The principle of the Laffer Curve is so easy to understand that even David Heatherington should have been able to grasp it.

If governments levy no taxes, they get no income. If governments impose 100% tax, they get no income either because nobody would be stupid enough to work. Between these two extremes is a curve, and there must be an optimum tax rate where the curve peaks and where increasing taxes reduces tax return. Where that spot is may be hard to pick. But common sense says that it must exist.

I think that David is another Socialist who thinks that money grows on trees and all government need to do to finance David's pet social theories is to keep on increasing taxes on "the rich" (read, ordinary taxpayers) forever. It is the kind of thinking which caused every productive member of Detroit society to abandon their houses and walk away from Detroit.

Could somebody please send David a copy of 'The Golden Goose" as one vital part of his education was missed in kindergarten.

Reality check to David. There are very productive members of any society, productive members of society, non productive members, and counter productive members. Any policy which increases the numbers of the first two catagories is good for society. Any policy which drives them away and simply increases the numbers of welfare dependent and crime prone members of society, is bad for that society.

Thinking that all you need to do is to tax the productive until they either flee or hunker down, while increasing the non productive to gain political power by promising them that the government will give them money forever, is what got Greece into it's sorry state. The welfare state can only work where the numbers of dependent do not increase over the capacity of the productive to pay for them. That is why immigration demographics is very important. Importing people from strife prone ethnicities who will become social, crime, and terrorism problems is a recipe for bankruptcy.

Brains are like hearts, David. They go to where they are appreciated.

Lego, did you know that the richer a person is, the less tax they pay?

The reason is that they can afford to employ experts in tax avoidance. Average wage or salary earners can't.

It's a scheme that has advantaged the rich immensely and helps to explain why 1% of folk have most of the wealth.

Nice work if you can get it but it's not fair!

Then the greedy don't care about things like fairness, do they?

I'd always assumed Laffer to be an eminent economist and his curve to be something he'd spent months, if not years, calculating. But then I saw him on Lateline and realised... the man's an idiot! His curve was nothing more than an attempt to explain his concept to an American president. He doesn't have a clue where the peak is but he supports rightwing economic policies despite strong evidence of their ineffectiveness.

____________________________________________________________________________________

LEGO, I think you misunderstand David's criticism. The concept of the Laffer Curve is simple enough, but there's always an opportunity cost. In terms of your own reality check, spending money on improving the productivity of the unproductive and slightly productive and making the counterproductive productive is likely to be a more effective way to boost revenue than cutting the top tax rate.

BTW, though it's of little relevance (because it doesn't affect where the peak is and nowhere has that much tax anyway, your claim that "If governments impose 100% tax, they get no income either because nobody would be stupid enough to work" is incorrect as financial gain isn't the only thing that motivates people to work.

And as for immigration demographics, assumptions about people's behaviour based on their ethnicity are often why they became refugees in the first place! Spending billions locking them up on remote islands is a waste of money, as we could instead let them come to Australia to work. The only condition should be a commitment to oppose all terrorists.

Yes LEGO, you seem to grasp reality.

Some very simple maths for those who have a vested interest in the current status quo?

If all the tax we pay, is just 4% of the GNP, and if the GNP is the sum total of our combined expenditure?

Then an entirely unavoidable 5% tax on that expenditure will raise more revenue? 75-100 billion more per?

And this very simplicity would completely negate the need for any tax compliance/reconciliation costs? Returning 7% averaged to the new net bottom line!

It's really very simple maths! 5% taken, 7% returned to the gross/new net; which is 2% better off and after the total tax take/common commitment has been automatically collected;fee free by the banking fraternity!

In return for a banking licence, and transferred overnight electronically to treasury, where no reconciliation issues would ensue, and therefore immediately available to consolidated revenue!

Which would also mitigate against needing to borrow against expected income, to run this or that department!

And while we are examining long overdue real reform, why don't we just decide, once and for all, who funds what?

I mean a direct funding model, plus total autonomy for both health and education, would completely obviate the need to also collect a GST!

