Dear Mr English, I don't want a tax cut

[mashman]

et al

there's just no telling some people

[Ixion]

The ownership of the means of production... the peoples tractor factory with the profits used to run the peoples school and the peoples hospital ! As Ixion points out, its perfection, with no need for taxation, a job for everyone, and the cleaner able to earn as much as the tractor designer.

No, that's something else. Syndicalism , maybe?. There is no inate reason in a communist model why people should not be rewarded at different rates. After all , Comrade Stalin had a dacha in the Crimea, Comrade Stakhanov didn't. Important thing is that the PROFITS are distributed on some (reasonably) fair model.

As long as no one cleverer than the tractor designer makes a new better tractor you have utopia, and as you can simply ban the better tractor designer from making a better tractor it will never be a problem. As long as you like the old tractor.

.. The peoples tractor factory - There is nothing to stop the people, if they so desire purchasing shares in the tractor factory. And there is nothing to stop the government doing it either if it wishes to find money for schools or hospitals.

nO, It doesnt need to be done with a gun.

Yes, indeed. And it has been done a good many times. It's called co-operatives (big in the UK); Fonterra (big in some country somewhere - think about it - who owns Fonterra ? ); joint ventures. Just needs extension. Which is why capitalists hate co-ops, and are trying to hi-jack the Fonterra model

[mashman]

Yes, indeed. And it has been done a good many times. It's called co-operatives (big in the UK); Fonterra (big in some country somewhere - think about it - who owns Fonterra ? ); joint ventures. Just needs extension. Which is why capitalists hate co-ops, and are trying to hi-jack the Fonterra model

Ha ha ha... so capitalists haven't realised that they are a cooperative yet???? as they both already screw the consumer (milk going up again i believe, so the farmers can get a bumper payout) for obscene profit... not sure why i'm so surprised... unless of course you meant something else

As long as no one cleverer than the tractor designer makes a new better tractor you have utopia, and as you can simply ban the better tractor designer from making a better tractor it will never be a problem. As long as you like the old tractor.

Why would a newer tractor upset utopia? Surely the idea behind utopia would be to keep trying to do things better, in order to make resource use more efficient?

[MikeL]

Bringing the discussion back to tax rates...

If you believe that all taxation is theft you're unlikely to have much to contribute to a debate about a fairer taxation system overall.

As far as GST is concerned, here's something to think about:

Which countries in the OECD, apart from NZ, don't have a lower rate for some or all food?
I have been able to find only one [Denmark].
From this you can draw one of two conclusions depending on your mindset. Either
(a) NZ is out of step with the rest of the world, or
(b) the rest of the world has yet to catch-up with these two leading lights of the global economy.

A further question:
Since one of the arguments in support of a single-rated GST was that it was a relatively low rate, and it is now 50% higher than when it was introduced, is it not reasonable at least to re-examine that policy decision?

[Jonno.]

Bringing the discussion back to tax rates...

If you believe that all taxation is theft you're unlikely to have much to contribute to a debate about a fairer taxation system overall.

As far as GST is concerned, here's something to think about:

Which countries in the OECD, apart from NZ, don't have a lower rate for some or all food?
I have been able to find only one [Denmark].
From this you can draw one of two conclusions depending on your mindset. Either
(a) NZ is out of step with the rest of the world, or
(b) the rest of the world has yet to catch-up with these two leading lights of the global economy.

A further question:
Since one of the arguments in support of a single-rated GST was that it was a relatively low rate, and it is now 50% higher than when it was introduced, is it not reasonable at least to re-examine that policy decision?

It's funny you still haven't replied to any of my posts. You're really proving arguement. I've posted 4 posts in 3 days so you can't say you've missed them.

You seem to think removing GST on food is a silver bullet to end poverty, help middle class families and stick it to the rich man but what you fail to realise is that supermarkets have little or no incentive to reduce the price of food and even if they did initially they did initially it would be short lived.
You think food prices would drop 15%? Anything even close to that?
What would keeping the price of food 15% below what the food would be without the gst drop?

Read my post.

Until you can understand that
1) removing the GST on food would cost shitloads and have to come from somewhere.
2) We're borrowing shit loads of money.
3) Businesses employ people.
4) Removing GST would would be negative as the supermarkets would absorb it into their profit and the govt would be out of pocket.
5) The labour party didn't introduce it either.

It's funny, everytime I come into this thread I see MikeL viewing but he hasn't responded.

[davereid]

No, that's something else. Syndicalism , maybe?. There is no inate reason in a communist model why people should not be rewarded at different rates. After all , Comrade Stalin had a dacha in the Crimea, Comrade Stakhanov didn't. Important thing is that the PROFITS are distributed on some (reasonably) fair model.l

That would be sort of like buying shares. The more shares you own, the more risk you have. But the more profit you might make !

