<< Ludwig, I am not in support of an unsustainable Australia (huge population) I was merely explaining that our population is too small for us to become self sufficient… >>

That doesn’t make sense to me rehctub.

With a relatively small population, our exports would translate into a greater average per-capita gain. And with a constantly growing population, a great deal of our export income needs to be put into duplicating services and infrastructure for the new residents, rather than into improving the lot of existing residents.

<< …all you want is a share of the profits, not the losses. Sorry, that's not fair. >>

Oh yes it is. Just as with the total tax base, we should all share the returns. When the returns are down, there is less to share, but we should not have to share in any individual company losses.

It is not the fault of the average person, who pays taxes and receives benefits from those taxes, if a company runs at a loss.

It is all well and good for companies to take the risk of making a loss in their quest for big profits, or making a loss due to a changing environment as new technologies come along and they get out-competed, but the general public shouldn’t be a part of this profit/loss regime. It should surely be a role of government to protect them from this. Afterall, the general populace doesn’t make huge gains when certain economic sectors are riding high, such as with the mining boom. The best they can hope for is subtle improvements.

Shares are fine as an adjunct to the tax system, for those who want to invest and risk losing their money in order to possibly make big profits. But I don’t believe for one moment that they make a good baseline method of wealth-distribution.

continued

<< THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE >>

How can you say that? There are just innumerable examples of big companies doing things that are clearly not in the best interests of this country’s future of our quality of life therein. We need a strong regulatory regime because big business is inherently not accountable, just as with all manner of other laws which keep people more or less in line, where they would be highly irresponsible in the absence of those laws.

Humans are inherently not accountable for the greater good of anyone other than themselves and perhaps their families and immediate associates. So sorry, but big business is inherently not very accountable at all. And given that they wield huge power, they really do need to be very carefully regulated and held to account by government, if at all possible.

<< …unlike your beloved labor party… >>

Whaaaat??

Rehctub, if I’ve said it once on OLO, I’ve said it a thousand times: The Libs and Labs are two peas in a pod, with essentially identical antisustainability-oriented ‘philosophies’. I call them the Laborials!

I have not voted for either for many elections! I am most definitely NOT a Labor supporter.

But I can see how I could become one…. if they’d just see fit to do what Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson have been espousing for many years!

I can’t see how I could ever become a Lib supporter!!

Ludwig....Shares are fine as an adjunct to the tax system, for those who want to invest and risk losing their money in order to possibly make big profits. But I don’t believe for one moment that they make a good baseline method of wealth-distribution.

Which is pretty much what you're asking the miners to do, take the risks, in the assumption they will make large profits however, if a HUGE portion of that large profit is threatened via a tax, then they are more likely to sit on their hands in bad times. As is happening.

....But I can see how I could become one…. if they’d just see fit to do what Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson have been espousing for many years!

You mean waste union members money and break NSW, a fine pair those two are.

Now as for your take on the MRRT, at least I can see your bias here, as you all of a sudden want a share, now that the gains have been outdoing the losses,or at least they were.

Now you mentions all Australians sharing ALL taxes.

Well I can't agree more on that one, but that doesn't happen, does it.

Finally, on the subject of accountability, can you tell me, have you ever owned a business that employs people?

rehctub,

Your proposal on the government subsidising wages actually was tried in early 19th century England. Do a search on "Speenhamland system". Taxes on property were levied at the parish level and used to subsidise wages to promote hiring of the unemployed. It turned out to be a costly failure that had to be abandoned. Previously independent workers were unable to compete with the subsidised workers and ended up in the welfare system themselves, although they had to make themselves destitute to qualify by selling and consuming any property that they might have. As more and more people were drawn into the system, benefits were reduced and property taxes soared. Eventually, the wages plus the subsidy were worth less than the wages alone before Speenhamland. Small businessmen were worse off, because they were hurt more by the high taxes than they were helped by the cheap labour. The only winners were large scale employers.

I agree with Ludwig about Big Business really running the country and often wonder why we don't just get rid of all the politicians and cut out the middlemen.

Ludwig, my main opp to the mining tax is that the miners already pay company tax, royalties, which put end to the argument thatnthese are an infinite resourse and, they generate so many other taxes, such as employees, contractors, support businesses and GST associated with most of these.

In fact, if we remove mining from our economic situation, there really isn't much less and there's no signs tha the dollar is coming back to where it needs to be, 70-80c to boost tourism, exports and manufacturing.

So just what is it that makes you think that the tax is fair, considering the taxes they already pay amd generate both directly and indirectly?

Divergence, what I mean by businesses being burdened by welfare, it's the constant wage rises that are being forced upon business.

On top of these (another $30/week on the table at present) the government's forcing business to cough up another 3% for super, for which they (labor) are claiming the credit for.

Governments does this so as to shift the burden to employers, as the more wages get increased, the less dependent people become on welfare.

Now while I'm not against wage rises, they MUST be linked to increased productivity, and they simply are not as productivity is in serious decline.