And given the same basket of money is not rerouted through this or that state treasury, release as much as an additional 30% for pro rata coal face funding/allow rationalization to finally replace the dogs breakfast of funding control and huge over-government!

Look, we have with just one exception, more politicians and or bureaucrats pro rata, than any other nation on earth.

Elsewhere the essential work done by extremely expensive state Parliaments; can be done by a single state Governor; elected in a winner takes all election; and accompanied around a dozen personally hand picked competent administrators!

Meaning, he/she is only constrained in doing what needs to be done by the size of the budget, rather than an obfuscating, obtuse, obdurate, obstructionist opposition, forever with its eye on the prize, and to hell with the state or the country!
Rhrosty.

To Aiden.

The idea that social workers just need money to make non productive and counter productive people into productive people is ridiculous. It assumes that the parasitic class have equal intelligences to productive people, and that they all just want an opportunity to show their stuff to make them valued members of society. How many times does this utopian Socialist vision need to be proven wrong before people like yourself figure out that it is wrong?

For example.

The Rudd Labor government instituted the Remote Jobs and Communities Program to alleviate the high levels of chronic unemployment by remote area aborigines. It was not that there was no work to do in these communities, but all the work was being done by fly in/fly out white workers who did whatever was necessary, from building new homes, repairing old homes, and maintaining power, roads, electricity and water services.

The $1.5 billion dollar program has been an abject failure. Only 30% of the 37,000 aboriginal people on unemployment even bothered to apply for the program, which involved contracted "Providers" in each of 60 declared "remote" regions, who's job was to work with individuals, communities, and local employers to find jobs for aborigines.

The costings reveal that an incredible $430,000 thousand dollars was spent by the program to place each aboriginal worker in any job which lasted more than six months. And only 30% of those jobs involved "structured work with mutual obligations." Exactly what this bureaucratic diseased English quote means is anybodies guess. But I opine that it means that 70% of the jobs bought for $430,000 dollars by the Aussie taxpayer involved nothing more than the candidate picking up litter from around their community, if he or she felt like it.

60% of the Northern Territory education budget goes to indigenous schools where NAPLAN tests have a 90% failure rate. It is estimated that 75,000 "remote area" aborigines are receiving $100,000 dollar per person in direct government assistance or in assistance to keep aboriginal settlements economically solvent.

No amount of extra revenue through increased taxes will change the inconvenient truth.

LEGO, you're the only one so far who has mentioned social workers, and IMO they're only a small part of the solution. It makes no assumptions at all about equal intelligence, but avoids the false assumption that those with low intelligence are a "parasitic class".

Of course opportunity is not itself a panacea. But lack of opportunity is the biggest obstacle that needs to be addressed, and addressing it requires a sustained commitment.

I notice your badly researched criticism of the RJCP has said nothing about the most important aspect: how successful has it been in enabling the locals to replace FIFO workers?

The whole point of NAPLAN is to divert funding to where it's most needed. And keeping remote communities going (regardless of whether the inhabitants are aboriginal) is expensive, but nation building is a long term process. I favour speeding it up rather than giving up.

To Aiden

I apologise for saying that people with low intelligence are a parasitic class, because some of them are not. But generally, people with low intelligence are a real social problem. Most of our ever increasing welfare bill is aimed at buying the votes of this demographic, and the Labor Party in particular is foremost in purchasing their votes through increasing welfare. Labor also has a vested interest in increasing the numbers of people in welfare in order to provide a growing reliable constituency.

So it is no surprise that Labor under Rudd swept away John Howard's successful program to prevent boat people crashing Australia's borders in order to help themselves to our welfare system. Nor is it a surprise that in NSW, Labor's heartland has become the six largely Muslim electorates of Sydney with their high levels of welfare dependency and serious criminal behaviour. Nor is it surprising that Labor, once a staunch ally of Israel under Bob Hawk, has now reversed it's position to keep in sweet with it's new Muslim constituency.

