also does anyone know if when he is talking about GDP it is real or nominal? I couldn’t seem to find it in the smh article (maybe I’m just blind) thanks
interesting. I wonder whether our place at 30th on the world ranking for lowest GDP to tax comes from (to my understanding) reduced taxes on large corporations and the mining industry.
This video showed that Labor is better for the economy than Liberals. That's the only bullet Liberals have ever had, as Labor is better in every other metric too. Generally, the more progressive party the better. Greens are always a good bet.
It's amazing how good Labor looks as soon as you remove the bias. Well done.
As soon as you look at the actual facts. No wonder the media and liberals are so afraid of facts.
Yeah it's surprising how much propaganda we've been fed
Wouldn't it be great to have an honest 4th estate based on data and facts.
Labours biggest weakness is we don’t make propaganda against or for anyone typically liberals run off it
Yep and they look great even though the morrison government data was removed from the subset
Crazy how absolutely none of this makes it into the media’s coverage of the campaigns. Just that Scott Morrison says “Labor bad at money” 100 times with no evidence backing him up.
Because he could not help himself talk garbage knowing there r morons out there that believe it
Not at all, probable motive explaining why these basic facts are ignored, misrepresented or given scant coverage or ignored is totally obvious if you analyse amount wealth and the rate at which that wealth increases by the news media proprietors under Labor and Liberal governments then the reason for media proprietors would be inclined to giving one side of politics favourable coverage & misrepresenting the other side unfavourably. Then look at the overall income & wealth of the news media industry as a demographic and it's increase under either side of politics and the overall numbers of people employed in the industry & you will see possible motive for their inclination to support their proprietors possible inclination consciously or otherwise.
Combine that analysis with an analysis of the rate of increase in profit margins by corporations that donate to labor and liberal governments add up the total amount of donations in dollars and calculate the percentage that went to Labor or Liberal governments.
Finally look at the amount of wealth by various demographics and the decrease or increase in inequality between the demographics & speed with which that occurs under Labor or Liberal governments.
If you do all of those things you'll see the reality of what has being happening, why been happening, how it is possible and so difficult to change.
Absolutely fabulous breakdown. I thoroughly enjoyed that. And good job at sticking to facts and statistics. I would say it's probably the most unbiased account I've seen in awhile.
Amazing how good it makes Labor look.
A lot of Howard's ability to spend more can also be traced to how many assets his government sold around the same time, not just a mining boom that they didn't really tax the way they should have, assets that all subsequent Australian governments have now lost the ability to draw down on as streams of revenue worth billions of dollars each per annum.
Not to mention the $50 billion structural deficit Howard left in the Budget with Negative Gearing and halving Capital Gains.
However on the note of Howard era selling of assets, the Knee himself Peter Costello sold billions of Australian reserve gold at a significantly lower price than the price of gold at the time.
Hurried it out the door at the discount to show a budget surplus no doubt.
Facts and statistics are great. But can be misleading. Pretext and context absolutely matter. 👍
Howard really Fucked us good
@@bofty I thought Howard's reign was somewhat 'the golden age'. I was still in school, then into the defence force during that time so I had zero clue how shit he was in many ways.
@@Jim-yk9zw unfortunately many, many(too many) aussie's thought the same as you did Jim :( cut our noses off to spite our face we did....
My perspective of Labor & the LNP has completely changed after watching this video.
Great work David!
Hi Michael
Crossover!
Props from the man himself!
Your work is dam great too
You deserve so much more views for putting this video together. This is what should become education, the facts really are able to distinguish what bias cannot. good job!
He needs better thumbnails.
I found this really informative and appreciate how you keep it non-partisan. Thanks for speaking so clearly and providing accurate subtitles for accessibility! Topical timestamps would be helpful too.
The fact that Rudd not only held office during the gfc but leave us without a recession says a lot about his bawse levels
absolute bawse
Labor all day everyday
The algorithm is now actually working, gee thanks for giving me something valuable this late TH-cam...
