Robert Taylor and idleidolidyll's political debating thread

[Clockwork]

No, I suggested that the highest value in real terms that a government can acquire is to tax every income at a certain level, supposed to be around 17%. More than that is counterproductive in terms of buying power in that economy, for that government. Taxing above this level is vote-buying behaviour, pure and simple, nothing to do with financial prudence.

WHat you DO with the revenue is the subject of a debate about the above compromise.

Sounds good Ocean, can you show me an example of an economy taxing at this level and still providing equality of opportunity including access to health care and education? Sanx cites Ireland as a possible example but I'm not sure this would work for NZ.

I admit don't know much about Ireland's economics but I understand they have beneifited enormously from EEC subsidies and the reason they are currently popular with investors is that manufacturing in Ireland gives you instant access to the enormous EEC market. Presumably if they are taxing less than the other EEC member states they are effectively cheating the system (level playing field an' all that). The fact that multi-nationals are prepared to exploit that for profit really isn't that surprising.

Also, should NZ cut its tax rates, (and it would take a substantial cut to make any material difference to my life style) what's going to happen to inflation and why is it that the political right only considiers Government spending to be inflationary?

[Clockwork]

Except that every attempt to completely regulate commerce for the benefit of society has failed abysmally. Without exception, these attempts have been carried out by communist countries: China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, Albania, etc. The government's attempt to take over the entire market failed. In many cases, this led to the collapse of agriculture which in turn led to the starvation of millions of people.

Of course, thase are extreme examples. However, at what level of interference / regulation do you draw the line? ...

Extreme examples yes. And the extremes at the other end are just as offensive. An example that springs to mind, India, a booming economy. I suspect the market will be about as free there as anywhere. I'd be as well equipped as most to survive quite comfortably there but, no thanks. You don't see too many others rushing to get in either.

Benefits to society? Well to put it simply I don't want to have to step over beggars in the street and live behind a barberd wire fence; or witness starving children or sick and dying/neglected elderly as I drive past in my air conditioned Merc on my way to my favorite resturant. Now I'm not saying these things don't exist in NZ but at least when I go to bed at night I can convince myself that it's not due to some lack of contribution on my part!

[Finn]

Some fine capitalism in action....

One News had an excellent informative and non hysterical item last tonight on how the NSW Labour Government has allowed the private sector to build and maintain schools, and lease them back to schools on a thirty year lease to own arrangement.

It’s proven so good in NSW, other states are taking it up.

What works so well for the schools, is they have a service level agreement with the owners, with financial penalties. So the school is freed up to concentrate on the core task of educating students, and the private business takes care of the maintenance etc.

If graffiti lasts for more than an hour, the owner is penalised. Likewise if more than x toilets are not working, they get fine. So the building owner has a real incentive to provide first class service.

And the state auditor-general has calculated this partnerships will save the taxpayer $60 million.

So you have one party which says, hey if this model worked in NSW we’ll be at least open minded enough to try it and use it if it will result in better schools for our kids, at less cost.

And you have another party which swears they would rather die first than allow this to happen.

So which party is concerned about kids and which party is concerned about votes?

[Ocean1]

Sounds good Ocean, can you show me an example of an economy taxing at this level and still providing equality of opportunity including access to health care and education? Sanx cites Ireland as a possible example but I'm not sure this would work for NZ.

I admit don't know much about Ireland's economics but I understand they have beneifited enormously from EEC subsidies and the reason they are currently popular with investors is that manufacturing in Ireland gives you instant access to the enormous EEC market. Presumably if they are taxing less than the other EEC member states they are effectively cheating the system (level playing field an' all that). The fact that multi-nationals are prepared to exploit that for profit really isn't that surprising.

Also, should NZ cut its tax rates, (and it would take a substantial cut to make any material difference to my life style) what's going to happen to inflation and why is it that the political right only considiers Government spending to be inflationary?

I didn’t suggest that taxing at an optimum economic level would produce equity of any sort. Nothing will, the notion that equity can exist in any form at all is a concept as flawed as that which sees cash as being available from other than productive effort.

What I did suggest is that if a government wished to realise the highest level of funds available to spend on anything at all then they should be taxing at that rate. Is it so hard to understand? Taxing at current levels produces substantially LESS income for the government, and damages both the providers and those who’s lot is attempted to be “equified”.

The only possible root source of income for anyone is the primary production of marketable goods. Everything else is secondary, even those industries supplying support to manufacturers can trace their income back to actual hard product. Have you any idea how much primary productive manufacturing is left in NZ? Outside the agricultural industry, fuck all. Our accelerating slide down the performance charts of the OECD shouldn’t come as much of a surprise then eh? If you wonder why Ireland is doing so well look at their new primary production base, and then look at the economic policies that made it happen.

Access to health care, education and any other services used by all is exactly the expenditure I personally consider a valid reason to tax in the first place. Any entity smaller than a national government doesn’t have the resources to do it, and the services so funded are not a disincentive to economic interests because it’s a cost they would otherwise have to wear themselves anyway. Public spending on infrastructure is also good for the economic health of everyone, (commercial interests included), to a greater or lesser extent.

Tax used for the support of the disabled and infirm is a total loss, but it’s a social responsibility 99% of the country would agree is worthwhile. However, when huge drains such as current social policy and the tax required to drive them are placed on the only source of funds available then those productive entities inevitably stop producing wealth, and therefore taxable revenue. Redistributing cash in an attempt to create an equity of lifestyle is simplistic, anile bullshit. Even when the economy is cold and dead some will find a way to eat and some won’t.

