It appears to me the time is right for a discussion on exactly where Australia is headed. One gets the distinct impression that few people are overjoyed with the direction in which our politicians are taking us (or are 'pretending to), although its questionable whether or not they actually hold the strings. Many believe there is a humungous financial re-alignment looming, but are the powers that be attempting to prevent or encourage this event .... or are they merely choosing to ignore what they can't fix ?? Then there is all this new world order business, what with the Bilderbergs, depopulation, chemtrails and so on. How much of that crap is halfway factual and how much is foisted on the unsuspecting sheeple in order to send them up a dry gully (thus diverting their attention from whats REALLY going on ??

What ever views others have, if they are not yours, you will use words of heat to answer in any case.
So why bother?
How ever for a small payment, you can update your insults in most book shops.

Praxicide,
It's all of the things you've stated, we live behind the iron curtain of an empire so no information in the public domain can be trusted.
Where is Australia going? I doesn't matter, we'll either quickly follow the Western empire into oblivion or be the last outpost of it's dead ideas and culture, we'll be to the West what Cuba is to the Soviet Union.

Dear Prax.,

I know that you're against "the system,"
however I haven't lost my faith in it
quite yet, although I can't predict what
the future will bring.

I do know that no
matter who's in government we can always
replace them if we don't like what they're
doing and that's not a bad system. At least
we have that capability in this country.
Unlike some others around the globe.

We are in critical times though, and this country
requires strong leadership and politicians
who belong to a different parliamentary
tradition to the one we seem to have
currently.

We need politicians who want to go into
politics for the right reasons. We need
politicians who care for this country and its
people. We need politicians who want to make a
difference and are not in it for the power or personal
ambition at all costs (the destructive kind).

At present all we can
do is try to remain optimistic, and fingers-crossed
that the voters will get it right in the end at
the next election.

Dear Lexi

Being able to replace bad politicians is all very well if there are viable alternatives. Its a foregone conclusion that the federal ALP is on the way out, but given the Queensland experience, one can but hope the sheeple don't make exactly the same mistake again. Both the ALP & the LNP have a well engrained 'born to rule' complex that effectively cancels out any resdidual semblance of accountability. There is of course the potentially hostile senate and KAP / PUP votes will at least fragment LNP support & even possibly / hopefully provide a halfway meaningful opposition.

Crossing ones fingers & wishful thinking are hardly good ways to run a political system. Human nature being naturally corrupt, people with authority will inevitably fail to live up to the standards we expect of them, consequently there is a need for extremely robust control mechanisms. Clearly those mechanisms have been systematically & intentionally eroded to the point where accountability is merely a word in the dictionary.

When an unaccountable political system is combined with globalism, multiculturalism, consumerism & expectations of never-ending economic growth, we have a disaster just waiting to happen. Unfortunately under the present arrangements, the culprits are not only in a position to escape the consequences of their actions scot free, but they are handsomely rewarded by their victims. I guess that ultimately, when the brown stuff really hits the fan in earnest, karma will eventually take effect and sort out the wrong-doers big time.

Where exactly IS this country heading ??

Way past the sign post that says the lucky country ?

Not sure where we are headed, but what I do know is we can I'll afford a repeat of the past six odd years, regardless of who is at the helm.

I am suggesting the biggest challenge for the next government will be finding away to stop the boats.

While there are those who suggest we are in goos shape, I have to wonder just what shape we were in six years ago, with no debt, next to no boats and the country beaming with confidence.

Perfect shape perhaps.

Has Australia ever really been 'lucky' or has the term been just a label applied for whatever reason ?? If as I suspect its to do with the minerals we once had, surely that no longer applies since a lot of the stuff has gone to enrich overseas companies ?? I've always been a bit bemused when politicians or whoever crap on about how good is the mining boom ... I'm certainly not aware of any benefits coming my way. What am I missing here ??

The boat people issue is another area where I believe we've been conned. Its obviously an extremely profitable event for the legal leeches paid out of the public purse to represent the 'rights' of aliens and for the businesses supplying stuff to detention centres, but I have no idea what its costing taxpayers. Since we have been kept in the dark by both sides of the political circus, and have never been consulted as to our opinions, one can only assume (a) there is something they don't want us to know and (b) the total is mind-boggling.

praxidice, not sure, but I think the term 'the lucky country' came from early immigrants, as they could literally arrive here with little more than the shirt on their backs, and with a huge amount of 'hard work' make a real go of it.