Aiden, Australia is now $350 billion dollars in dept and our leaders can't keep buying votes by telling poor dumb people that if they vote for them the government will give them money. This is anathema to the social welfare professionals, who keep claiming that they can solve every social ill if the government just keeps giving them more money. And more money. And more money. Their record has been abysmal. 60% of the education allocation in the NT to produce 90% failure in NAPLAN tests? Your kidding. $430,000 to place an aboriginal in a job for six months? Your kidding.

Mr Laffer has conclusively proven that simply increasing taxes forever will result in ever lower tax revenue. This is definitely not what the bureaucrats and social workers want to hear. Fleecing taxpayers to finance their ever failing social schemes and build their empires is what they live for. Margaret Thatcher was absolutely correct when she stated that Socialism can never win, because sooner or later, Socialists run out of other people's money to spend.

LEGO you have my admiration. How you can have the patience to bother to try to show the truth to these people amazes me.

With so many, like this author, you could surgically implant the truth in their brains, but it would be a waste of time. They would still refuse to see it.

LEGO, what you should apologise for is basing your comments on your own prejudices rather than the facts!

While I don't dispute that there are problems associated with people of low intelligence, your claim about our "ever increasing welfare bill" is false. Pensioners are by far the biggest welfare demographic, both in cost and claimant numbers. Your claims about welfare spending under Labor are totally baseless; unemployment was lowest under Rudd. And the Howard government seem to have been more keen on welfare spending, though they tended to direct it at those who didn't really need the money.

Boat people were NEVER "crashing Australia's borders in order to help themselves to our welfare system". Apart from freedom from persecution, Australia's two biggest drawcards are the fact that we speak english and the opportunities for those who work. And just how "largely Muslim" are those electorates? I've been to Auburn, and while there are noticeably more Muslims there than most parts of Australia, it still seems to be a small fraction of the total population.

As for Israel, its own actions have made it unworthy of our staunch alliance. In Israel and Palestine there are those who want peace and those who don't, and the latter group are often in power. So if peace is our objective, our support must be conditional.

Australia has unlimited credit (as we own the RBA) so being $350 billion in debt is not a limiting factor. But this votebuying strategy of our leaders is not real; it only exists in the minds of rightwing bigots!

(continued)

The whole point of NAPLAN tests is to direct the money to address the failures. But it takes time.

If the RJCP has really spent $430 000 just to find jobs for Aborigines then there's something seriously wrong with it. But spending that much per person to train them to replace FIFO workers could be a good investment. Unless you look past the headlines and see what's really going on, your opinions aren't worth much.

Nobody, not even "the bureaucrats and social workers" advocates "simply increasing taxes forever". Technological progress means we will be able to do more with less in the future. Meanwhile the top tax rate is far below the revenue peak.

Thatcher didn't understand socialism, or indeed many aspects of money, and though some of her actions were good, many of her economic decisions turned out to be false economies.

I love your reasoning Aiden. My comments are just "prejudice", while your own opinions are of course not based upon prejudice, they are beyond reproach.

I lived through that part of Australia's history when welfare numbers began to increase exponentially. It began with the election of the Whitlam Labor government when almost an entire generation of working class and dependent class young people found that it was child's play to get on the dole and go surfing every day. People turned up at the CES (Commonwealth Employment Service) claiming that they were Lion Tamers and if the CES could not find a job for them, then they had to give them the dole. There was even a book printed in Britain entitled something like "How to Holiday in Australia at the Aussie Taxpayers Expense."

I myself once briefly worked in a CES office in Haymarket in Sydney and saw with my own eyes a block long column of Asians lining up for welfare benefits which I did not even know existed. I saw with my own eyes a Muslim woman in a full burkha with no eyes visible at all claiming welfare because she could not get a job as a receptionist. I could repeat a lot more, but with only 350 words per post, I am can't repeat all I saw.

But you claim this is just prejudice. No Aiden, it is reality.

I know that you desperately want to believe that you can solve every social problem on earth by spending money which simply falls from the sky, but I am afraid that your perception of reality is false. I know that you want to think that every boat person is a victim of persecution, but that is wrong also. Man Harim Monis, an Iranian criminal who murdered two of your own people after falsely claiming asylum in Australia and then engaging in massive welfare fraud while doing whatever he could to show his contempt for our society, was the result of your muddle headed thinking, not mine.

