The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Sit in the corner while we rob you > Comments

Sit in the corner while we rob you : Comments

By Peter Saunders, published 16/4/2007

If only taxpayers would conform to the nanny state's expectations.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Turnrightandthenleft,

There is no difference between the money I give as taxes and the money a company uses on advertising. If there was a difference then you would have an argument. One of the problems with economics is that it has not recognised that we can have different forms of money and the money can be tagged and these differences that you are so concerned about are made explicit.

Let us take advertising and the application of tagged money.

Perhaps one way we can "solve" the problem of unhelpful advertising of products that opponents (concerned citizens) consider damaging is to give opponents equal time. All companies that advertise could give an equal amount of money to the people who did not purchase their goods because they disagree with the product and have registered their opposition. If a company spends $X per person on each purchase then opponents should also get $x person objecting but they must spend the money on advertising against the product.

Assume I have an objection to advertising to my children about fast food. I would now be able to register my objection and I would receive an amount of money that I can use for advertising against the product. The way to do this is with tagged money that is different - that is it can only be used on advertising to tell children why I and others object to the product. How much I personally get for this purpose is the average amount spent by advertisers per person per sale.

If we get a lot of people registering then the companies will have to come up with higher costs on their products. If however, it is a non controversial product then few will register.

This now saves the government the trouble of having to guess which things it should advertise against. What we do is to give the community a say.

Before dismissing this as impractical let me assure you it is practical and could be implemented for a cost of about 5% of the money spent on advertising.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Monday, 16 April 2007 2:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry I accidentally put this comment over here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5703

On the article itself, yes the government does interfere in a lot of things that should be left to individual choice, however as Nicholas Gruen argues some use of our money is efficient. You give it to the government and they give it back where you need it which prevents you the stress of spending forever working out (budgeting) whether you need various insurances, have to pay certain bills, and doing a budget on hundreds of services you use everyday but don't tend to think about - it is easier for the government to do it for you and less stress upon the individual / family.
Posted by vee, Monday, 16 April 2007 2:41:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“For I am your government and I am here to tell you how to live your lives.”

Of course! People are always bleating (including here, on OLO) for the government to “do something”; to provide more and more money for them to lead the good life.

The more we demand and accept from governments, the more freedom and control over our own lives we hand over to them
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 16 April 2007 4:49:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dearest Nanny

I am doing my best not to smoke those filthy cigarettes though I use only filtered ones and afterall, you haven't made it illegal to smoke, have you? And aren't you enjoying the pleasures the revenue brings in?

I know dear Nanny you would much prefer we inhale the smoke from your unregulated, unmonitored industrial stacks which surround many of our communities. That's a better way to contract the many cancers from the chronic inhalation of those pollutants because it's so good for the economy - isn't it? The more we smoke the more we can please you, Nanny.

Please dear Nanny....... will you show us kiddies photographs of the innards of those who smoked from industrial stacks? We love looking at your pictures.
Posted by dickie, Monday, 16 April 2007 7:37:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fickle Pickle, you said

"There is no difference between the money I give as taxes and the money a company uses on advertising."

I think that there is a massive difference. Each fortnight my employer hands over a significant proportion of my income to the Australian Government, likewise almost every purchase I make includes a component that goes to the government. In most cases there are no viable legal alternatives - if I wish to earn an income then I pay income tax.

If I don't like a particular company I can generally choose to avoid their products (and thereby avoid giving them money), I may choose a company which spends less on advertising or who advertises more ethically. Which bank thinks gender violence is funny (and seems to like long queues)?.

The whole thing might be more palatable if the issues targetted were a bit less selective, we are in yet another round of government spending on the Violence against women campaign with not a sign of any advertising against violence against men, even if the 2 to 15% figure was accepted (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/violence/domestic/default.asp) I should still see the occasional add telling men that they don't have to accept violence at the hands of a female partner(http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf, http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm, http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf, http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html for an alternative view on the rates)

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 16 April 2007 7:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I notice in his sarcastic diatribe on taxpayer funded government ad campaigns Peter Saunders overlooked Workchoices. Quite an omission considering the relentless ad campaign accompanying its introduction late last year. If you want to talk about a "nanny state" then government feather-bedding of rich mates would surely fit the bill.
Posted by DavidJS, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 8:51:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy