Latham or Howard? (1 Viewer)

[mervvyn]

I think the Coalition should have just stuck with the bit of the ad where they say 'If interest rates rise to the average level they were when the ALP was last in power, your repayments go up $1000 a month' or along the lines of that, since it's factually true and very powerful.

Although very misleading.

very very misleading. unfortunately, from what you see in the papers when they discuss focus groups and whatnot, the mud seems to have stuck with regards to interest rates, at least partially.

 

[Rorix]

Speaking of spending sprees, Latham's recent annoucements have probably put him right up with or over Howard's expense commitments. I wonder if anyone's keeping track?

Although, to be honest, I'm pretty pissed off about most of these big spending commitments by the Howard government. Even being close to the ALP in policy commitments isn't right for a party which is supposed to be extolling (im not sure if i'm using this word properly, but it sounds cool) liberal values. Whatever happened to letting the people decide how to spend money themselves?

 

[mervvyn]

Speaking of spending sprees, Latham's recent annoucements have probably put him right up with or over Howard's expense commitments. I wonder if anyone's keeping track?

Although, to be honest, I'm pretty pissed off about most of these big spending commitments by the Howard government. Even being close to the ALP in policy commitments isn't right for a party which is supposed to be extolling (im not sure if i'm using this word properly, but it sounds cool) liberal values. Whatever happened to letting the people decide how to spend money themselves?

you used the word right, you'll be glad to know. I agree that for a party promoting fiscal prudence, the liberals have been spending an awful lot. i don't have anything against this, after 8 1/2 years of scrimping and cutting back i think some extra funds into our core services are welcome. Also, given that this year's budget was pretty much made with vote buying in mind, that adds about $52 billion to the Coalition tally, so Labor is unlikely to top that any time soon.

 

[Rorix]

Well, I'd prefer the spending to keeping a 20b budget surplus (I think it would be impossible politically to keep a 20b budget surplus anyway), but I'd prefer less taxes and less spending.

 

[mervvyn]

Well, I'd prefer the spending to keeping a 20b budget surplus (I think it would be impossible politically to keep a 20b budget surplus anyway), but I'd prefer less taxes and less spending.

Ok, fair enough, personally i think either A) tax cuts for everyone by raising the tax free threshhold or similar or B) a bit more dough for health and education and R&D and unis... you get my drift.
$20b surplus is politcally impossible because people expect their tax money to be well spent or given back.

 

[neo o]

I think its a little hard delivering constant tax cuts though. Downward ratchet anyone?

 

[Rorix]

Ok, fair enough, personally i think either A) tax cuts for everyone by raising the tax free threshhold or similar or B) a bit more dough for health and education and R&D and unis... you get my drift.
$20b surplus is politcally impossible because people expect their tax money to be well spent or given back.

I often flirt with a rather extreme view, and while I'm not prepared to advocate it, it does make logical sense.


Basically, just do away with the whole government thing. Make taxes high enough for defence spending, law enforcement and so on but do away with the social welfare, health spending, education spending, basically anything that's not essential. Cut taxes so that the government just has enough money to operate.

Now, let people give their money how they choose. If they want to donate to the disabled, so be it. If they want to donate to the poor so that the poor can afford a university degree, so be it.

Now, some may protest that we can't rely on people donating to the poor (and I agree), that the poor are going to suffer, not be able to afford health, education and a reasonable standard of living, or even in extreme cases living essentials. In other words, not enough people are willing to give up some of their money to the poor. But hang on, aren't we supposed to have representative government? Isn't Australia run on democratic ideals? So if people wouldn't be willing to give to the poor if the government wasn't forcefully taking their money, why isn't the government reflecting the views of the majority of Australians?

 

[mervvyn]

I often flirt with a rather extreme view, and while I'm not prepared to advocate it, it does make logical sense.


Basically, just do away with the whole government thing. Make taxes high enough for defence spending, law enforcement and so on but do away with the social welfare, health spending, education spending, basically anything that's not essential. Cut taxes so that the government just has enough money to operate.

Now, let people give their money how they choose. If they want to donate to the disabled, so be it. If they want to donate to the poor so that the poor can afford a university degree, so be it.

Now, some may protest that we can't rely on people donating to the poor (and I agree), that the poor are going to suffer, not be able to afford health, education and a reasonable standard of living, or even in extreme cases living essentials. In other words, not enough people are willing to give up some of their money to the poor. But hang on, aren't we supposed to have representative government? Isn't Australia run on democratic ideals? So if people wouldn't be willing to give to the poor if the government wasn't forcefully taking their money, why isn't the government reflecting the views of the majority of Australians?

lol, something of an anarchist Rorix?

