Well “deny(ing) the vote to all those who pay no taxes” would cause a bit of a ruckus because that would mean about 40% of the population would be disenfranchised. Cutting of pensioners and other people who don't earn enough to pay tax doesn't sound fair to me – not forgetting the riots that would occur.

And, what about the cowardly GST that everyone who likes eating has to pay, and also adds costs to just about every commodity used by human beings?

As for briging in the 'right' people, why do we need to bring any people – there are no spare jobs for them; no manufacturing, nothing except flogging unecessary consumer goods, and growing food for people we don't need. The biggest emloyer is a bloated, also unecessary, public 'service'.

The claim that 70% of Australians are in favour of strong immigration is simply unbelievable! The obsession of academics with shonky statistics is one of our main problems. We can believe the opposition to Muslim immigration and existence because it is voiced every day by real people, not tricksters making a living out of inaccurate polls which, incidentally, rarely agree with one another.

Multiculturalism is getting to be the main cause for Australia's doom. Why, many people are asking, should I care about Australia when shite from all over the world are coming here, doing as they please and getting away with it while we actually pay them welfare to colonise us?

Politicians have rooted Australia right, left and centre.

Who would you like to exclude Gary, Jews Arabs, Islamist devotees or blacks? And I sort of agree, we should preference english speaking Christians as they, like english speaking Filipinos, seem to fit almost seamlessly into our culture, rather than stand off critiquing everything from some no go Islamist ghetto.

If Turnbul really wants to play his trump card, it can't be the race (migration) card, but rather, make his preferred plebiscite integral to the next election.

To fix that issue once and for all?

And given majority consent, open the way for an approved and binding conscience vote on marriage equality.

This will forever silence the critics on both sides, those who will never accept the umpires (parliament) verdict without a pleb, and those who want it front and centre as a divisive election issue?

He's already stolen half Labor's clothes, with an ingenious Labor like budget and wouldn't be hurt electorally if he took the rest?

Without question this is the most decisive issue, rather than whether or not the diesel fitter working in some God forsaken mine or outback station is an migrant or native born Australian.

And he could get some traction there with supported adult apprenticeships/cadetships and increased training for Aussies?

We are a nation of migrants and just don't need to offend without constructive purpose or valid reason?

Making migration a political issue is fraught and should be done differently, like say deliberately preferring english speaking Christians from wherever, with the approval of the bulk of Australians?

And in so doing, only offend a relatively small sector with a covert or overt anti Christian religious intolerance axe to grind?

By their fruit, ye shall know them!
Alan B.

the truth is that to bring in lefties is as destructive as muslim immigration. They have an entitlement mentality and think money grows on trees or by union corruption. Both groups trash this country.

The 70% in favour of migration is just not true, unless only inner city high rise residents are polled.

Perhaps 70% of our fool noisy academics may be in favour, but they are more interested in what Lebanese academics think of them, than what we think of them.

I have not met recently anyone who believes in any migration, but there are many who totally against family reunion migration, & particularly of bringing in foreign new wives.

Security is about your physical safety and integrity - nobody is suggesting that security should ever be compromised.

But if you attempt to sneak all your private ambitions, such as to control the culture of this continent and force everyone else here to follow your own lifestyle, language and/or belief-system, under the umbrella of "security", then I am here to expose your dishonest scheme, as I am doing now.

Moronic article that shows just what an imbecile Gary Johns is!

Australia has never had, and will never have, any problem paying its public debt. All bonds are always paid on time, and they always will be. While it's true we're not currently in a position to eliminate the debt, that's not important. Trying to do so would be catastrophic for the economy at the moment, and with interest rates at record lows, it's not as if there's nothing we could do that's better value than paying off debt.

The drivel that disenfranchising those below the tax threshold would somehow benefit us financially suggests that the Australian Institute for Progress is just another mouthpiece for rich scumbags who want to entrench their power by making the poor poorer.

Australia's multicultural and that's as it should be.in the true sense of the word: everyone's entitled to determine their own culture, and that's how it should be.

And immigration shouldn't discriminate by religion, but we should bar those who oppose freedom of religion.

Dear Aidan,

«While it's true we're not currently in a position to eliminate the debt, that's not important.»

Perhaps that's not important for you because you have no savings.
Debt creates inflation and inflation eats up people's savings.

If it were your own money, surely you would have done everything in your power to return the debt as soon as possible so you can stop bleeding interest over it.

(P.S. I do agree with you on the topic of multiculturalism and immigration)

Dear Yuyutsu,

Without debt there would be no savings. Even the creation of cash involves the government spending more cash than it's earning (IOW running a deficit) even though they don't actually include physical cash issuance in the debt figures.

