27 thoughts on “You Pay Too Much Tax

  1. I’m sorry to agree with Andrew.
    Very good, succinct message but boring voice.

    Quite different to most emotional political ads that can even be quite sarcastic. While that’s not a good thing, I think a bit more liveliness in the voice department (without going over the top) would be good.

  2. I don’t have a problem with the voice, its OK, i think the problem is more in the editing, especially the transitions from clip to clip. I think improvements in this area would smooth the flow of the voice.

  3. I think the editing is a problem too — you need to record the stuff using a decent sound lab. Even if you use a noise filter you will get rid of lot of hiss whenever the voice is on. I imagine there must be a fair few free shareware packages outthere that do it (I use goldwave, which isn’t free anymore, which does do it).

  4. I thought it was great: a breath of fresh air in the current political climate. Congratulations to all those who put work into it.

    It is true that DavidL’s voice is not what we are used to in professional advertising but at the same time I think it is unmistakably genuine and Australian too so I’m not sure that it’s a negatiive. The LDP’s whole unique selling proposition is that we are not the ‘business as usual’ party and I think David’s presentation underlines that.

  5. Sorry, but the production is really awful. Aside from anything else, the hiss as the voice cuts in and out is really distracting. The message is one that ought to resonate with me, yet I found myself stopping the thing halfway through because it was painful to watch. A little background music would cover up a few of the flaws. I mean no offence to anyone involved with producing this as I know these things are difficult, but I’m being honest.

  6. Justin; I agree that DavidL’s voice is not the problem, I agree that those who put it together did a good job, but some improvements in the editing would make it great.

  7. I don’t think the voice was the problem so much as the lack of vocal expression.

    And I honestly don’t think most people in the electorate care about boring graphs and numbers. We live in a world of personality politics. Facts are for public servants, campaigns are about who is most interesting to watch and who looks like the “better bloke”.

    The Democrats campaigned on facts and hard policies last election and look at their primary vote. The electorate liked “keeping the bastards honest” and Natasha far more than the idea of repealing 58 pieces of legislation that discriminate against same-sex de facto couples.

    That said, I like the ideas expressed, and being on Youtube is better than not being on Youtube. But the video quality of both videos produced is low and the message is presented in a boring way that will only appeal to the small amount of the public interested in economics.

    “You pay 34% more tax under Liberal” is all the electorate cares about hearing. Screw per capita. Screw the GST. Screw inflation.

    We need a Youtube video of DavidL appearing on camera with small children and a dog, saying how hard a 34% tax increase has made it on battling Aussie families.

  8. Speaking of ads… someone just brought this somewhat humorous libertarian ad to my attention:

    Also, as I said in facebook discussion, I think it really needs to tell us where money is being squandered.

  9. Here’s my idea for a Youtube ad. I cross-posted this on the LDP Activists’ blog.

    When you are 2, your parents tell you what to eat.

    When you are 6, your parents tell you what to wear.

    When you are 10, your parents tell you which TV shows you can watch.

    When you are 14, your parents tell you what kind of friends you can have.

    When you are 16, your parents tell you what subjects to study.

    When you’re an adult the government wants to tells you:

    * How to spend your money
    * Who you can marry
    * How to have fun
    * What you can look at on the Internet
    * And so much more…

    If you’re sick of being treated like a child vote [1] LDP:

    * Smaller government
    * Lower taxes
    * Individual freedom.

    I also asked what images and music (if any) can be legally used in political advertising and what kind of permission might be needed. Does Australia have any kind of fair-use type clauses with copyright? I remember something from high school where 10% of a book is legal to use, what about 10% of a song? If I make it as a private ad rather than something sponsored by the party would it be easier to get away with using small copyrighted music fragments? As for images, I’m sure there’s plenty of un-copyrighted options…

    Anyone got any ideas or feedback on my script? I think it’s catchy and will appeal to a lot of the type of people that use Youtube- eg younger and more technological voters.

  10. I think it’s a good ad idea. The more ads the better I suppose as long as they get approval from LDP.

    I don’t know much about image copyright but any music written by a composer that’s been dead for more than 70 years is public domain. So most classical music would be a free and effective option.

    I could have a go of writing some music if you’re keen Shem.

    Or you could put in sound effects like funniest home videos style.

  11. Shem, one of your points says ‘Who you can marry’. In what way does the government tell us who to marry? If you’re thinking of same-sex rights and homosexuals being forbidden to marry, you could change it to ‘Who you can’t marry’.

  12. The L&D party has a front office?

    Great work Shem – I’d love to see an ad like this. (Though I’d say “vote Liberty and Democracy” rather than the abbreviated LDP…)

    BTW, what’s the go with ads? By that, I’m not just referring to the legal stuff (“authorised and spoken by”… blah blah blah), but also from a party organisational point of view. I imagine individual candidates will start coming up with many ideas – be they print, blogs, youtube, whatever… what needs to get vetted?

    I already blog stuff… when does my individual ranting become considered as advertising?

  13. It’s probably not wise to have a tax called “GST” in 1996 – maybe that it some sort of retail tax, I don’t know, but this ad will fall foul of a very cheap shot “How can we trust these guys on tax, when they don’t know that the GST only came in 2000?” Just a thought.

  14. The graph shows the GST as zero in 1996.

    It actually makes it look better for the government as there were sales taxes that the GST replaced. These are included in the 1996 figure, making the calculated growth lower.

  15. If you look at the colours in the graphs it looks like the GST is there in the 1996 column (now maybe it showing zero, but it is on top and looks like GST is included in 1996). It jumped right out me, and might/will for others too.

  16. Not bad for a first shot and for a party with little dough.
    I agree David’s voice could use a bit more emotion.
    I shared the videos on my LJ, a smart friend said we should do an ad that explains what we stand for rather than the standard cry of the 3rd party “Liberal did this, Labor does that” wrap.
    A not so smart friend said “individual liberty is overrated” so I yelled at him.

  17. A not so smart friend said “individual liberty is overrated” so I yelled at him.

    Tell him he’s grounded for a month, plus no alcohol, smoking or sex. That’ll make it relevant.

    He’ll be yelling at you.

  18. Anything above zero is too much tax. Anybody have any other numbers?

    Comment by nicholas gray | October 3, 2007

    How about…

    Anything above 100% is theft, anything under 100% is concessional welfare.

    Not that you guys will like those numbers.

Comments are closed.