Yes, indeed. And it has been done a good many times. It's called co-operatives (big in the UK); Fonterra (big in some country somewhere - think about it - who owns Fonterra ? ); joint ventures. Just needs extension. Which is why capitalists hate co-ops, and are trying to hi-jack the Fonterra model

Capitalists have no problem with co-operatives. Indeed they are usually shareholders in them !
Those who don't like co-operatives may be capitalists but they don't represent capitalism, they represent the interests of their shareholders. Co-operatives are the very signature of capitalism !

[davereid]

Ha ha ha... so capitalists haven't realised that they are a cooperative yet???? as they both already screw the consumer (milk going up again i believe, so the farmers can get a bumper payout) for obscene profit... not sure why i'm so surprised... unless of course you meant something else

This capitalist absolutely loves co-operatives. I celebrate them ! they actually are purely capitalist, they just reflect the extra ability of some individuals to organise and co-operate.

Why would a newer tractor upset utopia? Surely the idea behind utopia would be to keep trying to do things better, in order to make resource use more efficient?

The problem lies with human beings. We are inherently capitalist, even if we hate to admit it.

For utopia, it has a tractor. It does its job. But in Utopia, as you have the tractor already, the engineer will be designing improvements based on his experience of the defects in the existing tractor. When he makes one with the improvements you will be able to (apply) to buy it.

But the Entrepreneur will have decided he doesn't need to wait for a defect to show up.
Even though your existing fuel injection works faultlessly and has done so for 20 years,
Even though there is no shortage of fuel,
Even though he is not the official tractor engineer,

he is willing to take his own money and design and build electronic fuel injection.

The trouble for the state factory is simple. If the idea works they are broke !

Better to ensure that the idea dies quietly, and the perfectly good tractor we already have, makes a profit, to pay for the hospital.

[MikeL]

It's funny you still haven't replied to any of my posts. You're really proving arguement. I've posted 4 posts in 3 days so you can't say you've missed them.

Shows how carefully you read other peoples' posts. Look at no. 393, 11:18 today. Now you answer my latest two questions.

[mashman]

The problem lies with human beings. We are inherently capitalist, even if we hate to admit it.

For utopia, it has a tractor. It does its job. But in Utopia, as you have the tractor already, the engineer will be designing improvements based on his experience of the defects in the existing tractor. When he makes one with the improvements you will be able to (apply) to buy it.

But the Entrepreneur will have decided he doesn't need to wait for a defect to show up.
Even though your existing fuel injection works faultlessly and has done so for 20 years,
Even though there is no shortage of fuel,
Even though he is not the official tractor engineer,

he is willing to take his own money and design and build electronic fuel injection.

The trouble for the state factory is simple. If the idea works they are broke !

Better to ensure that the idea dies quietly, and the perfectly good tractor we already have, makes a profit, to pay for the hospital.

It is true, human beings are the problem... and believe that we aren't inherently capitalistic... we're taught it... hence we become it... it would be quite easy to bring up an entirely different generation to "mould" the successful generations of human beings... smarter, less greedy, more efficient, more open to reason...

"Utopia" will have thousands of tractor engineers... all designing tractors based on the last best known model... the last best known engine configuration... the last best know aerodynamic body... wheels etc... not on the defects... if it works it's not defective, as you point out... that's the way I see it... everyone who uses a tractor will then be issued a new one... the old one being recycled...

The Entrepreneur will not necessarily exist... but that does not mean that joe public/hobbyist is unable to contribute/join the engineers... the more minds the better...

lol, i'm not going down the burying ideas road with you... they'll likely keep the plans and upgrade slowly...

why have 10 different makes of tractor if they do the same job... why not pool resource/experience and make the 1 or 2 best tractors based on current technology that are fit for the job? Please don't say competition lol... there will still be competition... but everyone will start with all of the data and hence competition will start with an even playing field and compete for the best tractor "award"...

[davereid]

Bringing the discussion back to tax rates...If you believe that all taxation is theft you're unlikely to have much to contribute to a debate about a fairer taxation system overall.

Of course. Democracy with forced taxation on individuals requires no contribution.

Its a bit like voting for which gang you want to be raped by. Actually, you would prefer not to be raped, but your options don't include "leave me alone".

Instead we end up being told "I'm best, I love you and I wear a condom and everyone else voted for me"

[Ixion]

This capitalist absolutely loves co-operatives. I celebrate them ! they actually are purely capitalist, they just reflect the extra ability of some individuals to organise and co-operate.




The problem lies with human beings. We are inherently capitalist, even if we hate to admit it.

For utopia, it has a tractor. It does its job. But in Utopia, as you have the tractor already, the engineer will be designing improvements based on his experience of the defects in the existing tractor. When he makes one with the improvements you will be able to (apply) to buy it.