As for what you have received from the mining, may I suggest you do some research into how much your state has received over the past ten or so years in royalties.

Now once you have done this, then take that total figure and add it to the debt of that state.

I say this, because without the royalty dollars, that same amount would have had to have been borrowed, and given most states are in debt crisis land, there is little doubt this debt would have been repaid.

Then, unless you are yourself in 'the lucky part of the country', not sure where that is, you will realize what the mining has actually done for you.

Mining also accou ts for a huge portion of the jobs out there, not just directly, but indirectly, as many service type businesses have literally been saved by mining.

And to think this government see the miners as leaches, not paying their fair share.

As for the illegals debacle, this will be the incoming governments largest task to try to restore border controls, you know, like we had before K Rudd came along, as this is one issue that has the potential to break us as a nation.

We are already seeing the signs, with cut backs on many things being just the beginning.

rehctub,

The origin of the phrase, "The Lucky Country"...taken from the title of Donald Horne's book....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_Country

"Horne's statement was an indictment of 1960's Australia. His intent was to comment that while other industrialised nations created wealth by using "clever" means such as technology and other innovations, Australia did not. Rather, Australia's economic prosperity was largely derived from its rich natural resources. Horne observed that Australia "showed less enterprise than almost any other prosperous industrial society.""

Praxidice remember the expresion the harder I worked the luckier i got.

Where exactly IS this country heading ??

Barring tectonic shifts in expectations, currently this country is heading 35 degrees east of north at 67mm per year.

Praxidice remember the expresion the harder I worked the luckier i got.

For what its worth, I'm probably in a somewhat better state than most, semi-retired with no significant debts, new house with no mortgage, not 'rich' by any standards but largely self-sufficient & all that crap. I am however quite concerned about the state of the nation, the utter ineptitude of the political circus, the inaccessibility of justice etc and would dearly love to do something to help restore a semblance of decency / ethics/ accountability etc etc. Joining the political scrum really isn't an option as one needs to prostitute whatever principles simply to get preselected.

For what its worth, I did hold a party position several lifetimes back and have been asked several times to nominate. Whatever, I cannot imagine any situation where I'd play the major party games, so its a matter of seeking another way to get at the legal leeches & bloodsucking parasites. On the other hand, whatever one does is purely for ones own satisfaction & gratification. Australians generally being the unbelievably apathetic sheeple they are, its inconceivable that any effort expended in 'fixing' the political debacle would be appreciated. Look for example at how Pauline Hanson was treated. Love her or hate her, by far the most important thing she was attempting was to restore a measure of accountability. In my books, she should receive a knighthood or whatever for service to the Australian people. Note particularly that it wasn't a matter of re-instituting the white Australia policy, stopping ALL migration, exterminating aboriginies, or any of a zillion distractions dreamed up by her opponents, it was abou

rant continued

To return to the subject at hand, is there any point in even thinking about the impending financial realignment / utterly crooked political circus / new world order / blah blah blah. The sheeple generally don't give a rats, they obviously rate the footbrawl, Home & Away or whatever that moronic 'lets wreck some poor mugs house' TV series more important than anything else. Those few who do even show an interest are generally haring off up some dry gully to do with FEMA camps or the Bilderbergs / Rothschilds / Queen Lizzie or chemtrails or some other equally hair-brained idea. Are there any halfway sane citizens left who can see we are heading for a disaster or have they all been nobbled like Pauline Hanson ?? Maybe its the fluoride in the water acting as a sedative as a few claim ... doesn't affect me because I haven't consumed 'town' water for yonks.

Where exactly IS this country heading ??

I believe there is a continental drift of about 25mm North per century.

Ahem, SM... check bottom of p.2.