So refreshing to watch something political with just facts no bias and opinions ,great work.
I feel like Albo could have really benefited from listening to your succinct analysis of the statistics before the debates. Then he may have had a chance at shutting down ScoMo’s false claims
Well I do encourage people to share my vids so maybe people should email it to his office
@@AuspolExplained done 😉
The problem with the false claims is so many people "know" them to be true. How does one change that?
Yes, it is strange how Labor doesn't capitalise on the really good talking points which can be verified and that people care about (like climate change, or federal integrity).
Instead, they seem to restrict themselves to the same cliché ones which people have heard and are desensitised to and are often harder to back up (like future Medicare cuts).
It's like they want to fulfil their stereotyped role and defeat themselves sometimes. Obviously, we have to blame the concentrated media environment we have too, who distort the image.
I recommend the channel Knights in Shining Llama who does a good job on explaining some past scandals (which, if they were committed under Labor, one alone would result in a political death sentence).
@@liam3284 yeah, this is the real reason Albo didn't just spit facts. There's only so much time to undo the propaganda that every voter has buzzing around in their head. You have to pick your battles.
even as someone who is pretty informed, I still learnt a lot from this.
@D Chapo 😂😂😂😂😂
this video should literally be taught in schools and students tested on understanding it before they are allowed to vote.
Great video, very informative!
You are certainly more straightforward and less ideologically clouded than some other Australian TH-camrs.
This should be compulsory viewing for everyone before they are allowed to vote.
Great vid. Just one thing though, Greece doesn't issue it's own currency, so in terms of servicing debt is not in a similar situation to Australia. Japan has a massive GDP to debt ratio and is yet to collapse because of international confidence in their economy, political stability and productive capacity
Fair point. This kind of extra nuancd and detail is exactly what lacks from public discussion of debt and there's so much to say on the subject. Thank you for teaching me a new thing
A lot of Japanese debt is also domestically held. To paraphrase Mark Blyth, "If I borrow money from myself and sell that debt to myself, how much do I owe myself?" *shrug*
I could be wrong, however, when you look at gov. spending being relatively the same between the two parties, you should also look at where that spending goes and who benefits. Labor tends to spend on things that benefit the many and elevate pressure on mid to low income earners; lnp tend to spend on things that benefit the few who are wealthy and quite a bit of it tends to leave the country and therefore doesn't benefit Aussies very much.
Liberals also cut funding to public services that labor put in in the first place thus having even more money to blow elsewhere.
Came here to say this.
This video is pretty poor at looking at nuance in general. When working or middle class voters say they want lower taxes, they generally mean for themselves, so taking the total taxes against GDP ignores the deficit between the median tax rate and the mean tax rate, as well as many other taxes that won't apply to most people e.g. on investment properties.
@@DuringDark Do you know which government is better in that sense, just curious
I think he avoided in saying something like this because it could stretch unbiased and neutral, because one side (likely lnp voters) will say, ‘but those services still existed under us, don’t they?’ And I think the person is trying to avoid certain nuances like this for that reason. But, at the start though he did mention that labor introduced Medicare, the NDIS & more sustained educational funding , and Howard introduced one thing (I forget and I’m too lazy to go back and find it) compared to 3, so an inference can be made.
As someone who is from the 🇬🇧 I finding your videos on Australian politics interesting and educational
This is a very enjoyable video, literally had this come on automatically playing in the background while doing work and I had to stop and listen; to good!
I kept thinking i spotted 'Inside the Greens' by Paddy Manning, good to see that I was correct at 7.01!
About time someone gave us some empirical evidence
Now this is a video I’ve been waiting a long time for! Thanks!
2003 was when the oil price jumped. Fuel spiked, Airlines folded, Transport companies gouging, manufacturing shut down as it was cheaper to make things overseas.
