Celivia “the very choice one person makes may restrict someone else’s choices”

That is an untested presumption which, even if it were to be true would not, necessarily be detrimental. It would all depend on whose “choice” reflected the greater merit and you and I know that is completely undeterminable and thus, presumptively unfair.

“less tax may mean “ well the problem is in the word “may” – less tax equally, may not especially if the philanthropic NGOs are better off because of greater direct contributions by those who might be paying less tax.

“But there are children involved.”

Ah yes, when reason fails, go for the emotions. Come on Cevelia, children, next it will be sick puppies and maybe baby harp seals or cattle, with big wet eyes.

“children that are born in disadvantaged, poor families.”

“Any society that does not offer affordable housing . . . and so on, is failing all the children who are living, through no fault of their own, in poverty.”

You are never, ever going to “cure” that problem, except by disqualifying people with insufficient means, either material or intellectual, from having children and, personally, I would consider such an action to be a violation of human rights, when government decides who can be a parent.

Bob Hawke “No child shall live in poverty….” And he was proved a liar.

“So, I am not convinced at all that total libertarianism is the answer”

But it is a better path to follow than total state control, which reduces “life” to mere existence.

“libertarian socialism,” is an oxymoron.

Like Lenin said “While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.”

“We have no perfect political system- it does not exist.
We have to make-do with what we have and imperfect people will continue to improve on it.”

Now you are getting to my point, acknowledging the failings of people and political systems, my desire is to minimize the authority of politicians and the state and thus minimize the dangers of political imperfections blighting us all.

CR, sorry for the late reply, I’ve been busy.

My emotions are irrelevant- it is merely a fact that children born in poverty don’t have the opportunity to develop to their fullest potential UNLESS they have access to an effective welfare system.

I have no evidence that welfare systems work better for children or other vulnerable people in non- socialist-leaning countries that pay less tax.
I suppose NGOs ‘could’ provide welfare, but will they? There is no guarantee that there will be sufficient donations.
Besides, NGOs can be just as open to mismanagement and corruption as governments can be.

Countries with a strong, social welfare network in place simply do best.
“Netherlands tops UN child well-being table for rich countries; US, UK at bottom”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21566&Cr=unicef&Cr1

One can’t argue that there is less personal freedom in a socialist-leaning country (no matter what Lenin said) than in a Libertarian one.
There is more freedom in the Netherlands than anywhere else in the world.
Legal and/or decriminalised are: soft drugs, same sex marriage with full adoption and IVF rights, voluntary euthanasia, abortion, prostitution …
And they have the lowest rate of teen pregnancies, heroin addicts and abortion in the world also.
This is what I mean by “libertarian socialism” - why can’t there be much personal freedom while a secure safety net exists?

Apart from empathy, look at child well-being from an economical perspective. Investing in the wellbeing of children today means reaping the benefits of that investment in the future.

That we haven’t “cured” child poverty doesn’t mean we can’t; it just means we have not bothered to prioritise it and squandered tax elsewhere (like useless wars on drugs).

So, YES to a smaller and smarter government but not to one that is only just adequate enough to protect libertarians and their properties.
A government needs to protect the basic living standard of every human being no matter how (un) able they are to provide for themselves.

What’s the point of a more libertarian-leaning country if that means more inequality and appalling (child) poverty numbers while personal freedom is not guaranteed?

Celevia “CR, sorry for the late reply, I’ve been busy.”

No apology required, I make no demands upon you, least of all your time : - )

Please do not presume that simply because I express a view regarding tax that such a view represents the sum of me.

This thread is about simplifying tax. It is not about the circumstances which prevail to force a child into a state of poverty.

I am the product of non-wealthy but loving parents. My daughters are the products of wealthier, loving parents.

Whilst I am materially better off than my parents, my true wealth is in the freedoms I enjoy, freedom to choose my work, freedom from the restrictions of a class based social order and freedom to indulge my love of art and music and friends in a way my parents could never afford.

No government will repair the deficiencies which negligent parents inflict upon their children.

Children, removed from their natural parents, even for their own protection, remain scared by the absence of those parents and no tax monies nor foster carers will ever heal that loss.

Similarly, no tax system will ever guarantee the “Hawke claim”.

Re “I have no evidence that welfare systems work better. . .”

