 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Wokko wrote: | Deja Vu all over again.
David, how do you keep the wealth, wealthy and talented in your country and stop it fleeing overseas (International Communist revolution aside). |
Again, when do they start fleeing? You seem to know they will flee and when. So please explain what you know about this. Or is it just another vague doctrine of yours you were told was true, and know in your gut to be true, but can't explain?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
 |
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Haven't I? That's ok, I don't mind repeating myself if necessary: I believe in wealth redistribution through the taxation system, just like what we have now, except I'd raise the rate for the top end of town and raise government spending on welfare accordingly.
If that's not coherent enough, try this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVB3YGIUk0 |
Good start. Wasn't that hard now was it?
So, you'd leave the tax system just as it is now, other than raising the rate for the "top end of town". Thats it is it? Thats all you'd do?
So, you wouldn't try closing any of the rortable loopholes that allow, not only "the top end of town", but pretty much anyone else with a half competent tax accountant to pay bugger all tax?
Nope, just raise the rate for the "top end of town" - that'll fix everything.
Once you've taxed the daylights out of the "top end of town" (leaving the loophole rorters to carry on rorting), what welfare programs would you raise spending on, or, which new ones would you implement?
Who exactly are the "top end of town"?
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | David, how do you keep the wealth, wealthy and talented in your country and stop it fleeing overseas |
You let the bastards go. The ones fleeing overseas are almost never (not never just almost never) the ones who are doing anything productive for the country anyway. They can flick off to some place which welcomes their sort. Greece maybe. Good riddance to 'em. Meanwhile, you and I have real work to do. Let's get on with it.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doc63 wrote: | | David wrote: | Haven't I? That's ok, I don't mind repeating myself if necessary: I believe in wealth redistribution through the taxation system, just like what we have now, except I'd raise the rate for the top end of town and raise government spending on welfare accordingly.
If that's not coherent enough, try this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVB3YGIUk0 |
Good start. Wasn't that hard now was it?
So, you'd leave the tax system just as it is now, other than raising the rate for the "top end of town". Thats it is it? Thats all you'd do?
So, you wouldn't try closing any of the rortable loopholes that allow, not only "the top end of town", but pretty much anyone else with a half competent tax accountant to pay bugger all tax?
Nope, just raise the rate for the "top end of town" - that'll fix everything.
Once you've taxed the daylights out of the "top end of town" (leaving the loophole rorters to carry on rorting), what welfare programs would you raise spending on, or, which new ones would you implement?
Who exactly are the "top end of town"? |
All fair questions. Over to David.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | ^Well, why didn't you connect the dots yourself? Why did I have to explain the obvious to you? |
My attempt at irony clearly didn't work well. I'm suggesting that scrapping some programmes which the government thinks are not value-for-money, does not amount to a claim that "education makes us poorer". It's like saying that someone who cuts defence spending "claims that we'd be better off occupied by a foreign power". It's specious reasoning, and smacks of, er, ... the "fundamentalism" which you are so quick to find in others who disagree with you.
EDIT : and that's not a defence of the education cuts, which may or may not be bad policy - not being close to the programmes being axed, I'm not really qualified to judge. It is a defence of not being labelled a "fundamentalist" who "lacks abstract reasoning skills" by someone windmilling with their arms.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | ^Well, why didn't you connect the dots yourself? Why did I have to explain the obvious to you? |
My attempt at irony clearly didn't work well. I'm suggesting that scrapping some programmes which the government thinks are not value-for-money, does not amount to a claim that "education makes us poorer". It's like saying that someone who cuts defence spending "claims that we'd be better off occupied by a foreign power". It's specious reasoning, and smacks of, er, ... the "fundamentalism" which you are so quick to find in others who disagree with you. |
Well, I'm afraid I wasn't referring to "scrapping specific programs" at all. I was referring to the Glibs making higher education more expensive, and therefore less attainable, as a general ideological stance lacking in specific rationale, which was the context of the point, i.e., economics as ideology. The general ideological stance is theirs, not mine, so your apologetics on their behalf makes no sense.
Okay, I see your edit now. Perhaps you ought to have thought more before jumping the gun in your original post, then, because Australia, and this very forum including David to whom my comment was addressing, had that debate on education not too long ago, and the claims were not specific at all. In fact, the hilarious thing was the sudden denial of price signal effects on the basis of a quality value signaling effect, i.e., people will value their education more if they pay more for it 
Who can forget laughs like that?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Last edited by pietillidie on Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doc63 wrote: | | David wrote: | Haven't I? That's ok, I don't mind repeating myself if necessary: I believe in wealth redistribution through the taxation system, just like what we have now, except I'd raise the rate for the top end of town and raise government spending on welfare accordingly.