I'm paused at 25:23 bc I'm busy wheezing about sharks
This is going in my top 5 for deadpan delivery 🦈🎓
"Down down down... Much like the prices at Coles" BRB CACKLING
Nah fr tho great jokes aside, these kinds of videos are wildly informative and a really good starting point when trying to understand Australian politics and how stuff has actually changed; trying to find where to start on understanding it all as a whole makes me want to fall into a big despair hole, so thanks!! Really straightforward and concise, while still entertaining!
I can't get enough of your series on here and Spotify 🤣
.
.
Brilliant work 👏
Not sure how you made a history of political budgets funny and interesting! 🤔 👏🙏
Fantastic video, and only confirmed my suspicions. Thanks
You're trying so hard to be unbiased. But we can tell this hurts.
Just found the Bob Ross of Statistical analysis.
Sweet.
As an American, these videos are an interesting starting point. What it looks like to me is that we're seeing:
1) Taxes to GDP are rising over time
2) More liberal than labor ministers have been in office in recent years
It's also an interpretation of the claim, "Taxes are higher under labor', that isn't necessarily what anybody cares about. Higher for who? What kind of taxes? If liberals are, for instance, gathering more taxes from corporations exporting iron ore during a commodities boom, then it's not clear that the tax to GDP ratio is an accurate reflection of what people care about in tax policy. In fact, we might even like those 'higher taxes', if only a little bit.. Overall the analysis itself, while it may be accurate, gives a fairly one-dimensional view of the situation. I'm not saying a more nuanced view wouldn't come to similar conclusions. But I am saying it definitely *feels* like it's not looking at the right thing.
Tax to GDP ratio was the best way to present overall data. However, if I analysed specific taxes and cuts vs increases I'd have to then argue their impact. They definitely have an impact - but for the sake of not criticising any government I had to exclude some justifiable conclusions that would earned me accusations of bias
Hilarious. Liberals are in bed with the iron ore companies. Most of these mega corporations (and Australian billionaires, who made more money than any billionaires in the world in 2020) pay zero tax. As an Australian, I'm constantly hearing the Liberal party rabbiting on about 'saving the economy', and to hell with everything else. The only thing they're saving is a very few companies & individuals who already have too much money. They only talk about one dimension. That's why this video addresses it.
The biggest tax cut in recent years was a lift in the tax free threshold which if you're american is similar to the non itemised deduction that everyone gets. It means a tax cut of about $2300 per year for every person whos income is above $18200 per year, which is less than the minimum full time wage in Australia.
This was a labor governments policy. They didnt even take it to the election. They just announced it one day.
You're right though, noone cares if you tax mining companies. Howard didnt tax mining companies enough. He was also able to run surpluses without causing a recession due to these revenues and privatisation of major state assets.
Think about your own country where the last govt surplus was followed shortly by a recession, because you dont have a silod outsized sector to tax.
@@AuspolExplained i dont agree that you removed bias. Stopped watching at 19:28 because you are clearly jabbing at the libs.
The American cuts to the point. What being taxed is of huge significance and in 2007 Rudd fucked the people with his alcohol tax making a carton of beer TWICE as expensive overnight.
Additionally.. liberals are typically better for businesses. Labor typically sell our countrys assets to foreign entities to find money.
Everything is relative. I believe breaking down the state premier decisions will be a better representation for economic management. Including how the pandemic was handled by labor (victoria) and liberals (nsw).
Everything is relevant.
Tax to GDP ratio doesn't tell me anything. What were those taxes? Was it income tax, corporate tax etc.??? Need more detailed breakdown. And I say this as a Labor voter.
Exactly
I think it was a combination of all types of taxes but I’m not 100% sure I’m still trying to learn too hopefully old mate replies
Also never said whether it was real or nominal gdp which makes a big difference
100% this, also matters who suffers the tax burden. A greater tax burden as a result of higher taxes on high income earners is probably better than a slightly lower tax burden that is the result of higher taxes on low income earners.
Those taxes were on paper lower under the liberals but they collected more revenue as a proportion of GDP
Impartial assessment is rare. Thank You
Thanks for your great effort. Absolutely fabulous.
Fantastic video mate. Thanks for making it!