WmTrevor

Damn!

rehctub, you say "And to think this government see the miners as leaches, not paying their fair share."
I think the intent was to fairly tax the leaches like Twiggy, Gina and Clive who are creaming off such enormous earnings that they could not possible spend them except on copies of an antique ship.
Yes the miners themselves earn and spend money but even that is being hacked at by the push for flyin/flyout foreign workers.
The plaintive bleat that they cannot get skilled workers is a thinly disguised ploy to bring in workers that can be paid less than locals and give them even bigger profits,

SM, my only surprise is that you didn't seem to have noticed the country is drifting slightly to the right faster than you thought.

Rechtub is not being hard to get on with.
He thinks like that, and has little understanding of just what stays in Australia, after the mining exports.
Tax wages and not much else.
over seas owned firms taking profits off shore,is too complex a thought.
We get the holes so maybe that makes up for it?

We get the holes so maybe that makes up for it?

Holes in the ground out beyond the back of Bourke might turn out to be valuable for storing radioactive waste if you are that way inclined. I'm certain some enterprising beancounter can put them on the books as an asset, same as they do with salaries paid to bloodsucking parasites. No Betty, I am NOT proposing we get into the radioactive waste game however its only a matter of time before one of the parasites suggests that as a way of creating income.

>>SM, my only surprise is that you didn't seem to have noticed the country is drifting slightly to the right faster than you thought.<<

You're forgetting Galileo's Ship. We're all drifting slightly to the right at the same speed as the country so we don't notice how fast it's going.

Cheers,

Tony

Drifting to the right?.......well, apparently the pole position is drifting to the east.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50552/abstract

Should even things up a bit.

Come on folks, make up your minds.

One minute you're attacking Gina and Clive, & want to tax them out of existence. Next minute you're bitching about overseas owned mining companies, taking their profits home.

For god sake wake up. No miners = no welfare, no NBN, no disability insurance scheme, no Schools reform, & no cars, gadgets, I phones & all the other crap you all want to import.

Some of you are sickening in your envy.

Oh & where are we going when the mines shut? Glug glug glug. I hope you can swim.

Robert L....Praxidice remember the expresion the harder I worked the luckier i got.

The miners pay company tax, pay roll tax, just like any large business, but they also pay royalties, which is in return for extracting a non renewable resources they mine.

So tell me Robert, why is it you feel the miners are not paying their fair share of tax?

Further more, why do you think they should pay more than the banks for argument sake?

Let's face it, the banks open a branch, employ as few staff as possible, out source as much of the work as possible, even over seas, invest minuscule amounts in comparison, with far less risk involved.

So why should they be treated any different.

I'm not harassing you, I'm just courious to know why you think they (the miners) should be paying more taxes especially considering they already do.

And Belly, what of all the jobs they create, both directly and indirectly.

And what about all this money that the mostly young miners throw around, cars, boats, jet skis etc etc.

My other home town, Miles, less than ten years ago was facing ruin.

Now, it's among the top performers in the nation.

Happy days for me, cause I bought my land for a song.

I don't have a problem with miners making lots of money, at least they do something to earn it, even if it leaves dirty great holes in the ground. the big earners I do take exception to are bloodsucking parasite politicians (because they do stuff-all, and what little they do inevitably costs us heaps more to rectify), lawyers (because they are nothing but avaricious leeches), and banksters / public company CEOs (NOBODY is worth $20,000,000pa). Whether or not miners pay their share of tax is another issue.

Praxidice- Sheeple, loveit

You will find a lot of them contribute to this forum. Mostly dyed in the wool red and blue ones.

They don’t have the ability to consider anything outside their own dogma.

Where is the country heading?

Lead by the Ineptocracy like the rest of the globe it is chasing the holy dollar

"You're forgetting Galileo's Ship."

True, Tony. I didn't think the phenomenon applied if it is the economy going backwards.

As for pole position I underestimated the gravity of the situation.

rehctub, You obviously do not or are unable to read.
I said.... I have no strife with the miners themselves, only the stinking rich owners of the mines that are intent on increasing their obscene amounts of wealth at any cost.
Got it now?

Robert L, you must have written that in your mind. As that is ot what you said here.

But, the question remains, why do you think the big mininers are not paying their fair share of taxes?

They already pay more than all other businesses, so why the increase?

I will give you my opinion as to why I think they shouldn't, but I would like your thoughts first.

RLP is correct

If we all own the minerals how come just a few individuals get a disproportionate share?