If that's not coherent enough, try this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVB3YGIUk0 |
Good start. Wasn't that hard now was it?
So, you'd leave the tax system just as it is now, other than raising the rate for the "top end of town". Thats it is it? Thats all you'd do?
So, you wouldn't try closing any of the rortable loopholes that allow, not only "the top end of town", but pretty much anyone else with a half competent tax accountant to pay bugger all tax?
Nope, just raise the rate for the "top end of town" - that'll fix everything.
Once you've taxed the daylights out of the "top end of town" (leaving the loophole rorters to carry on rorting), what welfare programs would you raise spending on, or, which new ones would you implement?
Who exactly are the "top end of town"? |
I'm all for closing tax loopholes, particularly those exploited by multinationals. I would have thought everyone would agree with that.
But yes, even once that is done (or, really, regardless), I would support raising taxes on individuals and companies in the top percentiles. I don't have specific figures, but I think France's upper tax rate of 75% is a pretty good idea in principle.
Basically, the concept is to maximise the amount of government revenue without significantly reducing incentive to work and make profits.
As for welfare, I'm a supporter of the idea of a minimum living wage, as I think has been talked about in Switzerland. Otherwise, there are obviously plenty of needy people in this country, from the homeless to the disabled to ex-prisoners, and that's besides the basic health/education/arts etc funding that's always needed.
As far as I can tell, high tax societies tend to be high quality societies. I haven't seen many exceptions to this rule.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^Cue regional tax havens to be thrown at you as models for all time
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Doc63 wrote: | | David wrote: | Haven't I? That's ok, I don't mind repeating myself if necessary: I believe in wealth redistribution through the taxation system, just like what we have now, except I'd raise the rate for the top end of town and raise government spending on welfare accordingly.
If that's not coherent enough, try this link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suVB3YGIUk0 |
Good start. Wasn't that hard now was it?
So, you'd leave the tax system just as it is now, other than raising the rate for the "top end of town". Thats it is it? Thats all you'd do?
So, you wouldn't try closing any of the rortable loopholes that allow, not only "the top end of town", but pretty much anyone else with a half competent tax accountant to pay bugger all tax?
Nope, just raise the rate for the "top end of town" - that'll fix everything.
Once you've taxed the daylights out of the "top end of town" (leaving the loophole rorters to carry on rorting), what welfare programs would you raise spending on, or, which new ones would you implement?
Who exactly are the "top end of town"? |
I'm all for closing tax loopholes, particularly those exploited by multinationals. I would have thought everyone would agree with that.
But yes, even once that is done (or, really, regardless), I would support raising taxes on individuals and companies in the top percentiles. I don't have specific figures, but I think France's upper tax rate of 75% is a pretty good idea in principle.
Basically, the concept is to maximise the amount of government revenue without significantly reducing incentive to work and make profits.
As for welfare, I'm a supporter of the idea of a minimum living wage, as I think has been talked about in Switzerland. Otherwise, there are obviously plenty of needy people in this country, from the homeless to the disabled to ex-prisoners, and that's besides the basic health/education/arts etc funding that's always needed.
As far as I can tell, high tax societies tend to be high quality societies. I haven't seen many exceptions to this rule. |
While I agree with quite a bit of what you say there (  ), I would think that raising the tax rate to 75% a little extreme, especially for individuals. Some of those individuals, would be in the medical field, surgeons, research, scientists etc. Some in the medical field are paying massive insurance premiums, if you also slugged them 75% tax, off they'd go overseas.
I certainly agree with providing more benefits & services for the disabled, and also, the elderly.
Not sure what the answer is for the homeless. Every morning, as I walk through the city, I see at least 6-8 people sleeping in doorways. What do you provide them with? And how?
Not sure I agree with your comment that high tax societies tend to be high quality societies - its a bit of a generalisation. Its what you do with it that counts.
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | high tax societies tend to be high quality societies. I haven't seen many exceptions to this rule. |
Looking at the data, I'd say there is little correlation either way. Some, like France and Italy, are high-tax and probably heading towards crisis, others are high-tax and doing fine - Denmark is superb, and so is Norway though the latter is a kind of European Saudi Arabia with a sovereign welfare fund.