The relationship between debt and inflation is less straightforward than you might imagine. Debt does increase the money supply, which has an inflationary effect. But technological progress has a deflationary effect, so some money supply increase is needed to balance that. Also, when the extra money is spent employing people who would otherwise be idle, the increased production will (to some extend if not completely) counteract the inflation.

Now, if it were my own money you might have a point. But governments are not individuals.
• Individuals will eventually retire; governments never will.
• Individuals have limited credit; governments that create their own currency have unlimited credit.
• Individuals don't recoup the money they spend through taxation.
• Individuals don't have a responsibility to keep the economy productive and the population employed.

Dear Aidan,

Have you seen the old series "Survivors"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivors_%281975_TV_series%29

After nearly all the population died, that group of survivors found a deserted military air-base with a few barrels of oil. They claimed however to have millions of barrels in their hangar and on that basis they printed money, promising that anyone presenting it could receive a barrel of oil (not that anyone actually had the means to transport those barrels...). When visitors came, they used to show them the same 2-3 barrels over and over again.

One could get away with such lies for a while, but not forever. Money should have a real backing, whether it be natural resources, real-estate, or sadly the power to rob others of theirs.

The purpose of money should be to create confidence that the results of one's labour would not go wasted, thus one doesn't need to consume it all at once but can produce for others first, then enjoy it later.

As much as I would have liked to keep my savings in real commodities, it is not practically possible:
Food would be eaten by rodents and other creepy-crawlers.
Clothes and shoes may no longer fit.
Building materials would probably not match the parts of my house that require repair.
Machinery rusts.
Petrol/oil can easily catch fire.
Medications are not likely to fit whatever conditions I might have in old age.
And so on.
And obviously it all takes much space too.
Thus money.

As it stands, inflation forces one to run fast just to stay in one place. Rather than keeping one's savings in the safe, one is now forced to waste the later part of their life studying financial/investment products which otherwise have no relevance to how they planned and hoped to enjoy their post-retirement days.

You mentioned the deflationary effect of technological progress, but that only artificially brings down the CPI with new products that were not previously needed, usually also products with a very short life-span that need to be replaced again and again. While you cannot eat this silicon, food prices keep increasing!

[continued...]

[...continued]

Regarding the employment of more people that would otherwise be idle, it would be better for perhaps around half of the people who are employed today to be idle. So many jobs create nothing, so many jobs only complicate people's lives and waste their time - see for example all the superannuation industry with armies of lawyers and accountants being paid to comply with government regulations and try to save a few bucks from taxation. Had there been no superannuation, all those people could be home, so many office air-conditioners be turned off and so much less rush-hour traffic jams, to name a few of the benefits.

Getting people to actually produce more products and services that are truly needed is not as easy as throwing money in their direction because not much more is actually needed in this already-affluent society, perhaps with the exception of aged-care which Australians don't like to do even if they get paid for it.

«• Individuals will eventually retire; governments never will.»

Sadly so, I still hope they will!

«• Individuals have limited credit; governments that create their own currency have unlimited credit.»

Yes, they have a license to rob us, including through inflation-tax.

«• Individuals don't recoup the money they spend through taxation.»

Even governments don't recoup the interest they pay to foreign creditors. Well, if it's in Australian dollars then they recoup it from ordinary Australians through inflation. Eventually, foreigners will learn that Australian money is no good and will stop lending.

«• Individuals don't have a responsibility to keep the economy productive and the population employed.»

If government has this responsibility then it had failed badly and created a non-productive economy where half the employed do nothing useful while the few remaining genuine producers (cars, farmers) lose their jobs.

Race and culture are not the same. We would not ban Germans today. We do ban Nazis because they believe in an unacceptable belief system.
We should not ban the Arab race. We should ban believers in the unacceptable belief system many Arabs ( and Indonesians) adhere to.
Muslims are people we used to call Mohammedans because they follow the teaching of Mohammed.
Mohammed "married" a girl when she was 6 and "consummated" the "marriage" when she was 9. He conquered a tribe of Jews sold all women and children into slavery and beheaded all adult males.

If alive today in Australia he would be in gaol as a war criminal and a paedophile. To follow his teachings is to have moral parameters set by a paedophile war criminal. Such a person is not a fit and proper person to have a vote in a liberal democracy or to control a school receiving the tax monies of a government of such a democracy.

We would not allow Nazis to come here and set up Nazi schools. Why do we do it for people who follow the teachings of a man whose killing was only not of the scale of Hitler's for lack of modern technology?

No, Yuyutsu, I haven't seen that old series. But from your description, it seems to highlight the foolishness of commodity based currency: eventually the government will run out of the commodity and it will collapse.

So rather than fixing the currency value relative to anything else, it's best to have fiat money (where the money's value is based on the need to use it to pay taxes. The market then decides how much the money is worth, and the government adjusts taxation/spending/interest rates to control inflation.

ONE purpose of money should be to create confidence that the results of one's labour would not go wasted. But another purpose, no less important, is to ensure there's a demand for the labour.

