So who's the terrorist again?

[idleidolidyll]

The consumer-capitalism treadmill - what bullshit. All of us have choices about what to spend on and how much to save - no-one forces you to do anything. It's called democracy. If you're not happy, you need to look at the choices that you made to get you in this state.

if you were to study the way marketing and public relations are practised you'd be likely to see that we ARE indeed coerced if not held at gunpoint to do just as we are expected

The poor won't be starving because tax cuts benefit them as well - they will be more motivated to work harder and earn more money because they will keep more money as well.

so a $20 a week tax cut for the poor coupled with a $100+ tax cut for the wealthy will make everything affordable will it? I think you lack a grasp of the cost of health care, education, family services etc: $20 a week coupled with cuts in services will hurt the poor the most

You need to let go of this jealousy. Why should you care if I get richer, especially if you are getting richer yourself? Sure - tax cuts always leave the wealthy better off, but that is because they have more to begin with. I don't care if the new really rich are better off than me, as I can make my own choices about how to spend or save my own money.

jealousy? i fall in the 5 percentile and pay the top tax rate.
it aint jealousy, its humanity

ACT is actually not going far enough. While reducing tax rates it is still proposing a progressive tax system that taxes people more, the more they earn. This still penalises people for working harder and earning more. We should have a flat tax rate of say 25% so people know they keep the same proportion of extra income they make, if they choose to work harder.

a flat tax rate places the burden on the poor disproportionately more than on the wealthy. like gst, it over taxes people who must spend all their pay every week while giving 'relief' to those who don't actually need it.
as a top tax rated earner, i support greater tax for the wealthy and less tax for the poor: i'm prepared to pay my share for a fair society

[idleidolidyll]

People are at root social and it follows (I hope) that people are moral by nature ( i believe many are moral but that morality is created by society not a natural trait inherent in people regardless of society. I'd suggest that can be tested by placing two people in a situation with limited resources and seeing if they co-operate or compete. ) . Maybe its time to give radical democracy a try? (and real education...)
The 20th century shows that democracy should not sacrificed to theory.

IMO the ultimate in democracy is binding referendum: government truly by the majority bit only if the people are educated enough to discuss the issues and then actually vote.

strangely though, sanx stated a while ago that the referenda was a system of dictatorship: the will of the majority a dictatorship? please explain sanx.

it is in fact the ultimate expression of democracy

Wonderful discussion tonight; lots of intelligence rather than the usual propaganda and ignorance

[svr]

Sorry `nudedaytona' - they're just abstract ideas and opinions and weren't intended as personal put-downs of your life or choices.
My family are right-wingers and believe all the above assumptions re. motivation, trickle-down, `left wingers are just jealous' etc. as if they were common sense. I'm a top income bracket earner too (but blow it all on booze and bikes...) but I've been convinced otherwise, mainly by a politicized education.
I would say this though: No one is `free' to think or feel what they choose. The best we can do is attempt to work out what actually matters, togethor.
Cheers all.

[nudedaytona]

a flat tax rate places the burden on the poor disproportionately more than on the wealthy. like gst, it over taxes people who must spend all their pay every week while giving 'relief' to those who don't actually need it.
as a top tax rated earner, i support greater tax for the wealthy and less tax for the poor: i'm prepared to pay my share for a fair society

But the poor are not motivated to improve their situation, because they know that if they get a pay rise they will be paying proportionately more tax. This is the major problem with working for families. There are countless examples of people being worse off after a pay rise because their working for families entitlement has been reduced. So why seek that pay rise at all?

Instead of taxing people more then giving it back to them, with all the administration expense that goes with that, why not simply reduce tax rates. It is fundamentally fairer for all, because everyone knows that if you work harder and earn more you get to keep more. It is also much fairer to those who do not have children.

Regarding advertising and marketing - can you even remember the last television add you saw? I can't. It is not that effective, and it certainly is not coercion. In the age of the internet consumers have more information and more choices than ever.

[idleidolidyll]

But the poor are not motivated to improve their situation, because they know that if they get a pay rise they will be paying proportionately more tax. This is the major problem with working for families. There are countless examples of people being worse off after a pay rise because their working for families entitlement has been reduced. So why seek that pay rise at all?

