Passy,

"The development of caplitalism saw the destruction of the rights of the many to property in the name of the few."

No it didn't. What a load of baloney. You need your head read if you think that.

Capitalism meant that if you worked hard and saved your pennies then you could gain more property. This is the basis of the notion of property rights - you earnt it, so it's yours.

A lack of understanding of that basic concept throws your entire argument re property rights out the window.

"Some neo-conseervatives argue that tax itself is an attack on private property rights. Do you agree, BN?"

Firstly, I would never call myself a conservative - neo or otherwise. However I think that there is a place for tax as there are functions that the government should supply.

What I oppose is:

1) Inefficient governments and policies which require the tax take to be higher to support that inefficiency. I.e. I oppose tax churn

2) Governments getting involved in private matters more than absolutely required, and especially if it impinges on private property rights

"Those who rise to the top are those who sole idea of betterment is individual greed and aggrandisement. Eddie Groves, Adler, Wheatley, George W are hardly shining examples of outstanding leaders."

Does that include the gentleman in Qld who has committed to give away his 340 million dollar fortune? You're making generalisations here which simply aren't true.

"Who elected these busines leaders?"

What a stupid question. Are you elected the owner of your house? Don't be so ridiculous.

"If the RBA cuts by 25 basis points, banks should cut home loan rates by more than that."

Why more? They've all cut by the same amount as the RBA. Have their borrowing costs gone down? I don't know, but I'll bet not by much, and that's represented by all 4 having different variable homeloan rates.

"If you can trade off LSL then LSL is under threat for other workers. By individualising entitlements you weaken the ability to defend them in the best way - collectively."

More rubbish! LSL is governed by legislation. If I chose to cash it in then that doesn't change the legislation. Don't be so alarmist Passy.

"Even more bizarrely, let's democratise society so that production decisions are determined by the majority."

After the last couple of comments of yours, I'm beginning to wonder whether you're being serious here or not. And then I come across the comment above... I'm just astonished. You're out there Passy - I'll give you that. Again I'll say it: thankfully Labor distanced themselves from the far left and so we don't have to worry about ideas like this except in this sort of hypothetical debate.

"Have you ever worked in the community sector"

Sure have - I worked for a while with mentally disabled (yes, they use that term) people in supported employment. Those people loved being able to get out and be productive, to gain a level of independance and to earn their own money for which they could do what they wanted.

Why do you ask?

Interesting terminology.

>>My work in international tax was as an adjunct to big business<<

"As an adjunct to"?

In what way were you "joined to" big business, Passy?

I'm merely curious how an employee of the ATO becomes "joined..."

Your description of a free bus service for the Canberra area is interesting, but incomplete. My concern with services of this kind is not where they start - because you are right, $20m as an additional subsidy to an already loss-making venture is a drop in the ocean - but where they stop.

When you pay for something, it has value.

When you get something free, it becomes a "right".

On day one, everyone will be pathetically grateful.

Day two, they will ask for more frequent services, at different times, and to different destinations. And you no longer have the defence "hey, that would be far too expensive".

You casually refer to "non-hub to non-hub transport" as if it were a trifling add-on, hardly worth mentioning. Once you look into it though, you will find conflicting demands, conflicting priorities, and more disputes on what is "important" than you can shake a stick at.

There are some benefits from working in a commercial environment, and understanding the difference between price, cost and value is one of them.

>>Profit bludgers are those people who live off the labour of others (ie those who own the means of production, the factories, mines and offices and so on and make the decisions about what to do with the surplus (i.e. profit) workers create.)<<

You're kidding, right?

According to you, I am a profit bludger, because I chose to invest all my hard-earned cash, plus take out an overdraft, plus reduce my salary lower than some of my employees, in order to build a business for myself.

That was over ten years ago. I still have the overdraft. I still pay myself less than some of my employees. Over that time I have provided gainful and interesting employment equivalent to over a hundred man-years.

If that's bludging on your planet, mate, then you are beyond contempt.

Pericles

Where does profit come from? The labour of workers. Capitalism is a system in which the value workers create is expropriated by bosses.

The possible (partially untaxed) increase in the value of your business over the last ten years is built on exploitation - of your workers and yourself.

