Hello Angry Oak

Could you please tell me just what you think is wrong with the Greens tax policies which you listed yesterday?

As Mikk says, they would actually look good to a lot of people.

Of course, any significant degree of tax reform is going to disadvantage some people to some extent. Tax reform that changes the balance in favour of the little bloke and makes the big bloke who already has heaps of money fork out a little bit more has got to be a good thing, surely.

But of course, changes of this sort need to be done very carefully so that people don’t get significantly disadvantaged to the point where their businesses become unviable or their rather small incomes get significantly reduced.

There will always be a lot of opposition and suspicion from people that could really benefit from these sorts of changes. And of course, there will be vehement opposition from the big and powerful end of town.

But in the end, we NEED these sorts of reforms, very badly. We need to break down the gap between the rich and the poor, break down the us-and-them mentality and implement a system that helps alleviate the very strong feeling in the general community that our government is in bed with big business.

What a BIZARRE article!

Dan Denning calls James Lee crazy!!

As CJ Morgan would say:

Pot, meet kettle!

Part 1

Ludwig, Mika
I’d be delighted. You will excuse grammatical errors as I am writing this in my 15 minutes for Lunch.

Let me illustrate it this way, I ask you to suspend your current ideology and consider the following;

Hypothetically, Let’s try your "redistribution of wealth" tax reforms. For the sake of argument, lets restrict the trial to an island.... a place that is green friendly, let’s say Tasmania. Further, let’s assume that all taxation that Tasmania generates is allocated wholly to Tasmania and it receives no federal assistance.

Now for some policies!

In Tasmania we will:-

• Increasing the availability of welfare and significantly Increase welfare payments such as Old age pensioners, disabled, unemployment, family benefits recipients, sole parent benefit and many more.

• remove all tax incentives for the wealthy and increase the marginal tax rate to 50%

• Remove all tax deductions to those on the higher marginal rate.

• Bring in death taxes for higher income earners.

• Increase company tax.

• Increase the cost of carbon emitters – coal fire stations, manufacture sectors, thus increasing the “expense” section of all business balance sheets.

• 100% renewable energy – NUCLEAR FREE

• Allow open borders.

Here we won’t even explore their other policies, just the ones listed.
Now remember, mainland Australia has not made these changes, they only exist in Tasmania. What do you think the implications would be for:

Im presuming angry has hit his post limit for the day. Dont ya hate when that happens. It brings good debates to a shuddering halt and they can be hard to pick up again. Or maybe his 15 minutes ran out and he forgot to come back after work. Never mind. Its been a big day.
Ill have a go at what you put up so far.

• Increasing the availability of welfare and significantly Increase welfare payments such as Old age pensioners, disabled, unemployment, family benefits recipients, sole parent benefit and many more.

Why do this? Why not create some jobs, build some badly needed infrastructure, hire a few more teachers, police, firemen, doctors, nurses. A much better idea than handing out more welfare.

• remove all tax incentives for the wealthy and increase the marginal tax rate to 50%

I would raise it to 90% for income over $1 million a year. Progressive taxation was what payed for all the infrastructure we have run down for decades. All the roads and sewers and railways and dams and electric networks. Bridges, hospitals, schools. All neglected and in desperate need of replacement. Think of all the money companies would have to actually put towards producing if they stopped paying such massive salaries. Which they would do if heavy progressive taxation was reintroduced.

• Remove all tax deductions to those on the higher marginal rate.

Remove all tax deductions for everyone. I really like the greens idea.
"26.implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax system from work based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution." That and a tax on unused land and capital gains tax increased.

• Bring in death taxes for higher income earners.

Absolutely. Unearned money is immoral and receiving massive inheritances is against everything our so called meritocracy stands for. Surely you can see the inequity of someone receiving millions/billions just because their father died not because they had earned it. Especially compared to someone who works like a dog but doesnt have rich parents. What did James Packer do to "earn" his

billions? Yes daddy no daddy three bags full daddy. Woo now I get a billion dollars. Death taxes give us all a vaguely even start.

• Increase company tax.

Sounds fine. We have one of the best, most stable and educated countries in our region. We attract many companies here because of that. It is right that business pay a premium for our high standards. they would also benefit from the increased infrastructure spending, lowering of crime etc.

• Increase the cost of carbon emitters – coal fire stations, manufacture sectors, thus increasing the “expense” section of all business balance sheets.

Unless they start economising and stop waste. Plenty of businesses have found many ways they could cut back on energy use and save themselves some money in the process.

• 100% renewable energy – NUCLEAR FREE

Sounds good and if I remember rightly that is actually the case in Tasmania as we speak. They even have an excess that they sell to Victoria. Gotta love the hydro. Maybe Tasmania wasnt such a good choice for an example.

• Allow open borders.

Within quarantine and sustainability limitations. Although a move towards open borders for people worldwide would suit me fine. Why is it that only money can move freely around the world but not people. Most people love their place/country of birth and wish to remain there if they can. That they cant or that they suffer deprivation if they do shames all of us and is something I will always fight to rectify.

What would the implications be?
A lot more public works and infrastructure that will benefit all of the population. More doctors, teachers, police etc. Less, or better still no, unemployment. Less crime and drugs and alienation and antisocial behavior. Less pollution and hopefully less climate change. Less wealthy businesses and individuals willing and able to corrupt our representatives with their "donations". Less hereditary families of ingrates like the packers and the murdochs.
There would definitely be much more and probably a few problems and difficultys as well but its getting late and I need some sleep.

Sorry for my abrupt departure, Family health disaster.

Part 2

Here we won’t even explore their other policies, just the ones listed.
Now remember, mainland Australia has not made these changes, they only exist in Tasmania. What do you think the implications would be for:

1) Those on the mainland who are currently on welfare. These include Old age pensioners, disabled, unemployment, family benefits recipient, sole parent benefit and many more- My view is that welfare dependent people on the mainland would identify that Tasmania has easier access and much higher payments. You would witness an increase of welfare dependent individuals flocking to Tasmania (as seen in Canada’s British Columbia).

2) Current manufacturers. – my view is that manufacturers would quickly identify that if they move to the mainland, they would be subject to a lower tax. It is obvious that many would leave Tasmania and relocate on the mainland, if not immediately, then at a particular point.

3) Mining companies – although there a many great deposits in Tasmania, they are unable to be “relocated” – my view, any future project that the company would look to invest in would probably be made on the mainland, where there too are many great deposits (Qld & WA), but can be extracted more profitably.

4) Entrepreneurs and high income earners. My view, if they can do their same work or job on the mainland, then they would be mad not to go.

5) Wind, solar, to be used, with no back up coal powered fire station (or the sensible option of nuclear). Backups can’t be considered in the case of poor conditions conducive to renewables because as you know, these can’t be turned on with a flick of a switch. Such back ups would have to be running continually to be effective at all. Remember that the population may increase (open borders significantly) – My view, people would object to constant power outages because of conditions (we are talking today’s technology.