Talking Politics

[tigersnake]

The problem is that the revenue is not spent wisely, because government bureaucracies lack a mechanism with which to make correct entrepreneurial allocations of resources. You’ve listed a bunch of infrastructure investments without any regard to whether or not such investments are actually what consumers want. You have simply made an arbitrary judgement based on your own intuition. You are also disregarding what would have happened, had the money been left in the hands of productive individuals. By depriving the butcher of his money, he can’t then go and buy shoes, or invest in a new meat slicer, or donate it to charity, etc. Perhaps he sees value in infrastructure development, well then he might buy shares in a construction company or a technology company. He certainly wouldn’t give it to an organisation whose goal isn’t to satisfy customer demand, but is instead to appease political pressure groups.

At best the government can confiscate resources, and then put them into uses that would have been made by productive individuals anyway (obviously this is impossible given the resources required to pay for the bureaucracies in the first place, and it would be pure blind luck given they do not use profit/loss). Your last sentence is interesting as you seem to think that increased living standards for all means taking money from those people that are the best at satisfying consumer demand and giving it to people that are bad at satisfying consumer demand. In other words, reward those that do a bad job at improving living standards. This has a twofold effect – it makes those that are bad at satisfying consumer demand, even worse at satisfying consumer demand (why work harder when you get things for free?), and it reduces the capacity of those that are good at satisfying consumer demand.

No no and no. None of that is news to me G, I know what your ideology is, I understand it perfectly, but it doesn't work.

And my goals for national infrastructure aren't based on intuition, I read, I analyse stuff. Reports get written, assessments are made of what is needed, eg Gonski, an NBN. Take a few bucks per week out of people's pockets and build better stuff for everyone. We have done it in the past, and other countries are doing it now.

 

[Giardiasis]

No no and no. None of that is news to me G, I know what your ideology is, I understand it perfectly, but it doesn't work.

And my goals for national infrastructure aren't based on intuition, I read, I analyse stuff. Reports get written, assessments are made of what is needed, eg Gonski, an NBN. Take a few bucks per week out of people's pockets and build better stuff for everyone. We have done it in the past, and other countries are doing it now.

Clearly you don’t understand it, and neither can you demonstrate that it doesn’t work. In contrast I have demonstrated why yours doesn’t. Only science provides answers to the problems we are trying to solve, your approach is the antithesis of science.

Reading stuff and analysing stuff, especially reports from government agents, is not a substitute for profit and loss using market prices generated by the free exchange of private property. It is groping in the dark with a blind fold on after being twirled around several times. Socialists failed to explain how socialism can overcome Mises’ economic calculation argument back in the 1930’s, and that hasn’t changed to this day.

“Take a few bucks per week out of people's pockets and build better stuff for everyone” – if doing so actually built better stuff for everyone, then you wouldn’t need to steal a few bucks per week from anyone’s pockets in the first place. Who are you to decide what better stuff is for everyone? Even if government redistribution could achieve this (which it can’t), can’t you at least see how the whole political process subverts this to “build stuff that in the short term benefits those with political clout”? You lament Howard’s MCW, yet in principle you should have no qualms about it. More politically strong people than you thought what “better stuff for everyone” meant TVs instead of antiquated internet technology.

“We have done it in the past, and other countries are doing it now.” Spoken like a true conservative, Andrew Bolt would be proud.

 

[Sintiger]

That's fine but then don't go measuring the goodness of a budget policy based on how it affects the government's coffers because that is beside the point. What matters in politics is what is good for the individuals in society. Tax cuts aren't a "waste of money", they should be supported by all who want to increase living standards for all (irrespective of the immorality of taxation).

Politicians the world over have justified tax cuts on the basis that it is a net benefit to the budget position I.e the loss in revenue is offset by other revenue that is generated by the actions that individuals and businesses take because they have got this tax cut. This is a political thread and that is the way that this government justified their tax cut. So it is not beside the point at all, it is right on point. The point of the thread .

do you actually think that how the tax cut affects the governments coffers is beside the point to the Government ? Of course it isn't.

 

[Giardiasis]

Politicians the world over have justified tax cuts on the basis that it is a net benefit to the budget position I.e the loss in revenue is offset by other revenue that is generated by the actions that individuals and businesses take because they have got this tax cut. This is a political thread and that is the way that this government justified their tax cut. So it is not beside the point at all, it is right on point. The point of the thread .

do you actually think that how the tax cut affects the governments coffers is beside the point to the Government ? Of course it isn't.

It is beside the point to the people that the government is supposed to serve. The government doesn't exist to serve its own ends, it exists because people consent to it. That's what representative democracy is, is it not? Unless you wish to partake in plunder for your own aggrandisement, how on earth can you consider tax cuts as a waste of money?

 

[Sintiger]

It is beside the point to the people that the government is supposed to serve. The government doesn't exist to serve its own ends, it exists because people consent to it. That's what representative democracy is, is it not? Unless you wish to partake in plunder for your own aggrandisement, how on earth can you consider taxation as a waste of money?

I didn't say taxation was a waste of money

 

[MB78]

The company tax breaks should come in the form of getting rid of payroll tax for companies who employ more people year on year. The idea surely has to be to create innovation, growth and most importantly employment for our economy.

The companies that are slashing staff, expecting workers to do unpaid overtime without employing extra staff will get no tax cut which is what you want.

The money that the state Government miss out on from the cut in payroll tax comes back to it with a payment from the Federal Government.

Best way to build esteem in us all is to have a job. And for the overworked and stressed it might create extra reasons for the company you work for to employ more staff.

 

[Giardiasis]

I didn't say taxation was a waste of money

Sorry meant to say "tax cuts" not taxation.

 

[Sintiger]

Sorry meant to say "tax cuts" not taxation.

I didn't say that either. I said that the 1.5% company tax cut in the budget was a waste of money.

I have explained why, which is that it won't change any behaviour. It's simply too small to do that.

In my humble opinion of course

 

[Giardiasis]

I didn't say that either. I said that the 1.5% company tax cut in the budget was a waste of money.

I have explained why, which is that it won't change any behaviour. It's simply too small to do that.

In my humble opinion of course

You're being semantic. Suggesting any tax cut is a waste of money makes zero sense to anyone other than those that seek to plunder others. Are you a politician?

 

[Sintiger]

You're being semantic. Suggesting any tax cut is a waste of money makes zero sense to anyone other than those that seek to plunder others. Are you a politician?

Nonsense

Are you an academic ?

 

[Giardiasis]

Nonsense

Are you an academic ?

Dear me, I have held you in higher regard than I should have.

 

[Sintiger]

Dear me, I have held you in higher regard than I should have.

Clearly you don't because you suggested I was a politician.

The frustration I have is that you know the point, at least i think you do, but you stray away from it into a philosophical arena which has little to do with the subject.

My point was very simple and still is. If a government is going to cut tax, in an election campaign when the level of the budget deficit is top of mind, imo a 1.5 % company tax rate will not change behaviour hardly at all and will not create jobs as the Government suggests. I come to that conclusion because I have been a small business owner and I know how I would react and I have worked with Multi national companies in and outside australia and I know how they most probably would react.

That is a totally different discussion about whether taxation is theft and if any tax cut is a good thing or not etc etc.

 

[Giardiasis]

Clearly you don't because you suggested I was a politician.

The frustration I have is that you know the point, at least i think you do, but you stray away from it into a philosophical arena which has little to do with the subject.

My point was very simple and still is. If a government is going to cut tax, in an election campaign when the level of the budget deficit is top of mind, imo a 1.5 % company tax rate will not change behaviour hardly at all and will not create jobs as the Government suggests. I come to that conclusion because I have been a small business owner and I know how I would react and I have worked with Multi national companies in and outside australia and I know how they most probably would react.

That is a totally different discussion about whether taxation is theft and if any tax cut is a good thing or not etc etc.

No it is the same discussion, because whether or not any tax cut will have a significant effect or an insignificant effect on tax revenue, it is still better to have lower tax rates than higher tax rates. That is what I've tried to explain. I agree that a 1.5% drop in the company tax rate will have a negligible effect. But if it did have a significant effect, it wouldn't be worth doing because it brought in higher tax revenue, which is the line of argument you seem to be taking.

If you are concerned about the budget deficit, looking to increase revenue is the wrong place to look, we need to look at cutting spending.

 

[Sintiger]

No it is the same discussion, because whether or not any tax cut will have a significant effect or an insignificant effect on tax revenue, it is still better to have lower tax rates than higher tax rates. That is what I've tried to explain. I agree that a 1.5% drop in the company tax rate will have a negligible effect. But if it did have a significant effect, it wouldn't be worth doing because it brought in higher tax revenue, which is the line of argument you seem to be taking.

If you are concerned about the budget deficit, looking to increase revenue is the wrong place to look, we need to look at cutting spending.

I never said it would increase tax revenue, that's you putting words in my mouth. I am talking about the trickle down effect which is the argument politicians make the world over which is eventually tax cuts pay for themselves. The treasurer takes that line, company tax cut of 1.5% leads to offsetting tax revenue because it creates growth and jobs on which people and organisations pay taxes

You take the line that most spending and almost all taxation is wrong. I don't, but that doesn't mean that I think all spending is targeted and good. We have lazy spending cuts now where in the life of this government 25% of all cuts have been to those who are most vulnerable i.e. overseas aid. I know your argument on this so no point in repeating it because I disagree with it and we have already debated it.

I don't want to increase taxes, I want the taxes we have to be paid by the people and organisations who should pay them. I want to cut spending but I want to cut spending in some places not others. I don't see my taxes as theft because I have entered a contract with the Government where I willingly pay taxes for services in return. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they spend it on, far from it, but it means I accept it is the system I am a willing participant in it.