This was a really great video David! Keen to see more from you in time.
Probably should have watched this today...
Oop. Remind yourself to watch it again in 3 years time
If you are going to exclude Morrison's numbers because of the pandemic then you need to also exclude Rudd during the GFC years.
But Rudd was a complete and utter dud.
@@bencohen6407 in rhyme alone. Otherwise rudd and swan were absolute stars on the global stage and hopefully albo takes us back there now that scomo is out on his ass
@@bencohen6407 yeah Rudd and Swan smashed it
I love you with a power that is difficult to contain, manage and behold.
>Makes unbiased video with nothing but facts
>Clearly shows labor is the better government choice
Gotta love when facts and figures match up with your claims. Makes you feel like reality is backing you up.
Thanks to the graphic on tax, I've only just realised that Colombia is now part of the OECD. I love Colombia and it is doing way better than it was doing in the 1990s, but I'm kinda shocked it's in the OECD. I remember in 2018, I was in Cartagena, Colombia when I heard Scott Morrison had rolled Malcolm Turnbull. Colombia had just completed an election and having completed his term, the president was going to peacefully concede power to the winner of that election. Compared to Australia where PMs rarely go down at elections, it seemed very civil. Nonetheless... while I was in Colombia in 2018 I couldn't travel to large parts of the country because they were active conflict zones. I didn't know it at the time, but the Catatumbo War was gearing up while I was there. Travelling to La Guajira, there were frequent road blocks and every town was flooded with Venezuelan refugees. Even without Venezuelans, Colombia rivalled all Africa for the sheer number of IDPs (internally displaced persons), surpassed today only by Ukraine and Syria. Which is a long way of saying... Colombia, while I applaud its progress and hope for better days ahead (and expect them!)... doesn't seem like OECD material.
Alex if you see this I’m watching this on your recommendation, hope it informational into what we are getting into come 2022
This plus endless covid mandates
17:05 may have just described a certain massive media conglomerate that own like half of the newspapers in Australia, but that’s just my suspicions though.
Good stuff hope this gets more views
Thanks! Hopefully people share it and help it get seen
Wow, this was great! Thank you!
When NZ goes towards it's polls you should definitely do a similar video on our parties 😁
I got a Liberal ad lmao
THERES A WHOLE IN UR BUDGET-
This was really handy. Great video. :)
I would like to see this comparison but in terms of Gross Output
We are a vastly richer country, yet Whitlam delivered more public services with a smaller portion of GDP than Turnbull.
And fu**ed up the country
whitlam was our last great PM, we are f*cked these days
@@joelanderson4899 seriously, Whitlam? 😂
@@Qatari2007 "Yes"
@@Qatari2007 look like you didn’t watch the video, either that or you don’t like numbers
Good video & informative but I’d have to double check some of the figures
For instance for your GDP growth averages you seem to take an average for each PM then average those averages
Ie for Labor (0.69+0.91+0.63)/3=0.74
That’s a bit misleading as it doesn’t take into account the tenure of each prime minister.
Using weighted averages based on the tenure of each would give a better representation of the averages
Absolutely valid point and if/when I make an updated one in the future when there have been more PMs, I will take that into account. That makes sense and my apologies for not thinking about that
@@AuspolExplained does this significantly change the result?
The tax graph would be even more interesting if you could take out high income tax from it, to see how much the average household is paying.
Fantastic break down, it could be worth doing another element on IAREM rankings, though if politics is your thing this may just be going down an economics rabbit hole that ain’t your thing.
Is that book on Kim Beazley worth a look?
The country missed a trick not getting that guy steering the ship.
Alas i haven't read it yet - but maybe soon. His time as Governor is coming to an end so I'd love to get him on the show if I can
Great work david
It's amazing how this dude suddenly becomes friendlyjordies while litterally being unbiased. It shows how good labor really is.
Good vid man, keep it up
Can we stop calling them liberal?
They are Conservative. Let's educate people to start calling them that.
Great explanation of government fiscal stuff.