Nor do I but I passionately believe people are naturally kind and generous and know best for themselves what they should do to help their neighbour in the spirit of philanthropy, charity and mostly compassion and a sense of “there by the grace of God go I”.

Conversely governments have no authority to address the individual needs of people. Government can only ever be, at best even handed and indifferent to the particulars to all and thus, cannot be compassionate or supportive in the loving sense an individual can.

That is why I prefer for us all the be free to be generous of spirit, rather than that spirit being taxed away and used, arbitrarily to employ bureaucrats to plan how some of that spirit will be distributed across the interests which politicians think will get them re-elected.

“One can’t argue that there is less personal freedom in a socialist-leaning country”

Disagree. The socialist heavy taxed regime deprives the individual of some portion of their private resources through that tax and thus denies the full freedom to spend as the individual sees fit.

Like wise, socialist countries tend to prefer state monopolies of education, health and other services (historically banking, airlines, telecoms, power utilities etc), through nationalized services, denying the individual freedom of choice or service provider.

“Legal and/or decriminalised are: soft drugs, same sex marriage with full adoption and IVF rights, voluntary euthanasia, abortion, prostitution …”

None of those have anything to do with “Tax”. They are all social policies some of which, as an individual I support and some of which I do not.

Empathy is not a socialist trait, it is a human trait.

I believe respecting someone sufficiently to be free to make up their own mind reflects significant empathy and you will know that, regardless of my gender, I have consistently respected women’s absolute, individual right to decide on the deployment of there own bodies.

In that “spirit of empathy”, I also respect peoples freedom to be the first beneficiaries of the fruits of their own efforts and own prudence and proberty in their financial affairs.

“That we haven’t “cured” child poverty doesn’t mean we can’t;”

Politics is said to be about the “Art of the Possible”

Whilst we should endeavour to try, I said before, I do not believe it can be cured in the absolute sense, simply because some people, through the chaotic influences of nuture and nature, possibly resulting in their own lack of empathy, just do not care but still manage to procreate.

“A government needs to protect the basic living standard of every human being”

Again, not possible, when some will prioritize drugs, alcohol and tobacco ahead of food and shelter.

“What’s the point of a more libertarian-leaning country if that means more inequality”

What point “equality” if it is bought at the price of individual rights, choices, freedoms, personal growth and aspirations?

"Pelican, taxing luxury goods is a bad idea once you consider the economic implications. It hurts the people who make the items far more than the people who consume." - freedivet

[1] What about coprious purchases? Did Alan Bond's purchase of "Irises" deprive Vicent Van Gogh from Joan Payson. Read Thorstein Veblen on the non-productive inflation of coprious purchases of the very rich. I not talking about a BMW or nice home of a middle-class Australian. It is phoney wealth of the High Society I am addressing.

[2] The Churches should taxed on non-charity assets. The Catholic Church helped via ethnic cleasing the Monarchs of France to kill the Jews, whom were the Crown's creditors. Good way to pay of your loans, if were not so serious.

[3] You have not completed you case on the "Evolution" topic.See you there soon.

[4] I think Gold is now taxed. Only recently it was not. Why not tax Lotto and Gabling. I know the risk of an underground.

[5] Why not tax Corporate Income at a low rate say 2% before operating costs are deducted. At least that way the Packers would something.

Cheers,

O.

" 'Using “taxes” to engineer a particular social outcome is the least efficient way of achieving such goals. Better alternative is direct legislative action and possibly, where a lot of problems do lay, better regulatory observation. "

This is not true, providing the tax is easy to apply. Compared to income tax and the myriad other taxes, there is very little paperwork involved in taxing emissions from a power station and petrol. If a tax is applicable, it is better for the economy than direct legislation, because it effectively removes the negative impact of taxation on the economy.

All taxes have a 'socoal engineering' impact. It is better to think about this impact and try to limit it to activities we want to restrict than to make taxation arbitrary (and then use other tools for social engineering on top of this).

The trick is to consider it from an economic perspective rather than a social engineering perspective. That is, rather than try to manipulate tax to get the type of society you want, limit it to those activities for which you can make a sound argument that a negative externality exists. Obviously, they should be revenue neutral rather than an additional tax burden. This will benefit both our economy and our society in general.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html