As it stands, inflation DOESN'T force you to run fast just to stay in one place. Walking slowly is likely to be sufficient to meet that objective.

The deflationary effect of technological progress DOESN'T only artificially bring down the CPI with new products that were not previously needed. It also enables the old things to be done more efficiently.

Food prices generally rise a bit faster than the CPI, but improving technology slows the rate of increase. And in my part of the country, food prices are still below what they were before Aldi opened.

Regarding your claim that "otherwise be idle, it would be better for perhaps around half of the people who are employed today to be idle", I don't think you've thought this through. Would you really rather about half the workforce ceased contributing through taxes, instead requiring everyone else to pay more to support them?

Jobs that you dismiss as contributing nothing do fulfil a need. Were it not so, nobody would bother paying them. While removing the need could credibly be a better response, that does not mean the workers should be idle. We're very far from perfect, and there's no shortage of worthwhile things that could be done but aren't being done because nobody's willing to pay people to do them.

(tbc)

Yuyutsu (continued)

Your hoping governments will retire seems just plain dumb to me. What are you hoping they'd be replaced with?

Taxation is not robbery; it is payment for service. Those who find it unacceptable are free to leave the country.

"Even governments don't recoup the interest they pay to foreign creditors"
Not directly, but like corporations that borrow money, governments can use the money they borrow to make more money. Governments can invest in things that make the private sector more productive, resulting in increased tax revenue without having to increase the tax rate.

I'd like you and anyone else ideologically opposed to taxation to think about this for a while; without taxation what means and incentive would there be for anyone to provide the things that increase productivity?

"Well, if it's in Australian dollars then they recoup it from ordinary Australians through inflation. Eventually, foreigners will learn that Australian money is no good and will stop lending."
Struth, you seem to be channelling Jardine!

The idea that Australian money is no good is utterly absurd, and shows you don't understand the financial system.

Firstly, our dollar can't collapse. Its value is determined by the market. If our dollar falls, exports rise and imports fall, increasing its value. Conversely if it rises, imports rise and exports fall, decreasing its value. Therefore its value is self correcting.

Secondly, inflation is something experienced by all currencies, so nobody could sensibly conclude that Australian money is no good.

Thirdly, hypothetically if there were an expectation that our dollar would keep falling, foreigners wouldn't automatically stop lending; it would depend on the interest rate that was offered. Anyway, if they did stop lending, the RBA could replace their function and our dollar still wouldn't collapse.

And finally, what I have proposed is not particularly inflationary; the inflationary effect of more spending would be counteracted by the deflationary effect of more production.

Yuyutsu (continued)

"If government has this responsibility then it had failed badly"
This much is true.

"and created a non-productive economy where half the employed do nothing useful while the few remaining genuine producers (cars, farmers) lose their jobs."
And that is false. You seem to have failed to noticed that fabrication has become a low value part of the manufacturing process, and car manufacturing is not the high value activity it once was. And while there may be fewer farmers than before, that doesn't mean there's less farming.

Dear Aidan,

Thank you for taking all this time to answer me.

Any connection between myself and Jardine is incidental: Jardine is well-versed in economics and has his strong ideas on how it should run, whereas I represent the simple people who have no interest in that and wonder why we need to know about and be tortured by these economics. Further, Jardine opposes taxation while I think that tax can be a good thing - provided that it is consensual.

As an ordinary person, I have the right to complain: having worked through the 1900's and accumulated that much money that could buy me that many bags of rice and that many pairs of shoes, why is your economy forcing me to buy them immediately? Why can't I wait and have those things when I need them in the 2000's? Now you try to sell me all kinds of electronic gadgets instead which I never needed, which I never asked for - that's cheating!

The scene I described in 'Survivors' did not depict a commodity-based currency - it depicted fraud, the promised millions of barrels were not truly there in that hangar. If instead of my wages in kind I can only get pieces of paper, then I have been cheated. Well yes, you also give me the option of joining the elite club and study economics so I can participate in this manipulation myself and gain at others' demise.

What business of mine is "to ensure there's a demand for the labour"? Either there is authentic demand for labour or there isn't - and if there isn't, then more people can sit at home and enjoy their life, rather than waste their time driving into the city morning and evening, doing useless (and at times even harmful) things there, wasting lots of energy, then returning home tired and grumpy.

Yes, if there's no genuine demand for labour, for products and services that are genuinely needed, then I rather support half the population through tax and/or charity than heat up the economy on useless or even harmful projects.

[continued...]

[...continued]

Your labelling people as 'workforce' is demeaning. Do I need to remind you that slavery is over?

«Jobs that you dismiss as contributing nothing do fulfil a need.»