I disagree that the sole purpose of the government is represent the majority - it also has a responsibility to ensure that a "survival of the fittest" situation like you describe doesn't eventuate. Australian political tradition tends to be a bit more generous in that regard than say the US system, but even representative governments aren't slaves to the majority in terms of their responsibilities and "duty of care" for want of a better expression.
I also think you underestimate the generosity of Australians to people they are in direct contact with - they'd probably lobby the government to set up social services. I think the reason people aren't always as generous as might be nice is because there is an underlying assumption that the state will provide - and if for some reason the sufferer chooses not to accept, or it is not sufficient, that's another story.

 

[mervvyn]

I think its a little hard delivering constant tax cuts though. Downward ratchet anyone?

It is hard, but they are a good political carrot and it generally isn't outright tax cuts, more trying to minimise bracket creep so that relative to one another, the various earning levels pay consistent amounts.... well, you know what i mean right? People get REALLY pissed off about bracket creeping - adjustments, generally marketed as tax cuts, are the way to combat that. I think sort of in line with inflation...

 

[Rorix]

I think it's more libertarian than anarchy but anyway...

If the responsibility of the government is not to represent the majority, why does the majority decide the government? Surely the majority will vote for the candadate that best reflects their views?

If Australians are going to be generous, then by all means, implement the system! Because it's, from an economic and moral point of view (provided the poor don't suffer), superior to the current system of taxation/distributive justice. It doesn't take a government lobby group - just give your money to the bum in the street.

 

[mervvyn]

I think it's more libertarian than anarchy but anyway...

If the responsibility of the government is not to represent the majority, why does the majority decide the government? Surely the majority will vote for the candadate that best reflects their views?

If Australians are going to be generous, then by all means, implement the system! Because it's, from an economic and moral point of view (provided the poor don't suffer), superior to the current system of taxation/distributive justice. It doesn't take a government lobby group - just give your money to the bum in the street.

Sorry, bandying around the wrong political terms - reduced government participation is anarchic in a way though...

I was getting a bit mixed up there - the majority decides the government, as by that token the government is responsible primarily to them, but i imagine the majority also expects social services so that they don't have to go to the trouble of finding the nearest bum and giving him a meal.
The point about lobbying is that in the long term it's more time efficient to have a bureaucracy in charge of it, because it saves Average Joe the trouble of finding a person in trouble and helping him to the point where he doesn't need help. As well, a government system ensures that there is a base level (in theory, its always in theory) - with yours, there is a real possibility that not everyone will be supported to the same level, and doesn't allow for family/aged/veteran support etc. So while i like your flair, i have to disagree with it.

 

[impulse_17]

I often flirt with a rather extreme view, and while I'm not prepared to advocate it, it does make logical sense.


Basically, just do away with the whole government thing. Make taxes high enough for defence spending, law enforcement and so on but do away with the social welfare, health spending, education spending, basically anything that's not essential. Cut taxes so that the government just has enough money to operate.

Now, let people give their money how they choose. If they want to donate to the disabled, so be it. If they want to donate to the poor so that the poor can afford a university degree, so be it.

Now, some may protest that we can't rely on people donating to the poor (and I agree), that the poor are going to suffer, not be able to afford health, education and a reasonable standard of living, or even in extreme cases living essentials. In other words, not enough people are willing to give up some of their money to the poor. But hang on, aren't we supposed to have representative government? Isn't Australia run on democratic ideals? So if people wouldn't be willing to give to the poor if the government wasn't forcefully taking their money, why isn't the government reflecting the views of the majority of Australians?

Because "the poor" are people too, and it isn't always their fault that they are poor. You can't just disregard a whole section of society for the benefit of the rest. By denying them economic support, the wealthier members of society gain more power and are more likely to abuse this power

Just because people are poor doesn't mean that they are unable to make a valuable contribution to society, but by denying them health, education, decent living standards etc, you significantly reduce this chance>> thus, it would be detrimental to society as a whole.

And I don't know why people hold "democracy" up to be some perfect, ideal notion. When decisions are made by the majority doesn't necessarily mean that these decisions will provide the majority with what they want- people are easily swayed by propoganda.

Well that's my 2c anyway- but then I'm probably pretty naive when it comes to politics anyway so feel free to prove me wrong

 

[mervvyn]

Because "the poor" are people too, and it isn't always their fault that they are poor. You can't just disregard a whole section of society for the benefit of the rest. By denying them economic support, the wealthier members of society gain more power and are more likely to abuse this power

Just because people are poor doesn't mean that they are unable to make a valuable contribution to society, but by denying them health, education, decent living standards etc, you significantly reduce this chance>> thus, it would be detrimental to society as a whole.

