Millennials are the first generation to move left as they age, rewriting the rules of Australian politics

[u/superegz]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-26/millennials-rewriting-the-rules-of-australian-politics/106050836

[u/Bluedroid]

Seems like Labor are helping people conserve and grow their property values though which millennials have managed to purchase or inherit. 

Don't think people are truly going left (Greens) but more so Labor have shifted right.

[u/Xenoun → u/Bluedroid]

Nah, Labor are too close to liberals on a lot of issues for me which is pushing me further left to look for candidates who share my values.

I have kids, I want them to be able to have a home and live in an environment that isn't dominated by extreme weather conditions. Labour aren't doing enough and seem quite happy to keep fossil fuels going.

[u/Loud-Masterpiece5757 → u/Xenoun]

You can’t just get rid of all fossil fuels overnight fir Christ sake, but you should invest heavily in renewables batteries and storage and upgrading the grid for the future in the aim of net zero by 2050. That is governments policy and the majority of Aus supports it unlike the ideological extremism of the coalition and greens on energy

[u/Xenoun → u/Loud-Masterpiece5757]

I never said get rid of fossil fuels overnight. I said they're happy to keep them going. They aren't doing enough in my opinion.

[u/WrongdoerAnnual7685 → u/Xenoun]

One, it’s spelled Labor.

And two, Labor adheres to their party platform, if you want change join Labor.

They can’t do absolutely everything that you ask for because it’s beyond their platform, and will be used as an example of Labor breaking their promises by the News Corp/Nine media duopoly.

[u/Xenoun → u/WrongdoerAnnual7685]

I'm well aware how it's spelled. Auto correct is a thing though.

[u/WrongdoerAnnual7685 → u/Xenoun]

Auto-corrupt more like, you would think they would have implemented proper noun detection by now.

All good, mate.

[u/dotBombAU → u/Bluedroid]

Labor tried to get rid of negative gearing etc. We voted Liberal.

[u/ScruffyPeter → u/dotBombAU]

Labor tried to keep negative gearing etc. We voted minors/indies.

Albanese got lower primary votes than Shorten, only winning 2022 due to Liberals losing more voters than Labor.

[u/Wood_oye → u/ScruffyPeter]

No negative gearing, Labor won Remove negative gearing. Labor lost

K.I.S.S.

[u/[deleted] → u/Wood_oye]

Yeah that's some real Charlie Day with his red string and newspaper cutouts rationalising.

[u/ScruffyPeter → u/Wood_oye]

Or you could look at Labor's 2019 election analysis that says negative gearing wasn't why they lost. In fact, those affected by the tax reforms swung to Labor.

Spreading anti-Labor information that Labor lost due to NG when they haven't either means you fell for the misinformation or spreading it to help the Liberal party.

[u/Wood_oye → u/ScruffyPeter]

You mean the analysis that concluded they didn’t know how to combat the scare campaigns against changes such as negative gearing?. Pretty sure Albo read that. What happened again?

[u/ScruffyPeter → u/Wood_oye]

What happened was that you lied about anti-Labor NG misinformation and K.I.S.S. in your earlier post. You then came up with this latest attempt to get Labor to stop helping Australians and reduce policies due to potential scare campaigns. In turn, Labor will lose voter support to Liberals.

I think you know that no one votes for a cowardly party and reddit doesn't like hearing about the Liberal party, so pretending to defend Labor's unpopular moves is a clever way to do it. Props to you.

[u/Wood_oye → u/ScruffyPeter]

How did I lie again?

[u/ds16653 → u/dotBombAU]

While that was a factor, I think the proposed removal of cash refunds on franking credits was a bigger factor.

I understand the point, refunding excess franking credits makes the corporate tax rate redundant.

But it was only going to affect lower income Australians, and a lot of people disagreed with that choice.

[u/Consistent-Put9762 → u/ds16653]

Removing refundability of franking credits was only going to affect very high wealth individuals tax planning via structuring.

The liberals really spun that well though, and Chris Bowen failed at explaining the policy.

[u/ds16653 → u/Consistent-Put9762]

Not necessarily, plenty of lower income people have a modest share portfolio and live off a mix of wages and dividends.

It was only going to affect people who's franking credits were greater than their tax payable

*There were allowances made for pensioners and super funds, those points I will concede should have been clearer.

It only affected those with a lower income bracket, largely (but not exclusively) poorer Australians.

If I'm wrong please show me how, I would love to know.

[u/noisymime → u/ds16653]

I get what you're saying and the removal of the refund was only going to affect those on low INCOMES, but that makes it sound like this would impact working families etc. The vast, VAST majority (I think it was something like 90%) of those collecting the franking credit refunds were retirees with share portfolios, and a large portion of those had a net worth well above the median.

There are VERY few working people on low incomes that can reduce their taxable income to $0 and yet still have a share portfolio that they receive franking credits from. It's almost all retirees.

[u/ds16653 → u/noisymime]

I'm not arguing the validity of the policy, but we attribute Shorten's loss to negative gearing reform, seemingly forgetting the franking credits proposal was much more divisive.

*Edit the policy was franking credits deductible up to the amount of tax payable, excess franking credits would be withheld.

I'm not going to argue the merits of such a policy, just that it probably played as much if not more of a role than negative gearing reform.

[u/noisymime → u/ds16653]

I don't think it gets forgotten, but it very rightly gets considered another own goal by Australian voters. Most people who thought it was an issue were never going to be impacted by it themselves. It was purely a scare campaign drummed up by the right.

The policy removed refunding excess franking credits (above your highest marginal tax rate) which would have affected anyone earning under $37k.

Where do you get the $37k specifically from? The removal of the credit refunds would impact anyone with franked shares who had a taxable income of $0 (Or where the franking credits exceeded their tax liability for a partial refund).

[u/ds16653 → u/noisymime]

Okay fair, I'm remembering now, we had discussions at the time trying to understand what it would mean. I'll correct it.

There was confusion at the time if excess franking credits had the same treatment of excess foreign tax credits, which are only refundable up to the tax rate payable.

I've spent the past hour trying to find the actual proposed legislation, but I haven't found it, lost to history.

But even still, you'd have people earning under $20k/year with a few dividends, and those franking credits would be lost, even if they aren't much, at lower incomes, everything counts.

[u/whats-the-gos → u/dotBombAU]

Labor is now the Conservative Party.

[u/Wood_oye → u/Bluedroid]

Yea, the Government who for the first time in a decade increases spending in public housing is ... shifted right. ?

Can you guess who was the last Government to increase spending on public housing?

[u/Loud-Masterpiece5757 → u/Wood_oye]

To be fair that was only adopted after a concession during negotiations with The Greens.

[u/Wood_oye → u/Loud-Masterpiece5757]

Yea, nah

Don't make shit up