[James Deuce]

Tax used for the support of the disabled and infirm is a total loss, but it’s a social responsibility 99% of the country would agree is worthwhile.

Back when personal responsibility was a given that may have been true. I suspect that if pushed, most people would support compulsory in-utero genetic screening followed up with compulsory abortions for any defect that will cost the state money. The tax spend in that area is decreasing and an ever increasing number of arguments are being pumped out at Government level and propagated through social, education, and health services as to why it is unfair on society in general to support those pesky retards.

Want your intellectually challenged child to go to a mainstream school? No worries so long as you pay the teacher's aide's wages.

Want the same level of health care as "normal" people? Be prepared to take consultants to the NZ Medical Council (with financial backup from the Royal College of Surgeons in the UK) for a disciplinary hearing when they suggest not treating your child's pneumonia - you know, socially acceptable euthanasia.

Don't make me laugh, most policy setters are trying to eliminate "social burdens", as it is "unfair" to expect society to look after them.

Meanwhile the harder I work, the more tax I pay. The more tax I pay the less access I have to the benefits that we're "entitled" to.

[Clockwork]

Redistributing cash in an attempt to create an equity of lifestyle is simplistic, anile bullshit. Even when the economy is cold and dead some will find a way to eat and some won’t.

I didn't advocate equity of "lifestyle", equity of outcome is the term you used earlier I believe. But I do want to see equity of opportunity including access to health care and education, and yes I accept that too many waste that opportunity and then expect society to carry them. And we probably do make life too comfortable for some of these people but as I've said, I don't much like the other end of the spectrum either and I can't trust the unfettered "market" to create any society that I would want to live in.

Anyhoo.... I'm away this weekend, maybe there will still be enough momentum in this trhread to keep it going while I'm away. seeya

[davereid]

...
The only possible root source of income for anyone is the primary production of marketable goods. Everything else is secondary, even those industries supplying support to manufacturers can trace their income back to actual hard product. Have you any idea how much primary productive manufacturing is left in NZ? Outside the agricultural industry, fuck all. Our accelerating slide down the performance charts of the OECD shouldn’t come as much of a surprise then eh?

This of course is the reason for our problems... we tax, levy and burden the productive with a million rules, regulations and bits of paper to fill out.

And then , because we are worried about how poor we are, we fix it by putting the minimum adult wage up, and giving everyone 4 weeks holidays. (Plus 5 sick days and 11 stat. days, and 104 weekend days.)

Surprise surprise when inflation starts to become a headache.

[davereid]

Tax used for the support of the disabled and infirm is a total loss, but it’s a social responsibility 99% of the country would agree is worthwhile.

Only if they think its someone elses money. Offer a check box on your payslip..

A= Pay for social welfare
B= Don't pay for it

and see if 99% really support it.

[Grahameeboy]

Tax used for the support of the disabled and infirm is a total loss,

..............

Not to the disabled / infirm it is not............

[idleidolidyll]

..............

Not to the disabled / infirm it is not............

that doesn't matter a bit to these heartless inhuman bastards

of course the moment they were damaged and in need of a hand out their whining would change rapidly

[Grahameeboy]

that doesn't matter a bit to these heartless inhuman bastards

of course the moment they were damaged and in need of a hand out their whining would change rapidly

Unless you were born with a disability I guess

[davereid]

that doesn't matter a bit to these heartless inhuman bastards

Please stop assuming that you have to be a socialist to care about others, and that socialists have some special monopoly on compassion.

The difference is that capitalists care for others with their own money.

Socialists think its OK to use violence to take money off others to use for their generosity.

Its an easy way to appear to be generous and compassionate. As long as you can overlook the use of force.

[Ocean1]

Only if they think its someone elses money. Offer a check box on your payslip..

A= Pay for social welfare
B= Don't pay for it

and see if 99% really support it.

There's been a couple of surveys about tax and public services in general I found interesting. Of two that I read years ago both offered various options on taxation and public services. Both demonstrated a significant gulf between what was seen to be acceptable taxation and what was considered a minimum public service level. One however was not a blind survey, subjects were able to see what outcomes their selected options produced in real time, and they were free to change any of them. The bit that interested me was that there was a 20% odd failure rate, subjects simply refused to complete the survey when their choices didn't produce the outcome they wanted. The failure of some to accept facts and make effective cost/benefit decisions is not, apparently, limited to the real world.

..............

Not to the disabled / infirm it is not............

Still beating your wife dude? Yes or No?

[idleidolidyll]

Please stop assuming that you have to be a socialist to care about others, and that socialists have some special monopoly on compassion.

The difference is that capitalists care for others with their own money.

Socialists think its OK to use violence to take money off others to use for their generosity.

Its an easy way to appear to be generous and compassionate. As long as you can overlook the use of force.

No assumption is necessary, all I have to do is read the heartless posts of the fascists here to KNOW they don't give a damn or, at best, are ignorant of the problems faced by other people.

[idleidolidyll]

The difference is that capitalists care for others with their own money.

Socialists think its OK to use violence to take money off others to use for their generosity.

Oh dear, ignorance is bliss indeed. My message 432 sums up that kind of attitude.

Capitalists DON'T care much at all except for money, they are more concerned about returning a profit to their shareholders than they are about those fucked over by their policies.

As for your second point; the worst abuser on the planet today is the USA. Since 1990 it has killed or created conditions that have killed up to 4 million Iraqis. It killed 2-4 million Vietnamese, millions of Koreans ad infinitum.

The fact is that capitalism without the restraints of socialism quickly becomes abusive and preys on the weak and poor. Essentially US capitalism props itself up ONLY through violence and theit Military is in fact nothing less than a corporate army.