I agree they are indeed conservative - and have been since they were made. There isn't a rule that party names need be accurate
Liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive, especially considering liberalism has been the dominant political strand for the past several centuries. In fact every major party in Western democracy is a liberal party
Awesome breakdown thanks
Wish this analysis was applied to NZ
Become the educator you want to see in the world 🌎
Who's watching this after voting?
Brilliant informative video!
Something to consider: you speak of the importance of looking at tax and debt with respect to GDP, but then at 21:30 exaggerate the debt growth under the LNP by using absolute when saying debt 'doubled' in X years. It's not consistent, and it's something that ABC fact check called Albo out on for saying in one of the debates.
Love the video and appreciate the effort you put into it.
I did cite an ABC fact check about how considerably large pre-covid Liberal debt was in the script so it's not a moot point. But also yes, debt isn't always measured one way so there is leeway in discussions of it
you want to know what howard spent his money on? He spent it on all the inferior jets and submarines that we don"t even USE!!!
Thank you mate.
Great video thanks..
So rare to find unbiased information ... looks like Australia made a wise choice!
Fuck this is the good stuff. Subbed
Great video mate
bro I love data
Considering how much party policies, social beliefs, and other things have change. Can either party today really be compared to the party they were 50 years ago?
I agree with you. I touch on this a bit by pointing out Menzies, and the shift in NAIRU, but it's a bigger conversation that you're rightly pointing to. Whitlam was pro-public services and created Medibank, the predecessor to Medicare, but also Keating had a more neoliberal bent and had some selectively targeted privatisation - while Howard especially and Abbott to a lesser extent were quite pro-privatisation. Keating started the selling of Telstra, Howard finished it then sold off a bunch more assets. Menzies expanded public services - something Howard would know as he wrote a biography on him. Albanese campaigned heavily on strengthening the public services that were introduced by prior Labor governments, so it would be fair to say Labor is still more pro-public services and Liberals more pro-deregulation, but if I made that as a broad statement someone would go "but Keating privatised things too!"
So yeah, broad statements about a party over a long period of time are difficult and often flimsy. That's really the core of this video. Liberals aren't inherently better economic managers - but I didn't declare anyone a "winner" either. Things are complicated, economic conditions, thinking, and how we respond, shift over time. You're completely right, but the popular attitude is to pick points of convenience and make sweeping statements for political point scoring, which I dislike.
This is an excellent video
Also I think you ought to mention how much WHO is being taxed matters. It takes a LOT more taxation for the richest 1% to even feel a slight sting, whereas any slight change to the taxes of working class people will have a dramatic impact for better or worse.
Precisely, read into the lies more!
Taxing the rich vs taxing the poor is a very interesting discussion. I always assumed that despite them trying their best to avoid taxation, if we just tax the rich enough then we'll at least get a fair chunk of that money. But sadly it is just too difficult to tax the rich like that, they almost always find a way to get out of paying it. And so you'll find that a lot of the highest HDI countries (pretty much all of scandinavia) in the world tax the poor and the rich equally. This is known as a regressive tax system, and it works so well because a.) lower-class people aren't able to avoid taxes as easily as rich people, and b.) there is a lot more people in the lower-class than the upper-class, and so a tax on the lower-class makes a ton more money than one on the upper-class, despite their immense wealth.
The catch is that it needs to be ensured that this money is in fact going towards public services, and not being wasted on corruption, military, strengthening government power, or other frivolous/dangerous ventures. Scandinavian countries have amazing social programs that have been well-entrenched for a very long time, so having high tax really isn't a big deal, because you can very easily survive without it. Australia has pretty bad social welfare currently, tho here's hoping under labor it will get better again.
@@stoopidapples1596 I mean you could also... close the loopholes that allow the rich to evade paying their taxes. We are already aware of SO FUCKING MANY of the tricks they use, we just need the social and political pressure to push those restrictions through, and then whilst the rich are reeling, go all in on the progressive taxations.