Some, like Australia, are low-tax and actually provide a pretty nice standard of living as well. Some are low-tax (eg Greece) and falling apart.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Doc63
Joined: 06 May 2004
Location: Newport
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: | | high tax societies tend to be high quality societies. I haven't seen many exceptions to this rule. |
Looking at the data, I'd say there is little correlation either way. Some, like France and Italy, are high-tax and probably heading towards crisis, others are high-tax and doing fine - Denmark is superb, and so is Norway though the latter is a kind of European Saudi Arabia with a sovereign welfare fund.
Some, like Australia, are low-tax and actually provide a pretty nice standard of living as well. Some are low-tax (eg Greece) and falling apart. |
I use to think that, and I suppose, for the majority, it is. But as i said in my previous post, every morning, as I walk through the city, I see at least 6-8 people sleeping in doorways. It's not that long ago I didn't see any.
_________________
I hold a cup of wisdom, but there is nothing within. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doc63 wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: | | high tax societies tend to be high quality societies. I haven't seen many exceptions to this rule. |
Looking at the data, I'd say there is little correlation either way. Some, like France and Italy, are high-tax and probably heading towards crisis, others are high-tax and doing fine - Denmark is superb, and so is Norway though the latter is a kind of European Saudi Arabia with a sovereign welfare fund.
Some, like Australia, are low-tax and actually provide a pretty nice standard of living as well. Some are low-tax (eg Greece) and falling apart. |
I use to think that, and I suppose, for the majority, it is. But as i said in my previous post, every morning, as I walk through the city, I see at least 6-8 people sleeping in doorways. It's not that long ago I didn't see any. |
Not too many large cities of the world where you won't see that. Australians pay enough it tax to manage that problem with shelters, counselling and policing etc if we wanted to. It's about priorities. And it is something that shoudl never be "just accepted". Once it becomes normal, it's really hard to eradicate.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | I think France's upper tax rate of 75% is a pretty good idea in principle.
Basically, the concept is to maximise the amount of government revenue without significantly reducing incentive to work and make profits.
|
Firstly, France's 75% tax rate was a boon to the British exchequeur as wealthy French moved to London (top rate 47%). The attached - from the Guardian, no less - describes its failure.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax
Note that the amount it claims to have raised (EUR 160M) is gross, not net - so it takes no account of those who moved to London, or Geneva, or Belgium, denying France their total tax base in the process.
It's a policy that might work in a world with closed borders, but it wil not work unless it is done simulaneously across most of the developed countries.
Secondly, the government should not be a profit maximising enterprise. I'm not a libertarian but neither do I believe that the government has an entitlement to the maximum amount of wealth it can extract from the people.
Thirdly, welfare is created in many ways. Integral to the idea of capitalism is that profits are attracted when a business satisfies consumer's wants (and increases the consumer's welfare) at a competitive price. I know there are caveats to that, but it is broadly the principle that made capitalist societies rich, and communist socieities stagnant and poor. High taxes discourage investment and risk-taking. The idea that welfare is maximised when government expenditure is maximised is too simplistic.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Doc63 wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: | | high tax societies tend to be high quality societies. I haven't seen many exceptions to this rule. |
Looking at the data, I'd say there is little correlation either way. Some, like France and Italy, are high-tax and probably heading towards crisis, others are high-tax and doing fine - Denmark is superb, and so is Norway though the latter is a kind of European Saudi Arabia with a sovereign welfare fund.
Some, like Australia, are low-tax and actually provide a pretty nice standard of living as well. Some are low-tax (eg Greece) and falling apart. |
I use to think that, and I suppose, for the majority, it is. But as i said in my previous post, every morning, as I walk through the city, I see at least 6-8 people sleeping in doorways. It's not that long ago I didn't see any. |
The cuts by both Governments (Libs far worse than the ALP) to public housing is simply appalling. When you combine that with structural shifts in the economy & the casualization of the workforce / low pay with Australia's high cost of living it is no wonder that you are seeing what you are seeing. This has been going on for years & has not been remedied.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Gees 75%!
No wonder they go overseas. I don't care how much they are earning, taking 3 $$%^%%$ quarters of someone's hard earned (or even easy earned) is $$%^%%$ bullshit! Where is the insentive to achieve?
I'd be hiding it under the bed too!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
