Jardine, your problem is that you think North Korea is the only form of big government.

Thus you resort to making preposterous accusations, such as that I think North Korea is the ideal form of government..

"We have already established that your drivel about governmental efficiency, and its supposed superiority at economising, has no rational basis, and conceives no rational limit on government power."
We have established nothing of the sort!

Consider thhe school halls scheme: very inefficient in NSW and Victoria where the cash strapped governments have lost the capability to do that sort of thing efficiently, yet very efficient in WA where the cashed up government retained the capability.

IMO they turn the argument of tax collection to GST because they are scared stiff that a review of the tax laws and closing of the legal minimization which have grown over the years as we heard more off with the late Kerry Packer paying legally $10 a year in income tax over a three year period. And saying to the Senate Hearing he would spend more on tax if they spent his contributions more wisely.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. Governments, particularly socialist, have spent more than revenue collected and wasted most of it on schemes that didnt work. Whilst all parties collect those fat donations for their war chests to be re-elected to the Gravy Train, not to make them pay their fair and equitable share of actual income whereas the worker on PAYG has no choice as tax taken at source.

One way to raise revenue would be to make all incomes subject to PAYG and for second or other incomes like for Board members of several then a set percentage figure of income tax, to be reviewed on yearly returns.

Late Kerry Packer as example. Legally paying $10 a year for 3 years and still they don't actually have the complete income listed. Just what collected by Senate Review.


Certainly simplistic and would if brought in here apart from cause an outcry from the overpaid public servants and others on obscene salaries but would be popular with all working people as the resulting increase would go far to solve the problems we face of debt and shrinking revenue. Problem is no one party is willing to do this of seemingly review income tax laws which allow for no disclosure of incomes for those NOT on PAYG - hardly equitable but then democracy has been 'tweaked' over the years and not for the better. Like our way of electing officers to govern us. Corrupted by compulsory and preferential voting as well giving more than one vote one value

The problem is not a revenue issue, it is an expenditure issue.

Health costs are rising faster than GDP and the fed and state govs are struggling to cope with this which is why the co payment is so important.

The second source of cost increases is the local government's desires to act as agents of increasing social change, trying to provide services that are out of their purview

Shadow, your post epitomises the stupidity of this this government's way of thinking!

First without reason you declare the problem not to be a revenue issue.
Then with scant evidence you declare it to be an expenditure issue. You don't consider why health costs are rising faster than GDP, let alone how the healthcare process can be made more efficient. Instead you advocate a moronic false economy that, by discouraging early intervention, would probably see costs balloon.

And what's local government got to do with it?

Aidan
Re-circulating your stupid circularity doesn't make it make sense.

It just means you keep saying what you can't defend and either know is untrue, or are too dumb to understand.

"Consider the school halls scheme: very inefficient in NSW and Victoria where the cash strapped governments have lost the capability to do that sort of thing efficiently, yet very efficient in WA where the cashed up government retained the capability."

Can you see the stupid circularity in what you have just said? Because if you're genuinely so stupid that you can't see it, then you need to shut up, go away, and learn the basics of logical thought, before you presume to tell other people the way to a better society.

But if what you're saying is true, then what objection do you have to North Korea's government? Where do you think the governments get the cash from, you fool?

Jardine, my first thought when I read your response was that you'd resumed your moronic habit of posting spherical arguments.

But then I realised that your response wasn't quite as stupid as it first appeared, and you'd merely misinterpreted cause as evidence and on that basis misconstrued my argument as circular.

But it is still an error on your part. So please in future ask for clarification rather than jumping to the incorrect conclusion that an argument is circular!

"But if what you're saying is true, then what objection do you have to North Korea's government?"
Struth, how many objections do you want? Lack of respect for human rights, militarism, lack of political freedom, lack of economic freedom and government spending skewed to cater to a small elite while many people live in extreme poverty are probably the top five, but it might be quicker to ask what objection I don't have to North Korea's government. OTOH maybe it wouldn't, as I'm struggling to think of one.

"Where do you think the governments get the cash from, you fool?"
Well, you ignoramus, I think they get most it from taxes. Some comes from bonds. And in WA's case, a substantial proportion of it came from mining royalties. But the source of the money does not determine the spending efficiency, so why do you ask?