But those "needs" are often artificial, born from government regulations and its bias and pressure to get more people working so that it can raise more tax. There are many examples: one example of bias is the tax-deductibility of advertising expenses, encouraging big businesses to brainwash people with propaganda to buy things they do not need.

As for truly worthwhile things, I believe that people are essentially good and with the reduction of economic pressures to obtain any job whatsoever just to pay the bills, with the security offered by a universal income (tax/charity based), people would naturally volunteer to do those truly-worthwhile things outside economic constraints and formalities.

Regarding the retirement of governments, I hope they be replaced by voluntary organisations.

Taxation need not be robbery, so why do they do it this way? Can't they just ask nicely rather than threaten?! Can't they allow us to pay (even more if necessary) only for things that we find agreeable rather than forcing us to pay for DISSERVICES that we abhor or find immoral?

Why should I want to increase productivity, especially if it pressures the workers and make them suffer? I rather increase happiness!

«and shows you don't understand the financial system.»

Perhaps, but it's a tragedy that one needs to understand it in order to survive - why can't you just keep it simple?!

I am truly worried by "the deflationary effect of more production": is more production really necessary? Weren't we happier before? Do we really need all these extra products and services? Are they indeed of quality, or just more junk?

[continued...]

[...continued]

«You seem to have failed to noticed that fabrication has become a low value part of the manufacturing process, and car manufacturing is not the high value activity it once was»

So are cars less important now? Can more people do without a car? So what you are saying is that value is no longer attached to importance - how come? economy must have artificially distorted it, attaching value to things of no value and less value to things of value.

Farming and cars (and such other simple things) are too essential and cannot be left to depend on external commercial and political influences. How can we allow these, for example, to be suddenly cut off by a stock-market crash in America or by orders from Beijing, perhaps because we "fail" to agree with the oppression of their regime? Rather than be tempted by all things shiny, it is important to keep small farmers independent and stay self-sufficient on the local level.

The true reason for not wanting Moslem immigrants is not merely that their values are different. Sikhs' values are different too, but they make splendid citizens. The reason for not wanting Moslems is that they hate our guts and seek our subjugation along with their own.

Potato-Head Dutton published statistics showing correlation of jihadism with Moslem "culture" in immigrants and their descendants. The appeasement industry howled about his revelations but facts are facts. Islamic hatred was on display when they caused riots in Cronulla by harassing women whose bikinis violated the woman-hating Islamic dress code.

As ttbn said at the outset, they're colonists, not immigrants. We don't need colonists, even when the are from Britain.

Dear EJ,

Ah, but if it were not for Britain where would
Australia be today?

Interesting thought - No?

Foxy: Irrelevant. If it were not for the Thief of Normandy or even Julius Caesar where would Britain be today?

The best New Australians repudiated British rule at Eureka in 1854. Britain is now no more than another foreign country, with ancestral connections with some Australian families.

Dear EJ,

There would I imagine quite a few posters on this forum
that would bitterly disagree with you. And I'm not
saying that you're wrong.

Foxy: Fine. If so I hope they spell out their reasoning. Mere emotional displays without facts and reasons wouldn't be worth reading.

That includes "Left" and "Right" crapola.

EJ where would Britain be ?
Anglo/Saxon/Scandinavian/Scottish !

Foxy,

"Ah, but if it were not for Britain where would
Australia be today?"

We'd have a lot less Irish!

thankyou Tony Abbott that you stopped the boats. You have reduced the risk of terrorism. By now Greens/Labour would of let in another 100000 illegals.

Dear Is Mise,

What?

And no St. Patrick's Day?

No Irish jokes?

runner, your grammar is terrible.
But your commendation of Tony Abbott's policy of demonising those who most need our help is far worse. How can you call yourself a Christian when it's the exact opposite of what Jesus would do?

And even if your desire to stop the boats trumps everything else, your support for Tony Abbott is hypocritical as it was he who (as opposition leader) blocked the Gillard government's Malaysia solution which would've been just as effective.

Foxy,

Perish the thought!!
Did you know that Ireland (the island of) was once attached to New South Wales?

Dear Is Mise,

That explains a great deal.

I was born and raised in NSW.

' But your commendation of Tony Abbott's policy of demonising those who most need our help is far worse.'

are you talkng about the paedophiles and rapist that the labour backed aat ruled to allow to remain in the country Aiden? You know those who paid people smugglers before throwing away id. Your compassion for those in camps waiting to come here legally is amazing Aiden or are you are typical leftist hypocrite blinded by ideology.

cont'd ...

And Father Timothy Kennedy was our parish priest
and a very dear family friend. He married my
husband and I. Sunday lunches at our place were
very special and interesting thanks to Father
Kennedy's presence.

whoops, my above post was meant for Is Mise.

Foxy,

"That explains a great deal.

I was born and raised in NSW"

It was a bit before our time!
By 'X' million years.

Dear Is Mise,

Don't you believe in re-incarnation?