Post 2 to Aiden.

In 1965, 3 % of the working age population in Australia was on welfare benefits. Now 16 % of adults rely on welfare. In 1965 there were 22 taxpayers for every one person on welfare; now the number is 5. Extrapolate forward (bearing in mind that most baby boomers have yet to retire,) and unless you are suffering from intellectual impairment, then visions of Greece, Spain, Cyprus and Detroit should be materialising in front of your eyes.

The leaders of these countries were acutely aware decades ago what the consequences would be if they did not reign in their welfare spending to buy votes. But there must have been too many Aiden's and David G's among them whom refused to recognise self evident reality. That reality was once again defined by non other than Margaret Thatcher, a grocer's daughter with two university degrees, who said that "Every housewife knows that you can not spend more than you earn." Like irresponsible creditors with a new credit card, the leaders of these states borrowed until they could borrow no more, and they wished away their problems until the bailiffs arrived.

One definition of "Insanity" is "doing the wrong thing, over and over again."

With the spectacle of the social and economic theories of Socialism a clear and present failure, with the spectacle of countries who will never reign in their spending becoming insolvent and bankrupt, one would think that a person like yourself, Aiden, would quickly come to the conclusion that austerity and reigning in massive welfare fraud would be a government priority. But no, like a person told by a doctor that they are dying of cancer, your first reaction is Denial. It can't be happening. It is happening, Aiden.

As for NAPLAN, these tests have been opposed by the long haired men and short haired women of every education Department in Australia. They do not want unwelcome comparisons made between the educational success of certain ethnic groups and the academic failure of others. That would contravene their infallible belief that all races and ethnicities are equal.

LEGO, of course my comments aren't beyond reproach. If you can spot any actual errors then by all means tell me. But don't assume the rorting of thirty years ago still exists; those days are long gone and the loopholes just aren't there any more. And don't post lies like "Most of our ever increasing welfare bill is aimed at buying the votes of this demographic, and the Labor Party in particular is foremost in purchasing their votes through increasing welfare". That's prejudice. Have a look at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/interactive-budget-2013-where-will-your-tax-go/4682404 to see the reality of where the money is spent.

What you think you know about me is wrong. I don't think money can solve every social problem on earth, but I do think that it can cure or prevent a lot of the social problems in Australia. I don't think money falls from the sky, but nor do I make the false assumptions about its creation that you do. And nor do I think that every boat person is a victim of persecution. But most are and I make no apologies for thinking Australia should NEVER become the persecutors.

And Monis was not the result of my "muddle headed way of thinking" any more than yours.

To Aiden

I take exception to your premise that my opinions are "prejudice" and yours are not. Your opinion, is that all you have to do to end poverty is to keep on increasing taxes on "the rich". That is your prejudice. The Laffer Curve is easy to understand and it proves that you are wrong. I know this is a shock for you. You just do not want to think that the flow of money from governments to your pet causes can ever stop flowing.

You are correct to say that the more outrageous welfare fraud from thirty years ago are not tolerated today. What you fail to acknowledge is that when these frauds were being perpetrated in the past on the Australian taxpayer, people with your mindset at that time were claiming that they did not exist. I can still remember one Labor Party luminaire ( I forget which one) who made a public statement in Whitlam's administration that dole bludgers were an invention of the right wing press. That was news to me, I lived in a Housing Commission area and I was surrounded by dole bludgers.

Today, people with that idiotic mindset are represented by people like your good self who simply refuse to acknowledge self evident reality. According to one article in the SMH, the largely Muslim suburb of Auburn has the nations highest proportion of long term unemployment. We are importing people into this country who are little more than a crime problem and a drain on our economies. The figures are startling, 95% unemployment among Afghan "refugees" and 88% unemployment among "Iranians" like your friend Man Haron Monis.

In Europe, 50% of Muslims are unemployed and European countries are facing bankruptcy plus crime and terrorism problems. Why we Australia wants to emulate self evident European failure is something you could please explain to me. The only beneficiaries of these stupid immigration policies are our troublesome and welfare dependent minorities and their Labor Party representatives, plus the legal profession, the social worker profession, our ever expanding prison system, ASIO, and our Police forces.