And I don't know why people hold "democracy" up to be some perfect, ideal notion. When decisions are made by the majority doesn't necessarily mean that these decisions will provide the majority with what they want- people are easily swayed by propoganda.

Well that's my 2c anyway- but then I'm probably pretty naive when it comes to politics anyway so feel free to prove me wrong

I'd say that's a fair point, one of the flaws of democracy is that minorities are easily ignored for the majorities, unless they happen to be swinging voters in marginal seats. So the government, as well as having to look after a majority to get elected, has a social responsibility to look after everyone, regardless of whether they voted for them or not.

 

[Rorix]

I was getting a bit mixed up there - the majority decides the government, as by that token the government is responsible primarily to them, but i imagine the majority also expects social services so that they don't have to go to the trouble of finding the nearest bum and giving him a meal.

Well, by all means, someone can set up a firm for distributive justice and skim a bit for administrative fees. Since people are donating to the firm, they can outline where they want their money to go, what sort of distribution methods and so on.

Because "the poor" are people too, and it isn't always their fault that they are poor. You can't just disregard a whole section of society for the benefit of the rest. By denying them economic support, the wealthier members of society gain more power and are more likely to abuse this power

But if society cared about the poor, society would donate to the poor?

[quite]And I don't know why people hold "democracy" up to be some perfect, ideal notion. When decisions are made by the majority doesn't necessarily mean that these decisions will provide the majority with what they want- people are easily swayed by propoganda.[/quote]

This problem is self-correcting, if society isn't getting the outcomes it wants it'll change its ways.

I'm tending to refer to society as one body, but I actually mean each person will make their own decision.

 

[Rorix]

im sure rorix will do his best to make point how he is the ruler of the universe and how meager you are...he will probably do this by employing the classy argument tactic of name calling... he will then talk down at you like you are some kind of poor child who just doesnt understand the world...in particular if you continue to disagree with him after he has replied to your message expect even more harsh name calling...i believe this comes from his utter dissapointment that he is not the ruler of the universe and that he doesnt know all and that amazingly people think differently to him (the very thought of it is shocking isnt it!?)...

Stones and glass houses? Did I rip him to bits ?

 

[neo o]

well...my posts make sure you dont go rabid and start calling people names as part of your argument

^
|

If that isn't an invitation to be naughty, i dont know what is.

 

[Ziff]

Has anyone here heard of a thing called the 30/30 tax system? It's a libertarian sort of concept and is a much better implementation of Rorix's scheme to remove the government from a large portion of people's lives. (I don't necessarily agree with either, however, it's better than what Rorix is advocating )

Essentially it works like this, up to $30,000 you are not taxed - at all, over this amount however you are taxed at 30c in the dollar. This is the only tax you will ever pay. This is where it gets interesting, however, if you earn under $30,000 you are taxed negatively for the amount you don't earn under the threshold.

So if you earn $0 the government pays you 0.3 * $30,000 = $9,000

If you earn $15,000 then you are paid 0.3 * 15,000 = $4500 meaning you earn $19,500 in total.

If you earn $50,000 then you are $20,000 over the threshold and pay $6,000 in tax.

You can of course distribute this in a different way using different % and threshholds.

Here is another version of it:
http://www.cis.org.au/policy/aut2001/polaut01-4.htm

It would make sure that the poor are provided for in some way whilst those who earn the money aren't overtaxed.

 

[Rorix]

well...my posts make sure you dont go rabid and start calling people names as part of your argument

Asqy, calling people idiots is an important part of arguing on the internet. You need to get people emotionally involved. Otherwise they just post stupid shit, like that Tommy_Lamp guy in the American Presidential Debate thread, I think it was.

See, when I discuss, I don't call people morons/idiots/retarded/racist/prejudiced/loony etc. But when I argue, I do.

 

[neo o]

He just says it like it is

 

[Rorix]

tax stuff

I believe this to be Milton Friedman's negative income tax.

Such proposals are welfare-based, they are only concerned with liberty, resources, equality etc. insofar as that they increase welfare - merely derivative concerns. (commonly utilitarian)

Libertarians are concerned with, well to paraphrase Nozick:
1. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principles of justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.
2. A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the principles of justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to that holding, is entitled to that holding.
3. No one is entitled to a holding except by applications of (1) and (2).

And then distributive justice is done if everyone's entitled to their holdings.

The argument is that if the liberty of citizens is our prime concern, we can't pattern justice. By pattern he means a distribution system with a motto like "from each according to X, to each according to Y".

[/feeling the effect of writing a long assignment on distributive justice]