Fractelle,

I think I'm pretty impartial, and I think you're getting your knickers in a twist just because you don't like Col's opinion. Play the ball and not the man.

'Col and his ilk don’t want to change their privileged lifestyles. Under a pro-environmental tax system, he would pay more for the privilege of driving his Bentley. He would no longer profit from negative gearing.'

That statement really weakens your argument. It shows you coming from a class-envy position. You seem to be quite socialist, which is fine, but I see you attacking Col for daring not to agree with your political leanings. As it happens I think a pro-environmental tax system would actually affect the poor more than the rich.

Having said that I am happy for my taxes to look after the less fortunate, as I'd rather not have to live in a gated community. I'm happy for the government to look after health and education, and I don't think private schools should get any money from the government. One thing I do hate though is churn, and middle class welfare and business welfare.

So obviously I'm actually pretty left leaning myself, but I think a lot of lefties forget that the rich do pay a lot of tax, regardless of the percentage of their income, and employ a lot of people as well. Also fortune favours the brave, and if you take risks you deserve some reward.

CR
“You seem to miss my point, whilst draconian taxation can achieve “equality of outcome”, it only does so be denying individuals the opportunity to improve their circumstances and benefit from their own effort.”
I feel that I got your point, but my point is that people who fall in the higher tax bracket already have the opportunity to improve their circumstances and have benefitted from their own effort.
They are doing well, financially; they can buy investments which will create greater financial freedom; they can travel and get to know the world; they can save, borrow...the list of opportunities is long.

”You might be happy to see a world full of “average people of median height” but I believe everyone is better off is we allow people to grow to the extent of their individual potential.”
I wouldn’t disagree if you meant that we allow ALL people to grow- especially when these people are children.
The vast majority of countries today do allow for personal development, for diversity,
But it’s important that every child receives at least its basic needs to be able to develop to its full potential.

You quoted Margaret Thatcher.
“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”
Nice idea, but I’d like to add that children should be given the opportunity to develop to their full potential.

One particular tree might have the potential to grow as tall as another, but if that tree was planted in a too dark, too dry corner and therefore denied its basic needs, it won’t be able to grow to its full potential.

Continued

“Do not “level” them with tax disincentives.”
While you may prefer to SEE a forest with trees of different heights, would you want to BE the smallest tree that was planted in the gloomy corner, deprived of its basic needs?
If all the trees that stand high in their excellent locations, enjoying an oversupply of water, were asked to donate SOME from their oversupply (not from their basic needs supply) to the little tree, that little tree would have a bigger chance to reach its potential height while the tall trees’ potential would not even be threatened as their basic supply was untouched plus they still had most of their oversupply left.

If you were a tree, which forest would you prefer to grow in?
If you were to buy a forest for timber harvesting, what kind of forest would bring you more income?

I will end with a quote by Carol Bellamy to accompany your one by Thatcher:

"Investing fully in children today will ensure the well-being and productivity of future generations for decades to come.
By contrast, the physical, emotional and intellectual impairment that poverty inflicts on children can mean a lifetime of suffering and want – and a legacy of poverty for the next generation."

Hey US

No need to worry about my knickers mate. If I appear to playing the man rather than the ball at this stage in the thread, it is for the following reasons:

Col (if you care to read his prolific postings on OLO) is always about justifying HIS choices, HIS lifestyle, I have yet to read him making any posts that suggest a hint of altruism to his world view.

As I previously pointed out he has not offered any practical measures by which we can achieve a more equitable system of taxation for Australia. Whereas, everyone else has tried to offer solutions, Col refers to it as solving "stupidities".

I am well aware that there is no reasoning with some people. What I have tried is to present alternatives to Col's oft repeated "small government, low tax". There are better ways, the discerning reader can determine for themselves that this is so.

I don't believe in big government either; we need efficient and fair governance.

