Indyvidual

You caught me by surprise.

At what point does the current unequal system fall over totally by idiotic rule from self appointed self interested top down undemocratic rulers; a manufactured class of their own?

In answer to my own question, traditionally at a point of revolution, preceded by civil disobedience.

Flooding the country with open border policies such as underway in the US, and less obviously in Au under an outrageously loose immigration regime, is hastening the demise of Democratic rule by watering down necessary welfare programmes, forcing the poor to compete with increasing demands from foreigners free flowing into our communities.

The largest fissure to our social system is, as you rightly point out, the abysmal dogs breakfast of domestic housing.

The ruling classes who effectively appoint themselves through quasi-Democracy elections is increasingly a total failure which continues to produce an increasing losing class.

Dan

Dear Everald Compton,

You claim that higher taxes stimulate the economy.

If I am to believe you, then since I find that there is too much economy already, that economy is given an inflated importance and is already artificially overheated, and most importantly, that economy does not happiness bring, then by your logic I ought to support tax cuts.

«I have voted for the best leader or candidate, but never the ‘best’ Party.»

And this you openly boast?
While you play the game of "leaders", your random vote actually determines the laws by which you and the rest of us are forced to live, in real life, serious stuff... whoever surmised that reaching the age of 18 automatically makes one mature enough to vote...

You claim that higher taxes stimulate the economy.
Yuyutsu,
Higher taxes do not stimulate the economy ! Spending stimulates economy. Locally first & then nationally.
Unequal or revenue-less income drains the economy & results in burdening taxpayers, the lower paid in particular.
Where is the economic sense when middlemen/women make more from a product than the producer or the final seller. Where is the economic sense in paying non-revenue creators more than the revenue makers ?
As we approach the pivoting point where the takers outnumber the makers, only a more fair distribution of income can prevent society from collapsing !

Dear Indyvidual,

Economy is not my specialty, so I am in no position to tell whether or not taxes stimulate the economy.

My point was, that as I consider stimulating the economy to be a bad thing, IF the author is correct then I ought to support the lowering of taxes.

Again, when you speak of "economic sense", you should first state your economic goals, you cannot just assume that everyone's goals are identical.

Similarly, you then say that only a more fair distribution of income can prevent society from collapsing: it possibly would (I am not an economist to judge), but what is wrong with society collapsing? unless you can predict what is to replace it, I cannot tell you whether that is good or bad.

As takers outnumber makers, I suggest the takers should learn to be content with less by finding emotional, mental, intellectual and spiritual alternatives to materialism.

Everald didn't claim that higher taxes stimulate the economy. He claimed that government spending stimulates the economy, and that lower taxes were ineffective at stimulating the economy.

I think his point is valid, though slightly overstated. Lower taxes do stimulate the economy, but they tend to be a very inefficient way of doing so.

But what's conspicuously absent from this article is the context of current economic circumstances. When inflation is a problem, stimulating the economy tends not to be such a good idea - currently they're trying to slow the economy by raising interest rates. And if it's a choice between higher taxes with lower interest rates or lower taxes with higher interest rates, I'd go for the latter. Ultimately I think it's better to have abundant opportunity and limited incentive than to have abundant incentive but limited opportunity. Also I think enabling businesses to make more long term investments is good for the economy.

______________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
However "unavoidable" a tax is, people will always find ways to avoid it.

______________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,
If society collapses, it will destroy a lot of innocent people and wreck the lives of many more. Replacement doesn't require revolution - it can and should be a continuous process.

Classifying people as makers and takers is a false dichotomy, as most people are both at different stages of their lives.

Dear Aidan,

You are right, but I was using Indyvidual's terminology in my response to him/her.

I am also glad that you agree with me (even if it is for different reasons) that stimulating the economy is not a good idea.

I wish there would be more consideration for what is good for people rather than what is "good for the economy".