LEGO, of course you take exception to my claims of prejudice on your part. But when you post blatantly false claims blaming problems on particular groups, what other explanation is there? I have pointed out where you have done this, and of course you're welcome to do likewise you find any similar errors in what I've written.

But what you regard as my prejudice is actually conclusive proof of yours, as it is based on a prejudiced assumption about what my opinion is. For nowhere have I said that "all you have to do to end poverty is to keep on increasing taxes on the rich", and it is not what I believe.

Furthermore, not only does the Laffer Curve not prove me wrong, but it doesn't even prove that someone of the opinion you wrongly ascribe to me is wrong. To do that you'd need to show where we are on the curve. You haven't done that, Laffer hasn't done that, and AFAIK everyone who has done that has found we're a long way to the left of the peak.

If you want to disprove that "all you have to do to end poverty is to keep on increasing taxes on the rich" is wrong then forget the Laffer Curve and look at the actual poverty and what it would take to end it.

Thirty years ago I had never even been to Australia, so I don't know who was claiming what. So please direct your answers at me, not the stereotypical mindset you assume me to represent. Monis was never my friend.

To Aiden.

"Prejudice" quite literally means "to pre judge" and everybody does that. Prejudging without hearing all the impartial evidence may be considered wrong in a legal trial, but not in everyday life where it is impossible to make everyday decisions using unbiased information combined with objective reasoning. It is an everyday occurrence to everyone on planet Earth. Some moron, somewhere, claimed that prejudging in everyday life was wrong, and every person with a small mind who could not think straight began parroting this mantra because they thought it made them appear intelligent.

Human beings think by stereotyping concepts. To say that people should not stereotype because their stereotype could be wrong, is exactly like saying that people should not think because their thinking could be wrong.

Your erroneous prejudgement is to think that the reason we have poor people is because the rich are not paying enough tax to create equal outcomes. It assumes that everybody is equal in intelligence and if we just spend more money, everybody will have near equal lifestyles.

My correct prejudgement is that most poor people are poor because they have low intelligence and usually a genetic predisposition to violence and impulsive behaviour, and that low intelligence, impulsiveness, and a genetic proneness to violence is hereditary. Therefore, importing people into this country from ethnic and religious groups already notorious for their dysfunctional cultures and lifestyles is an exercise in stupidity which no amount of "taxing the rich" is ever going to fix.

The principle of the Laffer Curve is as easy to understand as the story of "The Golden Gosse" and I am sorry if it's self evident logic is beyond you.

You were a friend to Man Haron Monis because he was imported into Australia because of the actions of people with your particular mindset, not by people with my particular mindset who were his enemies. We correctly prejudged him and his country shopping asylum seekers as generally frauds, parasites, people divisive of our social cohesion, and dangerous to boot.

“Yet between Reagan’s election in 1980 and his departure from office in 1989, the federal government’s tax revenues as a share of GDP fell from 19.0% to 18.4%.”

I’m not sure of your point here David. Didn’t the tax, even after taking inflation into account, still actually rise, even if a lower % of the GDP. Isn’t that the whole virtue of Supply Side Economics? The government gets more in exchange for letting the producers make even more.
Are you unhappy because the government, and all its hangers on, don’t get the same “piece of the action” for doing nothing, as they have become accustomed to?

Struth, LEGO, it's taken you just two days to go from taking exception to my identifying your comments as prejudice to openly defending prejudice! But your defence is pretty weak. There's nothing wrong with forming an initial opinion before the facts are known, but there's everything wrong with using that opinion to condemn people. And there's a lot wrong with continuing to spread your erroneous initial opinion once the facts become readily available.

Stereotyping is generally an ineffective way of thinking. Reasoning becomes far more effective when you question your assumptions.

Again you accuse me of having an "erroneous prejudgement" because you assume me to have an opinion that I don't actually have. Where did you get the crazy idea that equality of outcome was my objective?