 

[Giardiasis]

I never said it would increase tax revenue, that's you putting words in my mouth. I am talking about the trickle down effect which is the argument politicians make the world over which is eventually tax cuts pay for themselves. The treasurer takes that line, company tax cut of 1.5% leads to offsetting tax revenue because it creates growth and jobs on which people and organisations pay taxes

You take the line that most spending and almost all taxation is wrong. I don't, but that doesn't mean that I think all spending is targeted and good. We have lazy spending cuts now where in the life of this government 25% of all cuts have been to those who are most vulnerable i.e. overseas aid. I know your argument on this so no point in repeating it because I disagree with it and we have already debated it.

You said that it would be a waste of money because it wouldn’t have the desired effect (i.e. tax revenue neutral at the very least), meaning that it would be better to keep the tax rate higher, because you think that it will lead to higher tax revenue than otherwise would have occurred with a tax cut. If you thought it would have no effect, or a negligible effect, then why would you care either way?

I agree there is no point debating the merits of government spending. Incidentally foreign aid would be at the top of my list of where spending cuts should start.

I don't want to increase taxes, I want the taxes we have to be paid by the people and organisations who should pay them. I want to cut spending but I want to cut spending in some places not others. I don't see my taxes as theft because I have entered a contract with the Government where I willingly pay taxes for services in return. That doesn't mean I agree with everything they spend it on, far from it, but it means I accept it is the system I am a willing participant in it.

In order words, you want to decide where other people’s money should be spent even at the threat of incarceration, or if they resist, by killing them. You speak about a contract with the government; really, do you have a signed copy of it somewhere? Basically your non-existing contract is between two parties to rob a third party, did you make sure they signed up too? Not only does it not exist, but if it did then it should be immediately void. A contract between two private persons to rob another is void, yet the government seems to be able to make an agreement with you to rob someone else, if they don't like it, then the law says they can murder them if they resist.

I don’t think that you are someone that condones murder, but take your line of argument to its logical conclusion and see the system for what it really is!

 

[AngryAnt]

Probably need a political philosophy thread to cover this sort of stuff. I haven't heard many references to this from either of the major political parties and doesn't seem to be a key election issue right now.

 

[Sintiger]

Probably need a political philosophy thread to cover this sort of stuff. I haven't heard many references to this from either of the major political parties and doesn't seem to be a key election issue right now.

which is exactly my point but that seems to be passing Gia by

 

[Sintiger]

You said that it would be a waste of money because it wouldn’t have the desired effect (i.e. tax revenue neutral at the very least), meaning that it would be better to keep the tax rate higher, because you think that it will lead to higher tax revenue than otherwise would have occurred with a tax cut. If you thought it would have no effect, or a negligible effect, then why would you care either way?

I agree there is no point debating the merits of government spending. Incidentally foreign aid would be at the top of my list of where spending cuts should start.
In order words, you want to decide where other people’s money should be spent even at the threat of incarceration, or if they resist, by killing them. You speak about a contract with the government; really, do you have a signed copy of it somewhere? Basically your non-existing contract is between two parties to rob a third party, did you make sure they signed up too? Not only does it not exist, but if it did then it should be immediately void. A contract between two private persons to rob another is void, yet the government seems to be able to make an agreement with you to rob someone else, if they don't like it, then the law says they can murder them if they resist.

I don’t think that you are someone that condones murder, but take your line of argument to its logical conclusion and see the system for what it really is!

I can only speak for myself, I can't speak for anyone else in regard to where they want their money spent. That is for you and everyone else to decide.
As you would know contracts don't need to be signed to be binding, basic contract law 101.
My only suggestion to you is if you don't like it then you make your own choice about what you want to do but at the very least please do not call those of us who accept the social contract as persons who condone theft and whatever else you are suggesting.
There are people dying today because australia has cut it's aid budget. There are children not going to school, food packages not being delivered, basic housing and water not being provided. So many programs to provide basic needs to human beings have been cut. I know that for a fact because I know many people who have been involved in programs that have been cut because of it. In South Sudan, in the refugee camps in northern Iraq and in Turkey for example.
You also seem determined to put words into my mouth. I didn't say the tax cut would have no effect just not the one the Government suggests it would. What do you think a multi national would do with a 1.5% tax cut ? They will pay less tax, make more profit after tax and pay more dividends home. They would pay a tiny witholding tax on the dividend and say thankyou very much. If you think that is good for Australia then fair enough. I don't.

 

[Giardiasis]

which is exactly my point but that seems to be passing Gia by

I'm not on my Pat Malone here.

 

[Brodders17]

There are people dying today because australia has cut it's aid budget. There are children not going to school, food packages not being delivered, basic housing and water not being provided. So many programs to provide basic needs to human beings have been cut. I know that for a fact because I know many people who have been involved in programs that have been cut because of it. In South Sudan, in the refugee camps in northern Iraq and in Turkey for example.

but if we didnt have taxes the market, and philanthropy, would funds these things.