If that puts me beyond your contempt, so be it. I am not here to win your love, but rather to debate and exchange ideas. If my ideas challenge your Weltanschauung, live with it. No doubt the landed gentry had the same reaction in feudal times when their privileged position came under challenge, at first in the realm of ideas and then in the realm of action.

As to my former role, read the Review of International Tax Arrangements (RITA) documents. The basic philosophy of the international tax reforms was to reduce compliance costs for business.

Administratively the ATO could have upset that apple cart. We didn't, in part because of my leadership.

You know too Pericles, there are people who habitually accept change then use the argument - oh but of course, it won't work because... and undermine completely the principle. You seem to be a rainmaker when it comes to free public transport. Let the sunshine in.

I suspect the same arguments your raise arose (and arise) with free public secular education.

BN, the establishment of capitalism in England for example saw the destruction of common property. It involved driving peasants off the land into the cities to become wage slaves. You can see the same process going on today, for example in China, or in times gone by in Stalinist Russia.

My question about who elected the business leaders is an important one. Why should legal ownership of business give you the right to determine what is invested, where, who works, who doesn't and so on. In one sense you prove my point that capitalism is profoundly undemocratic becuase the realm of production is off limits to societal decision making in the interests of society (ie off limits to full democracy.)

Expropriation of surplus value creates a number of conundrums as it relates to liberty and economic democracy...

To beging with - I believe ordinary workers and citizens ought be able to invest their savings as they wish.

On the other hand - this creates a contradiction - between the aim of ending exploitation - and the exploitation by the working class - in the case of pension funds and the like - "by itself"...

Given this - and accepting that ordinary workers should be free to invest as they wish - I don't think the Marxist aim of brining all production - by degrees - into the hands of a worker's state - is possible or desirable...

That said, there are a number of ways of deepining economic democracy, providing for the needs of workers and citizens.

For instance: pension funds/wage earner funds; tax credits and support for co-operative and mutualist enterprise; government business enterprise....These manyfold examples of democratic economic control - can effectively bring economic power into the hands of ordinary workers and citizens - even although the mechanism of explotiation remains...

Thereafter, though, even while exploitation remains - social and individual needs can be provided for through the provision of a social wage; and by the supportitive mechanism of the welfare state...
And the combined, conscious and mobilised citizenry - can challenge 'class rule'...

What bothered me recently - was seeing Brendan Neslon on TV - saying the Liberals supported privatisation 'in principle'... Under Menzies and Fraser the mixed economy was taken for granted...

Today neo-liberal ideology is so-entrenched - that no exception to the rule is even considered - even where natural monopoly in public infrastructure - and competitive enhancement via GBEs - can enhance the economic and demmocratic gains the everyone.

I think you are onto something, Passy,

Sorry, typo.

I think you must be on something, Passy.

You cannot seriously believe what you write, surely? It is all slogan, no substance, no connection with the real world at all.

>>Capitalism is a system in which the value workers create is expropriated by bosses.<<

You have a point, of course, even though "expropriate" is by nature pejorative. What you fail to take into account is that capital simply would not be available without the "expropriation" factor. Which is, when you get down to it, nothing more than taking a percentage.

>>The possible (partially untaxed) increase in the value of your business over the last ten years is built on exploitation - of your workers and yourself.<<

There's that pejorative term again. Exploitation.

I am offering a fair exchange of their no-risk labour - which they are free to apply wherever they wish - for the use of my capital. Which, incidentally, as with every business under the sun, is not without risk.

What, would you suggest, is a fairer alternative? I have the concept of a business that fulfils a need in the community, I take the risk, I employ the people - where's the "exploitation" in that?

The contempt, incidentally, was in response to yet another of your pejorative terms - bludger.

bludge v.t.: to be lazy, idle, inactive; evade work or responsibilities

That's pretty insulting, all things considered.

>>I am not here to win your love, but rather to debate and exchange ideas. If my ideas challenge your Weltanschauung, live with it<<

It is clear that insults inform your concept of a debate. Your ideas are so inept in their construction, they can hardly stand up, let alone challenge anything.

But you really are kidding, aren't you?

A brief glance at the RITA documentation proves that, quite conclusively.

Paragraph headline: "Attracting equity capital for offshore expansion"

Equity capital, Passy? Surely not?

Nope, sorry, you're just another weekend marxist who enjoys the sound of his own voice.