Cevelia” Fractelle, . . You demonstrated that higher taxes are associated with higher equality.”

No, Fractelle has demonstrated higher taxes equates with more equal outcomes. It achieves this by cushioning the less able and penalizing the more able.

That is not the best option if you want to achieve the best overall outcomes.

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 cirumstances and benefit from their own effort.

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.

As Margaret Thatcher said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

Do not “level” them with tax disincentives.

“What definition of government do you support,”

Smaller government, which respects the spirit of individuality from which all human progress stems.

I do not understand your comment re “tax shifts”, I want less tax, not shifts in tax.

“none are such serious threats as that for it effects us all and future generations as well.”

Disagree, I would place total world population of people as the most fundamental threat to present and future generations.

Fix / reduce population numbers and things like environmental degradation and pollution etc are not only more manageable but actually contract and possibly cease to be a problem at all.

“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?”

Show me where, on this thread, I have defended the position of polluters and you might have a point.

This thread is about improving the stupidities of the Australian Taxation system.
That is what I have been addressing.
You seem to think we should use “taxation” to rectify environmental and social issues, which I have already said, would be better addressed with direct legislation.

Cevelia” Fractelle, . . You demonstrated that higher taxes are associated with higher equality.”

No, Fractelle has demonstrated higher taxes equates with more equal outcomes. It achieves this by cushioning the less able and penalizing the more able.

That is not the best option if you want to achieve the best overall outcomes.

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 cirumstances and benefit from their own effort.

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.

As Margaret Thatcher said

“Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so.”

Do not “level” them with tax disincentives.

“What definition of government do you support,”

Smaller government, which respects the spirit of individuality from which all human progress stems.

I do not understand your comment re “tax shifts”, I want less tax, not shifts in tax.

“none are such serious threats as that for it effects us all and future generations as well.”

Disagree, seriousness is a subjective measure and I would place total world population of people as the fundamental threat.

Fix / reduce population numbers and things like environmental degradation and pollution etc are not only more manageable but actually contract and possibly cease to be a problem at all.

“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?”

Show me where, on this thread, I have defended the position of polluters and you might have a point.

This thread is about improving the stupidities of the Australian Taxation system.
That is what I have been addressing.
You seem to think we should use “taxation” to regulate and rectify environmental issues, which I have already said, would be better addressed with direct legislation.

Pelican started this thread for suggestions on creating a fairer tax system. Most contributors have made positive suggestions: eliminating negative gearing, shifting tax burden to polluters, ensuring all members of the community benefit, developing and maintaining infra-structure etc.

In spite of this Col Rouge maintains that low tax, no change is the way to go. Why? For, his sense of superiority has to be maintained, with blanket statements like this:

“No, Fractelle has demonstrated higher taxes equates with more equal outcomes. It achieves this by cushioning the less able and penalizing the more able.”

In Col’s little world if you are not wealthy then you must be “less able”. Apart being completely wrong, it is one of the most bigoted things I have read here on OLO.

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.

What is ironic is that he claims that he is a libertarian, well so am I. But the difference is I (and many others) see our community as an important and integral part of being human and we know that to continue living in a free and democratic nation, we need to contribute to it; maintain it. None of us are truly free in that we are not free to drive as fast as we would like, or drink and drive – there are many rules created to keep the extremes that complete liberty would create in check. In fact ultimate libertarianism is really just a form of anarchy and self obsession.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Two Facts:

1. The most libertarian, capitalist nation on earth is the USA. It has the highest rate of crime and poverty out of all the OECD nations.
2. Whereas, the more equitable nations like Holland or Sweden have lower crime, higher standards of living for more people.

For those who favour the USA system, their motivation is profit NOW rather than plan for future generations.

Everyone, except Col, has suggested ways in which tax could be changed to a more equitable system that also maintains our environment. At no point did Pelican ask Col to “improve the stupidities” of the current tax system. That he has interpreted this discussion as such, speaks volumes about his personal agenda and his low opinion of everyone except for himself.

Col you have argued yourself into a corner, you have nothing positive to contribute. This is not a personal attack, it is simply an analysis of the posts you have made here. Every single point you make is about justifying your position, not a single one has been about creating a more equitable nation.

What the Cols of this world fail to understand is the principle tenet of sustainability is that power is shared, and essential power is achieved through collaboration, not dominance.

Fractelle

I have been reasonably patient but you are become obnoxious and so I will say something about your putrid post.

“In spite of this Col Rouge maintains that low tax, no change is the way to go.”

A misrepresentation of my statements.

I promoted, with reason and have gained support, through acknowledgements to their merit, suggestions to reduce tax and change to lower overall tax take. Savings being produced from smaller, not currently sized, government .

“Why? For, his sense of superiority has to be maintained”

Slap on with the ad hominines, Fractelle, they are the high light of your drivel.

“In Col’s little world if you are not wealthy then you must be “less able”.”

Please show me which statements I have posted actually support this crude and blatant judgement of my “world view”

“Apart being completely wrong, it is one of the most bigoted things I have read here on OLO.”

Yes it is completely wrong and the bigotry is all yours.

“Col and his ilk don’t want to change their privileged lifestyles.”

Wrong again. Col and his ilk (the other sons of railway workers) see “privilege” as being earned and not a birth right. I see it being earned through the respect and kudos associated with excellence in reasoning, performance and character.

That you seem to think that everyone should be rewarded equally, regardless of the merit of their contribution, is completely beyond my reasoning skills. Thus, I suspect it has less to do with “reasoning” and more to do with the small minded envy which people, of low character and absence of skill, cleave to in denial of their lack of mediocrity. As supported by your sniveling posts.

“libertarian, well so am I (fractelle).”

“In fact ultimate libertarianism is really just a form of anarchy and self obsession.”

You are “self obsessed”.

“Col you have argued yourself into a corner, you have nothing positive to contribute. This is not a personal attack,”

That is definitely an attack.

Your envy, incompetence, slag attitude and Angst are no deterrent to my reason.
Reasoning which is beyond you.

Freedriver,

Hi! You have junped track woth unfinished busines 29/4 - 1/5:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1722&page=0#34063

Please complete.

Cheers.