Col's division of people into 'able' and 'not able' based purely on wealth, is laughable. There are many who make huge contributions to our nation and receive little in the way of monetary recompense. Col's pre-judgement of people based on material worth is insulting to all.

If I have failed to convince you of a need for fairer taxation, I am not going to worry. There are plenty of people who believe in a fair and democratic governance and taxation. And also the business opportunities that new environmentally friendly technology offers.

There are always improvements we can make, Col would keep us in the 80's (Thatcheronics) - he is not about change, he wants to retain the status quo, simply because it benefits him.

We can all try to be as objective as possible, but we are still human (even Col) he is no more objective about his fondness for money, than I am about the levels of pollution. I can't ever change Col but I can do my bit to create a safer environment.

And have some fun along the way:

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/nq/2008/nq080429.gif

Fractelle “is always about justifying HIS choices, HIS lifestyle, I have yet to read him making any posts that suggest a hint of altruism to his world view.”

Ah well, this is an “Opinion forum” after all.

If I were not to justify my choices and my lifestyle – who on earths choices and view should I justify?

As for altruism, I do not brag when I do something for someone else. I do not declare what charitable donations I make.

I can think of no greater “altruistic” act than to respect and support the right of other people to make up their own choices and way in the world.
No point in freely feeding a man if it is at the price of his mind, personal choices and discretion.
That results in a form of slavery.

“As I previously pointed out he has not offered any practical measures by which we can achieve a more equitable system of taxation for Australia.”

I made suggestions to improving the Australian tax system, which others have acknowledged and some agreed with.

What Fractelle is promoting is slavery to the state, through excessive taxation. No one allowed to benefit from their own effort more than what the state decrees. Every small minded real or wannabe dictator produces the same outcome.

“I am well aware that there is no reasoning with some people.”
That sounds like a confession.

“I don't believe in big government either; we need efficient and fair governance.”

But you disagree with my preference for smaller government. Strange.

“Col's division of people into 'able' and 'not able' based purely on wealth, is laughable.”

I never suggested that

I stated “To “help” the less able, increase personal tax thresholds.”

I see my life not purely in material terms, otherwise I would be out earning, instead of here writing for free.

Some of my “wealth” is:

being free to make choices for myself and to benefit or suffer the outcome of those choices.

Enjoying the arts
Family and friends
Respect of my professional peers
Many other things which have no “monetary/material value”.

This thread was clearly about tax, pelicans first sentence:

“Thinking again about the Summit and talk of changes to the current taxation system made me wonder if OLO contributors had any ideas that might improve our current system of taxation. Our own mini-Summit on taxation.”

Not about the wider range of human delights which most people are impassioned by.

fractelle “If I have failed to convince you of a need for fairer taxation, I am not going to worry. There are plenty of people who believe in a fair and democratic governance and taxation. And also the business opportunities that new environmentally friendly technology offers.”

Oh so may weasel words and no “substance”.

Soft cuddly niceties and no concrete tax proposals.

“There are always improvements we can make, Col would keep us in the 80's (Thatcheronics) - he is not about change, he wants to retain the status quo, simply because it benefits him.”

Wrong. I refer to MT because she managed the UK economy out of collapse and changed the culture to a realistic one.

Re-read my posts, you will see I consistently refer to the inevitability of change and that includes the “status quo” and what benefits me is my own capacity for analysis and being able to see an opportunity.

“We can all try to be as objective as possible,”

You are the only one who seems to lack “objectivity”. You seem to prefer, as I said early up this post, Soft cuddly niceties and no concrete tax proposals.

Instead of challenging my suggestions, you have decided on the lazy course and decided, as US correctly points out, to attack me.

I have a simple policy, people may challenge my view and I will debate them, as for instance pelican and Cevilia and many others have done and I will argue the point respectfully.

But if someone “dumps on my doorstep”, as you are doing, I will wash you away with the rest of the effluent.

The choice, to be denigrated or not, is entirely yours