Instead of taxing people more then giving it back to them, with all the administration expense that goes with that, why not simply reduce tax rates. It is fundamentally fairer for all, because everyone knows that if you work harder and earn more you get to keep more. It is also much fairer to those who do not have children.

Regarding advertising and marketing - can you even remember the last television add you saw? I can't. It is not that effective, and it certainly is not coercion. In the age of the internet consumers have more information and more choices than ever.

sure, there are faults in any system but isolating individual faults and suggesting the only cure is to throw out the baby with the bath water is simplistic.
the change you espouse would see low waged effectively slaved to business to a greater degree as costs for basics fell into the hands of capitalists who have no motivation other than that of profit. to pay the higher cost of health, education, road taxes etc the low paid will pay even more than they do under a system of taxation generally aimed at low earners as we have now.

yes, i can remember ads and unlike you i am quite aware of the subtle pervasive coercion that ads use to convince people that they should buy stuff that is not actually of good value or good for their health or situation.
your argument that it aint there because you can't see it flies in the face of studies by those in favour of ads and thse opposed to it.

the simple question to ask is this: "if ads and PR don't persuade why spend all that money making them?"

the only answer is that they DO work and the billions spent on them are spent in the sure knowledge that you can convince fat people to eat more McDonalds if you bribe their kids with toys.

[MisterD]

like gst, it over taxes people who must spend all their pay every week while giving 'relief' to those who don't actually need it.

On the other hand GST can be seen as fairer, becuase it doesn't favour those with the ability to pay fancy accountants to avoid tax.

You're mired in this application of poverty as a relative measure - it's not it's an absolute. I thought your mantra was "to each according to their need" not "want".?

[davereid]

Democracy without constraint on government power is merely mob rule.

Placing effective boundaries on government is what transforms mob-rule into true democracy.

This creates the majority of our debate....

Some, (like myself) believe that the state needs very little power.
We believe that all interaction between human beings should be by agreement, without coercion or force. The government needs only the power to pass laws that protect us from the activities of others, who would do us harm against our will.

Others believe that the state knows best. That the state should have the power to use force against us for any reason it chooses, bound only by winning the vote.

Socialists and Communists HAVE to fall in the latter group. The socialists need to use force to take resources, so they can re-distribute it Robin Hood style.

Capitalists fall into both groups. They love deregulated systems where they can sell what they want, when they want, to whoever they want.

But they also enjoy government systems when the law ensures they will make a nice profit. Border controls, tarrifs, taxes on evil competitors are lapped up.

Capitalisim can be violent. But it doesnt have to be.

Socialisim has to be violent. Its based on violence, and relies on force for its existence.

[Flatcap]

a flat tax rate places the burden on the poor disproportionately more than on the wealthy. like gst, it over taxes people who must spend all their pay every week while giving 'relief' to those who don't actually need it.
as a top tax rated earner, i support greater tax for the wealthy and less tax for the poor: i'm prepared to pay my share for a fair society

Just about everyone but beneficiaries are in the top tax bracket nowadays.

And what is 'fair'? I think it is fair that benefits should be removed after a time period. I think it is fair that to live on a benefit SHOULD be a struggle - it's function is not to fund a lifestyle

[svr]

And what is 'fair'? I think it is fair that benefits should be removed after a time period. I think it is fair that to live on a benefit SHOULD be a struggle - it's function is not to fund a lifestyle

Two thirds of benefit expenditure is of course old-aged pension - But you mean the unemployed right?
The unemployed are comprised by two main groups:
1. Structurally unemployed i.e. market economies fluctuate and create times of less than `full' employment'. Say unemployment is 10% but full employment is 4%, that remaining 6% is unemployed for reasons outside of their control. They should be supported (and helped to re or upskill to jobs with shortages) during this time.
2. Disaffected workers i.e. unemployable through low motivation, unwillingness to work low-skill jobs but no inclination to upskill (i.e. not illness or disability). These are wasted lives and you are right, to be unemployed at the taxpayers expense is not an acceptable option.
Suggestions?

[Flatcap]

But you mean the unemployed right?

And a large portion of "sickness beneficiaries"

What did the like of these people do before the welfare state?

[Sanx]

And a large portion of "sickness beneficiaries"

What did the like of these people do before the welfare state?

They either:

• Stopped pretending to be sick and found a job; or
• Died

It comes back to the old adage about the purpose of the welfare state. Is it to provide a safety net, or to provide a hammock?