You claim that your "correct prejudgement is that most poor people are poor because they have low intelligence and usually a genetic predisposition to violence and impulsive behaviour". Where's your proof? Or by "correct" do you actually mean "arrogant"?

Poverty doesn't equate to low intelligence, and IMO a predisposition to violence is more likely to be due to lead exposure than genetics (but I'm willing to consider evidence to the contrary if you have any). As for "dysfunctional cultures and lifestyles", shouldn't people have an opportunity to escape those?

As my posts on this thread have demonstrated, I understand the principle of the Laffer Curve perfectly, but you don't seem to.

Prejudging people is one of the biggest barriers to social cohesion, and it was not needed to stop Monis. His asylum claim was always regarded as dubious and there was ample opportunity to deport him once his bad character became clear.

To Aiden.

I took exception to you claiming that my opinions are prejudice while yours are the result of critical thinking. Everybody prejudges just like everybody stereotypes. I can't wait to catch you doing it yourself and I will catch you, sooner or later. Because everybody does it to think, and I have caught every single one of the people who claim that stereotyping is wrong doing it themselves.

If you oppose my premise that most poor people are poor because they have low intelligence and a genetic predisposition to violence and compulsive behaviour, then you must believe the opposite. Where is your proof that everybody on planet Earth is equal in every way in respects to intelligence, physical ability and personality?

Most people who are at the bottom of society are as dumb as dogshiit and I should know, I once lived in a Housing Commission complex of 84 flats and my neighbours had to be seen to be believed. Ever met a 29 year old grandmother? I have. My own cousins daughter has had 4 kids to her husband and 2 to her husbands son, who had a different mother. Her husband was almost voted "unmarried father of the year" because he has illegitimate kids everywhere.

Disadvantaged people with brains are usually upwardly mobile and they can easily attain the status of working class. But the dumb ones will never rise above their status because they are too lazy to work, too dumb to educate themselves, and too crafty to work when the government will give them the dole. There are presently 850,000 Disability Support Pensioners which is more wounded than we had in WW1 and WW 2 combined. But you can't smell a rat because your humanitarian beliefs that poor people are just lacking opportunity, and all we need to do is keep screwing "the rich" (read ordinary taxpayers) and keep shovelling money into our welfare black hole and everything will eventually be hunky dory.

But it neve happens, Aiden. One reason is because we insist on importing dumb people and poverty.

Here is something for you to chew on, Aiden

The Daily Telegraph 10/11/14

THIRTY eight members of the same Western Sydney family fraudulently claimed more than $2 million in Disability Support Pension and other welfare payments.

One person claiming income support paid $300,000 off a mortgage in just over two years, while another claimed support despite earning an undeclared income from owning three properties. The web of family fraudsters was uncovered following a tip a dodgy Western Sydney businessman had failed to declare his income.

Department of Human Services investigators found a network of fake claims from the businessman and 37 of his family members and cut welfare payments to 19 people and referred five to the Director of Public Prosecutions. “From a single piece of information, the ¬department’s specialist fraud team uncovered a web of people dishonestly claiming payments,” Human Services Minister Senator Marise Payne said.

One claimant paid almost $1 million into a bank account over 11 years without ever ¬declaring any income.

Then there is this one from the USA. I sure that you think this guy is a genius who persecuted and should immediately immigrate to Australia.

Man fathers 21 children by 11 different women... and he's only 29
A man aged 29 has fathered 21 children with 11 different women, it emerged yesterday.

Desmond Hatchett's brood came to light after authorities in Tennessee in the U.S. took him to court for non-payment of child support. He has apparently set a U.S. record but said: 'It just happened.' Hatchett, who earns a minimal wage, told TV reporters he knows the names and ages of all his offspring. Their ages range from newborn to 11 years old.

Authorities in Knoxville said they plan to take half of his monthly salary to pay for the youngsters but officials said that would work out to just over $2 a week for each. His lawyer Keith Pope said: 'The children can't all be supported by Desmond, so the state of Tennessee has had to step in.'