Yes it creates an arms race of loopholes and legislation for a couple decades, during which time we need to avoid losing power, or we'll end up back where we started, with centrist and right wing parties intentionally letting them exploit loopholes AND THEN ALSO lowering the taxes they need to pay.
But the results are worth it.
Excise taxes sting the upper class more ,it was labor dick Kevin Rudd that pushed up luxury car tax to 33% , the theshold went up under liberals . Labor worse for car buyers
@@stoopidapples1596 consumer pays the High taxes in Australia
If anyone is curious, 2003 was when we followed the USA in the invasion of Afghanistan chasing Osama Bin Laden after the twin towers on 9/11, then 2005-07 was when we followed the USA again chasing Sadam Hussein for his "WMDs". War on terror started and huge military deployments began during those years transferring Australia from peace-time army to operational army.
Sweet. Now my mum can get off my back about getting a job. Because I'm the economic buffer towards the unemployment thershold 💪
Working hard, or hardly working? Why not both
3:15 regarding tax to GDP ratio, what proportion of the tax part are wage tax? And what type of tax (if not wages) is the largest proportion?
That's really interesting, but what do you think if we take it to the next level and discuss whose policies lead to bigger economic growth?
If you can provide solid links between policies and their impacts on economic growth, then go ahead. But that is a very, very difficult task to do.
I’m boggling at the discrepancy between Whitlam and Fraser wrt wage growth. how did that happen?
Fraser had a recession. Whitlams wage growth wasn't sustainable and he also had high inflation (so wages were really climbing to be ahead of it). Inflation has generally gone downwards long term from Whitlam to Howard/Rudd, but rose recently under the government just passed. The point isn't to think Whitlam was the golden age of economic performance, just demonstrate that these indicators can change a lot over time and so broad statements like in the opening of the video are over simplified and can't be proven to be true
Nice vid mate
Fact: Every dollar of dedicit on the Govt budget, is a dollar of SURPLUS amung us (the private sector). And vice versa.
See Prof Steven Keen (running in the SENATE in TNL Party) or Prof Stephanie Kelton.
It's crazy how many people don't understand this - the deficit is not comparable to a household budget when a country issues its own currency.
among us
@@Chryosoar Correct. Even more silly when in many countries like Australia, most of the money in circulation is private bank created by the making of loans (credit creation process). See Prof Richard Werner for more info. Or Steven Keen.
Ubiased, although the bookshelf is very telling
The bookshelf has an entire shelf for Labor and an entire shelf of Liberal, just my body obscures half of it
@@AuspolExplained Haha, I thought so but was pretty funny
Commenting for algorithm.
This is brilliant
To be nitpicky about being "non-partisan" I don't think statistics are as non-partisan as you make them out to be. Plus there is implicit bias in your initial questions.
Having said that, I liked the video and have sent it to a few liberal friends of mine.
Name the only treasurer who was responsible for double digit inflation, unemployment and interest rates. Answer ....... John Howard.
JOHN HOWARD did it at the same time.
Im confused why tax to gdp matters more than tax itself?
It's a useful tool for comparisons for economists because it creates its own relative data point for one year vs another. Like if you wanted to be specific about a tax like say income tax and saw that in one decade it was 65% for anyone earning over $100,000 but down to 45% in another decade that looks like a lower tax burden on the surface - but then you'd need to adjust that $100,000 for inflation to compare to another decade, and then what's the average wage of the different time periods, and also that doesn't tell you how many people actually earned over $100,000, etc. Tax to GDP ratio shows you the overall tax "burden" as it's called - so if the GDP of a country goes down, but so does the collective taxes across the nation, then the relative tax burden to economic activity evens out. It makes it also easier to compare between countries because they also will have a relative tax to GDP ratio. It's not an all encompassing comparison, but it's a handy metric when comparing things over several years. Here's more info on the idea of tax to GDP ratios that will hopefully explain it better than me (apologies that it's American): www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-to-gdp-ratio.asp
Is the tax to GDP ratio not just the amount of tax collected?