[SPman]

Just about everyone but beneficiaries are in the top tax bracket nowadays.

And what is 'fair'? I think it is fair that benefits should be removed after a time period. I think it is fair that to live on a benefit SHOULD be a struggle - it's function is not to fund a lifestyle

So - you've tried funding a lifestyle whilst on a single benefit - lived like a king, did you? Most people on benefits I know, do it fucking hard! They manage, (just), but life is not easy! All would prefer a job that gives them enough income to have even a reasonable standard of live, but, for most, it is just not possible - and yes - that includes "sickness beneficiaries".
So, your answer, when they are crippled by Rheumatoid Arthritis, or Multiple Sclerosis, or other debilitating conditions, would be to leave them to find other means of income or starve.
Spoken like a true Capitalist!
Go join the ACT party, you'll fit in well!

[awayatc]

If all the bludgers and no hopers would be kicked out of the handout system ...then those who realy are in need of financial assistance could be properly looked after.....

And none of us would mind looking after those who realy need that help.........

[nudedaytona]

the change you espouse would see low waged effectively slaved to business to a greater degree as costs for basics fell into the hands of capitalists who have no motivation other than that of profit.

Profit only comes if you offer good service. Competition ensures that prices are competitive. The government should only be involved in core services that would not be provided by the market, such as defence, some infrastructure, law and order, etc, or where the structure of the market means that monopolies are the only outcome (e.g. electricity lines). Debate about what those services should be is welcome, but it is important to note that ACT recognise this and propose to keep core government services.

to pay the higher cost of health, education, road taxes etc the low paid will pay even more than they do under a system of taxation generally aimed at low earners as we have now.

Really? Prove it. If progressive tax rates are lowered, or a flat tax rate adopted, the poor will be no worse off than they are now. Under many flat tax rate systems, your first say $10,000 of income is tax free. In this case the poor would be better off than they are now.

For a specific case like road taxes. Act propose to replace road user charges and petrol taxes with tolls that reward off-peak road use. They are not proposing to increase overall revenues from road users. Sounds like a sensible plan to reduce congestion to me.

the simple question to ask is this: "if ads and PR don't persuade why spend all that money making them?"

the only answer is that they DO work and the billions spent on them are spent in the sure knowledge that you can convince fat people to eat more McDonalds if you bribe their kids with toys.

Ads can be an important source of information, especially when directed to those who would benefit from the advertised service. For instance, I am very happy to hear about Mt Eden Motorcycles ladies night sale tonight so that my partner and I can both go along and get some bike gear at a reduced price for her. If there was no advertising, how would we know about the sale?

I am also very happy to receive coupons from Dominos Pizza or the flyer about the opening specials from the chinese takeaways that has recently opened in my neighborhood, so that this weekend I can ring them up and order them something as I probably can't be f**ked cooking on Friday or Sat night. Again - without advertising I would not know about these special deals and would end up paying more. So advertising helps me to save money.

Regarding fat people and McDonalds. It all comes down to personal choice and responsibility - no one forces these people to eat at McDonalds. These people are well aware of the health problems of overindulging in one sort of food. There are many other advertisements for healthier eating options. You can often find kids toys in weet-bix as well. Are you saying we should ban "bad" advertisements but keep "good" ones?

Under the current health system people are encouraged to get fat or smoke, etc, because they know that they can get free healthcare. If we had a health insurance system instead these choices would have consequences of higher premiums, therefore encouraging people to stop smoking or stop eating mcdonalds.

[Flatcap]

So - you've tried funding a lifestyle whilst on a single benefit - lived like a king, did you? Most people on benefits I know, do it fucking hard! They manage, (just), but life is not easy! All would prefer a job that gives them enough income to have even a reasonable standard of live, but, for most, it is just not possible - and yes - that includes "sickness beneficiaries".
So, your answer, when they are crippled by Rheumatoid Arthritis, or Multiple Sclerosis, or other debilitating conditions, would be to leave them to find other means of income or starve.
Spoken like a true Capitalist!
Go join the ACT party, you'll fit in well!

Yes I have been on a benefit and yes it was hard work - that is why I no longer am on a benefit.

And I said many on a sickness benefit, not all. So yes, if you are truely ill then the benefit is appropriate