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 > Tax cuts and increased spending don't add up > Comments

Tax cuts and increased spending don't add up : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 23/11/2006

Kim Beazley's proposed tax cuts throw nation building ambitions into question.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All
Your article totally ignores the need for national banking.

ie. A national bank that can generate and direct credit to worthy

national infrastructure projects-rail, road, water piplines, dams,

irrigation projects, science and research facilities.

i dont see why an infrastructure tax should be placed on buisness when

we all benefit.

Offshore tax evasion must go and its practioners consigned to hell.

Tobin tax. Ok

Carbon tax- Irrigate plant forests soak up cabon if you want too.

I like the effort that you put in-
Posted by Jellyback, Tuesday, 28 November 2006 2:04:05 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
Billie “the people I dealt with in the UK water boards envied the unified water system in Victoria.”
So what the opinion of a group bureaucrats who have made a career of soaking the UK public from a position of monopoly power does not mean what they say is worth a toss.

“Its unfair to expect railways to be stand alone user pays when roads are built with funds from consolidated revenue.”

Roads are funded totally by tax imposts on motorists. Check the national accounts. Different states publish the value of the fuel levy which they charge for roads to say nothing of the GST and duty on motor fuels.

The vast majority of roadways are “free for all to use” and not charged on a “user pays” basis,
I do not recall railways ever being structured on a “free to use” basis, except when unions try and blackmail transport companies to supply free trams for their rallies as a bribe among the bullying which they pursue to get their membership to attend. Railways were nationalized from and remain structured on “fee for use”.

That those railway companies cannot tailor their expenditure to fit within the constraints of their income merely shows they have not come to terms with McCawbers law of economics (read David Copperfield for more detail). Which remains a fundamental insight into economics and its implications for wise, healthy, successful and virtuous living.

The ex tax commissioners view of deductibility is irrelevant. We elect people to decide tax law. Public servants are there to enforce said law, not to decide what it should be.

As for “networking, vision and macro economics”, You do not have a clue to the extent of my experience in any of them. If you did, it would surprise you.

I do not drink French wine (lambrusco maybe) and you calling me “redneck” is likely pure coincidence.

Jellyback “A National Bank” oh never again, when governments start down that path we end up with Tricontinental and the other horrors of incompetence. If projects have “merit” they will always attract the funding they need.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 29 November 2006 7:40:39 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
Col_Rouge your previous post is a triumph of political cant in the face of the measured opinions of experts’ experience. I think the people who work in the water industry or collect tax might have a more valid opinion than someone who is unfamiliar with that industry or politicians who spend 5 hours at lobbyists lunches.

You could be the Victorian auditor general but while you continue to hide behind a nom-de-plume we will never know.

We do know from your previous posts that you left a pre-Thatcher England in the 1970s and you have always had the security of universal health and dental programs and public housing.

Australians of the same vintage as you remember when you had to pay to go to the doctor. If you had a cleft palate, if your parents couldn’t pay, you had a hole in the middle of your face. Australia had such a shortage of housing that migrants lived in very crowded conditions. And Australians still have very poor access to dentists - look at their smiles, but then you don't catch public transport.

So if you want to go back to the laissez-faire conditions of the UK well go. Aren’t there more homeless people in the UK, isn’t the economic prosperity centred on the home counties?

And why refer to english authors like Dickens who wrote about LONDON in the 1860s to effect social change?
Posted by billie, Thursday, 30 November 2006 11:52:05 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
What I find interesting is how almost uniform the living conditions etc etc are in English speaking countries (I only exclude NESBs because I don ' t have a clue what they are like).

I say uniform in a majority sense not as an absolute. The key differences would appear to be about the size of the underclasses and their relative dispossession. For the middle classes life is pretty "Big Mac", plasma TVs, 2 cars, similar disposable incomes, and so on.

I would say our underclass is smaller and better off than their underclasses.

Maybe we should be aiming to keep it that way ?
Posted by westernred, Thursday, 30 November 2006 4:27:53 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All

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