It’s total tax collected divided by GDP
It allows us to compare taxes between governments when the GDP changes, because taxing 1 million dollars in the 30’s is essentially the same as taxing 200 billion today as our GDP has grown.
@@HIg-vq5jz I understand that. How does it compare business or personal income v gdp etc
lol that Menzie's comment makes him sound like a MMT advocated. wild.
MMT?
@@AuspolExplained Modern Monetary Theory. I'll give it my best shot at explaining it, but I'm not an expert.
MMT is a heterodox economic theory. It states that governments that have currency sovereignty (create their own money) do not need to raise funds through taxation and bonds to pay for goods, services, and financial assets. This is because it is impossible for governments to go into a forced default, they can just print more money. MMTers do not judge fiscal policy based on debt and deficit, but on the inflationary effects that it will have, and see taxation and bonds as a way of decreasing any inflationary pressure that their spending incurs. They also support automatic stabilisers (Progressive taxation on the inflationary end and Job guarantee, unemployment insurance etc on the recession end)
there are many critiques of MMT, the main one I agree with is mainstream economists, are actually already aware of the way that money is created and relates to inflation, and that MMT is a popular way of introducing these concepts to laypeople because it has the veneer of being new and radical (although in Australia you still see much of the political conversation centred around debt and deficit)
The other thing that mainstream and MMTers disagree on is the effect of deficit spending on interest rates. Mainstream economists talk about government spending crowding out private sector investment, whereas MMTers believe that spending increases banking reserves which will decrease interest rates, causing an increase in private sector investment.
Let me know if any of that is confusing
@@AuspolExplained Modern Monetary Theory. It recently became fashionable among some economists. It effectively advocates the idea that deficits aren't as important as has been previously emphasised. The ABC has a good explainer on it.
If you look at the stats
Well presented an analysis, should be compulsory viewing for all voters to overcome the deluge of propaganda & spin we are getting from all sides of politics this election. One suggestion if you are trying to project an unbiased image I would review the contents of your bookshelf. The Titles I could make out were Rudd x 2, Beazley, Keating, Calwell & Whitlam (slightly one sided)
There's an entire shelf of Liberal biographies (some of which I held up to demonstrate) the same size as that Labor shelf. It's admittedly not very visible so I understand why that doesn't get noticed
Labor gives results
the NAIRU theory actually orginates from Japan, originally known as professor Futanari inflation
Oh neat didn't know that I'll just go google that right now
thank god i'm corrupted because innocent me would've looked this up
Good vid
I would rather you show us if Morrison's term was unfair or not by providing us a short analysis of all the economic offsets compared to the GFC. That would make for a more compelling argument than simply implying anything else. Otherwise it is just running on assumptions.
Interesting video and we’ll presented. However, I don’t think it is fair to claim to be unbiased as most of your sources are articles written without that same unbiased promise. Facts are often manipulated and shaped to make points that are biased. I think it undermines what is a very interesting and informative video and leaves me feeling tricked. This is something I don’t think I would have felt if this was presented as a reason to like labor and disprove liberal propaganda. It just feels deceitful to me when you are trying to essentially incept and idea into my head while telling me that you aren’t.
Also does anyone know if when he is talking about GDP it is real or nominal? I couldn’t seem to find it in the smh article (maybe I’m just blind) thanks
Lol. Typical liberal apologist. The facts are what they are. Feel free to cry into your overinflated double espresso
Go to bed
This comment. 👏
interesting. I wonder whether our place at 30th on the world ranking for lowest GDP to tax comes from (to my understanding) reduced taxes on large corporations and the mining industry.
Yes
You’re a king 👑
Yeah but who should I vote for?
Whomever you think has the best ideas
@@AuspolExplained Unfortunately we don't have a natsoc party in Australia, so no-one has good ideas IMO.
This video showed that Labor is better for the economy than Liberals. That's the only bullet Liberals have ever had, as Labor is better in every other metric too.
Generally, the more progressive party the better. Greens are always a good bet.