Many Knoxville residents called for him to be castrated

LEGO, the situation you took exception to turned out to be the truth. You've admitted your opinions were the result of prejudice, whereas you appear to have accepted my explanation as to why mine (so far) were not. I welcome your eagerness to find an exception.

It is a logical fallacy that someone opposing a premise must believe the opposite. I'm actually quite surprised to discover you didn't know that, but it explains an awful lot!

I do not recall meeting a 29 year old grandmother, and I don't see their existence as evidence of moral decline; quite the reverse, for it shows that pregnant teenagers are resisting the temptation to get abortions. But I have to admit your family's really screwed up!

Many people can get work easily. Others can't. And when there's not enough work available in the area, those who can't are disproportionately affected whether their intelligence is high or low.

Australia's population in the early 20th century was low, so it's hardly surprising that those Ausssies wounded in the world wars number fewer than those currently on disability pensions. And I don't think it's more welfare spending that's the main thing needed to fix the lack of opportunity. Welfare spending has a small part to pay but often increased infrastructure and education spending are just as effective and ultimately self funding.

What I said, Aiden, was that everybody prejudges. None of us walk around in a state of objectivity, because it takes too long to make everyday decisions based entirely upon objective reasoning. Our everyday judgements, and how we react to certain situations, are a result of our prior experiences, our cultural conditioning, and our degree of emotional maturity.

When somebody opposes a premise, then deducing that they believe in the opposite, is a reasonable assumption. Especially when dealing with people with your particular mindset. One of the most serious social problems we have today, is the existence and the growing influence of educated young people who are short on life experiences and long on the presumption that they are smarter and more morally upright than everybody else in society. (despite their high ingestion rate of controlled substances)

Their class is not necessarily defined by wealth or status, but it is most definitely defined by their attitudes. And if you sprout the nonsense that all we need to do to solve our social problems is to keep raising taxes and spend them on education and "infrastructure", then that is one of the defining opinions of this caste. Other stereotypical attitudes which define them include opposition to the death penalty, a sneering contempt for nationalism, opposition to racism, advocacy of free expression, and the three "R"s (Republic, Refugees, and Reconciliation.)

Two thirds of the NT education budget is spent "educating" aboriginal children for a 90% failure rate in NAPLAN exams. That fact should have stimulated some neuronal activity in your impervious to reality mind in regards to any prejudice you may have that all people and races have equal intelligence. And it should have caused some objective critical thinking concerning your subjective pre judgement that all we need to do is spend more money on educating those who are falling behind, and soon poverty will end and the disadvantaged class will largely cease to exist.

That won't happen Aiden, because we insist on importing third world dumb people, and dumb people breed faster than smart people.

LEGO, everybody may prejudge but that doesn't make it right. When someone identifies your prejudice, the sensible response is not to take exception but instead to check whether they are right, then correct your errors if they are, and better explain your position if they're not.

When somebody opposes a premise, then deducing that they believe in the opposite, is an unreasonable and assumption, especially when they've informed you your previous assumptions about their beliefs have been wrong. And your statement that I must believe the opposite was idiotic. Seriously. Did you honestly think that you know more about what I believe than I do?

I share some attributes of the "class" you feel so threatened by. Others I don't share at all. And when you say "everybody else in society" I strongly suspect you're extrapolating that from their attitude to you.

While the idea that I think all people and all races are of equal intelligence is something you're desperately trying to cling to because you disbelieve information that contradicts your prejudice, the fact remains that differences in intelligence between racial groups are small compared to differences within racial groups. And objective critical thinking involves looking beyond the statistics to the reasons behind them. I couldn't find the NAPLAN figures you were referring to, but when I looked I discovered that many remote Aboriginal communities are inherently disadvantaged in the NAPLAN tests, especially in the early years, because English is not their first language and many are not fluent in English when they take the test. So a lower result than elsewhere may not be an indication of failure (there may still be failure, but more information is needed).

And can you stop all this crap about my assuming "all we need to do is..."? If you based your responses on my actual words rather than your dumb prejudice, you'd see that though I say some of these things are worth doing, I never claim we don't need to do anything else.