Col Rouge

Suggest you read people's posts with a little more focus, you claimed:

"A livable (sic) environment purchased at the price of individual discretion is not necessarily a good contract."

No one has suggested that we lose individual choice, in fact any progress to a sustainable community will require individual choice at a grass roots level as well as organisational contributions for anything to change.

As I previously stated:

"We can make individual choices that either deplete the environment (non recyclable goods; built-in obsolescence, high polluting manufacture) or we can choose to purchase consumer goods that are recyclable, long-lasting and minimise environmental impact."

BTW The Commonwealth Treasury's definition of Taxation was prepared by the Howard government in 2003.

Cheers m'dear

If taxes slow economic progress, surely over time, countries with high taxes will fall behind those with lower taxes. What does the data show?

Neil Brooks a Canadian who teaches tax law at Monash University/Melbourne, "Countries with high taxes tend to have significantly better social outcomes than those with low taxes and their economies appear to be largely unaffected by the required higher taxes."

Drawing on OECD statistics, Brooks divides Western countries in four; the low-tax Anglo-Americans (including Australia), high-tax Nordics, medium-high continental countries such as Germany, and medium-low Mediterranean countries; and compares outcomes on a wide range of economic and social-measures.

In 2004, three of the four largest Anglo economies saved less than 5 per cent of their income: Britain 4.3 per cent, Australia 4.1 and the US just 1.9 per cent. By contrast, Norway (a special case because of its oil riches) saved 19 per cent of its income, Sweden 11.7 per cent, and the Nordics on average 11.6 per cent.

On other economic measures, the high-tax Scandinavians lead the low-tax Anglos. Far from high tax rates deterring work, their workforce participation rates are the highest in the world, especially for women. They invest far more in research/development. In national income per head, the World Bank ranks all five Scandinavian countries in the world's top 20. (Australia is 21st).

The real difference between Anglos and Scandinavians, Brooks argues, is in the distribution of income. THE FIGURES SHOW HIGH TAXES GO HAND IN HAND WITH HIGH SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUALITY AND LOW TAXES GO WITH HIGH INEQUALITY.

In the US, the top 10 per cent take home 16 times more income than the bottom 10 per cent. In Australia, those at the top get 12.5 times as much as those at the bottom; whereas in Sweden, Norway and Finland, the ratio is 6:1.

In Anglo countries on average, 16 per cent of children in 2000 lived in poverty, including 45 per cent of children with sole parents, OECD figures show. In Scandinavia, 3 per cent grew up in poverty. It's a massive difference, and ultimately due to different tax levels.

Fractelle “No one has suggested that we lose individual choice,”

I would suggest part of your discretionary income being diverted into government taxes or the price of some goods and services being increased by gst or “sales type” taxes does, indisputably, curtail your individual choice by making some choices more expensive and possibly no longer affordable.

“in fact any progress to a sustainable community will require individual choice at a grass roots level as well as organisational contributions for anything to change.”

Sounds too much like “for the common good” and I have never met anyone who has met anyone who has actually spoken with “the common good”.

If you insist on making a case for something, do it with tangibles, not social theories of the intangible.

“organisational contributions for anything to change”

Change is inevitable, that does not mean it is either desirable or positive.

Most positive changes are initiated by people following what they see as common sense and not what some bureaucrat, local or remote, deems as an “organizational contribution”.

“BTW The Commonwealth Treasury's definition of Taxation was prepared by the Howard government in 2003”

It was prepared by a bunch of bureaucrats at the ATO whilst Howard was in the seat.

“Countries with high taxes tend to have significantly better social outcomes than those with low taxes and their economies appear to be largely unaffected by the required higher taxes."

I did an analysis of correlation comparing “happiness” and national levels of “tax as a % of GDP” and posting it on a Fred Argy article and happy to repost it here.

Contrary to your statement ascribed to Neil Brooks, progressive taxation had a -.315 (negative) correlation with happiness.

I know what “happiness” means.

As a contributory measure of “life quality”, surely one of the principle goals of living, happiness matters.

Greater “happiness”, derived from lower taxes, rates as a worthwhile outcome.

You and Neil Brooks need to define what “better social outcomes” actually means in terms of “life quality” before you even attempt to present it as a worthwhile goal.

Fractelle,

'THE FIGURES SHOW HIGH TAXES GO HAND IN HAND WITH HIGH SOCIO-ECONOMIC EQUALITY AND LOW TAXES GO WITH HIGH INEQUALITY.
'

That's just socialism/communism really. Humans are not all born equal. I am happy enough if society allows equality of opportunity, rather than enforcing equality of outcome.

Fractelle,
You have made excellent points. You demonstrated that higher taxes are associated with higher equality. That makes sense; countries with higher tax rates can afford to run a better social and health network.

US
Don’t you think it’s unlikely that children, who happen to have been born in poverty, have equal opportunities to children that were born in reasonable environments?

CR
What definition of government do you support, if you reject the one that Fractelle posted?

About happiness,
Initially, it makes sense that people who pay lower taxes are happier than people pay higher taxes.
For the rich, it means men can buy some more hair and women can have their wrinkles zapped in societies where children grow up in poverty.
But it makes no sense that low-income people, for whom it probably makes no difference whatever the tax rate is as they fall in the low tax bracket anyway.
For low incomers, it makes sense that they are happier living in societies with more opportunities and equality.
So, I’m confused about these results.
I am not convinced that the outcome of the happiness survey was derived from a proper cross section of societies. I’d be interested to see the Fred Argy article; perhaps I’m missing something.

About tax shifts,
I’m not even sure why people would be opposed to tax shifting; it’s not even about paying more tax in total; it’s about being more creative with tax- it’s about shifting what we already pay.

” A “special case” is merely a bad case being dressed up, for whatever reason to appeal, emotionally to people, regardless of its lack of merit.”
Yes there are more global challenges than the global environmental crisis alone but none are such serious threats as that for it effects us all and future generations as well.
I’m not sure if I understand why you think that the environmental issue, specifically greenhouse gas levels, lacks merit. The environmental crisis threatens our sustainability, and something needs to be done about it urgently or the problem will get worse.
Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had used the word “urgent” rather than “special case”- which I agree could appeal as emotional.
But whether people feel emotional about the level of greenhouse gases or not is irrelevant because the fact remains that the environmental problems exist.

Do you actually agree to the fact that sustainability is under threat and that prompt action to clean up our environment is important?

I agree on quite a few things with Libertarianism, just not to the extreme (and isn’t there such system as libertarian-socialism?).

I fail to understand why there has to be friction between (even extreme) Libertarianism and environmentalism.
For example, don’t you, as a Libertarian, have a problem with the fact that people and manufacturers emit pollutants into our shared air- the air that enters your private property? I do.