During this campaign I have made the point that the Coalition's plans to boost 'jobs and growth' via tax cuts to those earning over $80k per year isn’t going to help the people of Murray, given only 6% of our residents earn that kind of money.
I’ve also suggested that the $50bn worth of company tax cuts (over 10 years) could be better spent on initiatives to boost growth in our smaller towns.
Today at pre-poll one of my fellow candidates challenged me on this, for which I’m very grateful, as it gives me the opportunity to test my arguments and sharpen them if needs be. He initially asked if I truly believed that the tax cuts wouldn’t lead to economic growth. I replied that they would, but that the money could be better spent.
Given we were both handing out flyers and greeting voters the conversation was quite disjointed, but he asked if I’d seen the ANU modelling showing the benefits of company tax cuts. I replied that I hadn’t (I now realise that I had previously read the summary), which he felt made my arguments quite hollow.
I stated that I hadn’t found any modelling to show that company tax cuts necessarily lowered the unemployment rate. It was at this point I had to leave for another commitment so I didn't get to say that the effect the tax cuts will have on our electorate probably hasn’t been modelled.
ANU modelling also suggests that the 2016/17 budget disproportionately affects the least well off 40% of households, a high number of which live in Murray.