But the Entrepreneur will have decided he doesn't need to wait for a defect to show up.
Even though your existing fuel injection works faultlessly and has done so for 20 years,
Even though there is no shortage of fuel,
Even though he is not the official tractor engineer,

he is willing to take his own money and design and build electronic fuel injection.

The trouble for the state factory is simple. If the idea works they are broke !

Better to ensure that the idea dies quietly, and the perfectly good tractor we already have, makes a profit, to pay for the hospital.

Back in the 19th century , your argument was valid. Today, I don't think so. How many of the developments in tractors (or bikes, or cars) , come from some Bert Munro type tinkering in his garage, as opposed to coming out of a big corporate. Maybe 1%, if that. The old dream lingers longer and harder in NZ than most places (que, Brittan) but , realistically, it's dead.

What you are describing is in fact industrial mercantilism, not capitalism. Your tractor inventor doesn't sit back and make his money by investing his capital. He makes his fortune by investing his sweat effort and ideas. Quite a different thing to capitalism.

In reality, once capitalism came along the scenario goes more like :

Entrapreneur builds a better EFI. One that works.

Corporates see what he is doing. Bugger me, they say, we have $Obscene millions invested in carburettor factories. This invention could majorly devalue our capital. Get this guy closed out, now. So the entrapreneur gets bought out. Or strnagled out. Strangely, he can't get supplies. The bank calls in his overdraft. The landlord gives him notice. Either his clever idea never sees the light of day, or it is the latest release from MegaCorp Inc.

[mashman]

If you believe that all taxation is theft you're unlikely to have much to contribute to a debate about a fairer taxation system overall.

In the US tax is voluntary... there are IRS agents that do not pay tax... it's possible that the same is true in NZ

[davereid]

Back in the 19th century , your argument was valid. Today, I don't think so. How many of the developments in tractors (or bikes, or cars) , come from some Bert Munro type tinkering in his garage, as opposed to coming out of a big corporate. Maybe 1%, if that. The old dream lingers longer and harder in NZ than most places (que, Brittan) but , realistically, it's dead.

What you are describing is in fact industrial mercantilism, not capitalism. Your tractor inventor doesn't sit back and make his money by investing his capital. He makes his fortune by investing his sweat effort and ideas. Quite a different thing to capitalism.

In reality, once capitalism came along the scenario goes more like :

Entrapreneur builds a better EFI. One that works.

Corporates see what he is doing. Bugger me, they say, we have $Obscene millions invested in carburettor factories. This invention could majorly devalue our capital. Get this guy closed out, now. So the entrapreneur gets bought out. Or strnagled out. Strangely, he can't get supplies. The bank calls in his overdraft. The landlord gives him notice. Either his clever idea never sees the light of day, or it is the latest release from MegaCorp Inc.

Other way around. In the 19th century, "the means of production" was land. It had been obtained by violence and was maintained by the capitalists who owned it. (Thats a product of greed, not capitalisim by the way.)

But now, the means of production, at least for the most wealthy is our brain. You-tube, Face-book, Microsoft, etc etc etc.

The old dream is booming. Its just that the old dont know how to cast it.

[davereid]

Corporates see what he is doing. Bugger me, they say, we have $Obscene millions invested in carburettor factories. This invention could majorly devalue our capital. Get this guy closed out, now. So the entrapreneur gets bought out. Or strnagled out. Strangely, he can't get supplies. The bank calls in his overdraft. The landlord gives him notice. Either his clever idea never sees the light of day, or it is the latest release from MegaCorp Inc.

Thats the modern music industry. They defend, sue, prosecute, lobby for new laws to protect the SONY recording. Of course thats IS capitalisim. So is the new download industry. The EFI man is being attacked by the old school, and what else would you expect ? Maybe the old school will win, as they have Microsoft championing DRM and the old pay-per-view system. Maybe the new school wil win. With your download fee payed for by the advert, the data collection, or the data charge.

[Ixion]

Other way around. In the 19th century, "the means of production" was land. It had been obtained by violence and was maintained by the capitalists who owned it. (Thats a product of greed, not capitalisim by the way.)

But now, the means of production, at least for the most wealthy is our brain. You-tube, Face-book, Microsoft, etc etc etc.

The old dream is booming. Its just that the old dont know how to cast it.

No, land as a primary income source was 17th C , early 18th C. By 19th C Lady Bracknell could truely say "land gives one a position, without the means to maintain it". The millionaires and billionaires of the 19C didn't make their money out of land.

It is true that about once each generation some new technology breakthrough comes along. And, for a short time, conditions in the businesses that spring up around that technology will resemble those of industrail mercantilism (or, the pure mercantilism of the 16C). But only until the new tech becomes sufficiently wide spread for the corporates to move in on it. The most recent, we call the Dot Com boom. But the era of the super nerd making his millions out of the Net ended about 10 years ago. there's a few still cashing up, but the Internet is now corporatised.