You don’t even have to own a mine.

It is the value of the mineral deposits we are fortunate to have in this country that generates revenue not the mining magnates.

It is the people that dig it up and make the infrastructure that realise that revenue not the magnates, bankers and shareholders.

It is an industry where the parasites are disproportionately rewarded and the producers are discarded after the boom.

We're headed for Hell.

Both "sides" of politics, in Australia and the whole Western world, have been pursuing the same self-destructive one-world agenda, that is economically and socially *impossible* to maintain long term.

An agenda that defies common sense and human nature is doomed to fail, no matter how pretty the posters.

Twitching Tweedles won't change a thing, as the Liberals revelation of mostly "multicultural" candidates shows no new paradigm emerging there.
And alternative parties? Forget it. None have ever broken beyond 10%.

For those who think money is everything, our "leaders" seem to have forgotten one fundamental fact: *civil war* is not good for the economy.

Most Australians are too comfortable to move off the couch right now, but some day soon, a trigger event will be the last straw.
And it won't matter where it starts. France, Ireland, Australia.
It will spread like a fire throughout the West.

With millions of "skilled workers" dead, injured, depressed or emigrating, where's the silver lining economically or socially?

The global utopian dream will be dead, hopefully forever.
One hopes there are sufficient White/Western people left to pick up the pieces and never make the same mistakes again.

Producer, that's why they pay royalties, which is where OUR SHARE come in to the equation.

Another point many of you don't recognize is that u til recently, 5-15 years, mining was some thing that happened out bush somewhere, and many mining towns were almost broke.

The other poimt you don't see is the amount of risk that was taken to find the VIABLE deposits in the first place, especially when coal was around $30 per ton.

Where were the supporters then, offering to prop up the extremely risky mining industry.

Actually the answer is SHARE HOLDERS, as it was the share holders, many of them speculative, who shared the risk.
now I ask all this in favor of the tax, and WHO DONT hold direct shares, do you think it's fair that those who took the risk (share holders) having rode the wave of risk, deserve to have a HUGE CHUNK of their dividends now taken away from them.

I say, we do own the minerals, and get rewarded with royalties, and if you want a larger share, then buy shares in the companies that take the risks, because at least then you will reap your reward, but you will also share the risk.

Now what's unfair about that!

A significant factor thats been overlooked by both sides of politics is reserving a serious chunk of the money received from mining, whether in a futures fund or whatever. Its obvious that the red-headed witch & the dying duck have been incapable of recognizing the mining boom wouldn't continue ad infinitum & I'm far from convinced that RAbbott & Co are any more enlightened.

Ultimately it comes back to a point I made some time ago ... any business operator chooses a beancounter they believe has suitable qualifications & experience for the venture in question, whilst the biggest business in the country, namely the federal economy, is lumbered by whatever mindless union heavy or failed lawyer. We then run all matter of witch-hunts, post mortems etc in futile attempts to figure out what went wrong. Hmmmm.

Surely even the supremely apathetic sheeple must eventually realize its not real smart to allow a near imbecile like the dying duck to mess with hundreds of blllions of taxpayers hard-earned money & expect a wonderful result. After all, this dimwit has had six attempts and totally stuffed every single one !!

Note that I don't for a millisecond suggest that LNP contender Hockey will prove to be any improvement. Where failed lawyers get the idea that they know everything about sccounting & economics is beyond me. Is it any wonder I'm hoping Big Clive will get up in September, at least with his 'proper' business background he'd have the nous to appoint a treasurer with halfway relevant qualifications & experience, a concept clearly beyond the abilities of ALP & LNP numbskulls.

Well said Praxidice

Rehctub – you forgot in your rhetoric one small word DISPROPORTIONATE.

In doing so you missed the point or ignored it?

As an apathetic nation we accept the crumbs of the mining boom as you have clearly illustrated.

The sheeple should be grateful however as they have live cricket and thugby to distract them.

Then there’s the other distraction that comes around every few years that allocates non democratic government DISPROPORTIONATLY (there’s that word again) to the red team or the blue team. All the other players are marginalised just as we as a nation are marginalised with regard to the mining boom.

Shockadelic – we don’t need a civil war, all we have to do is stop feeding the bastards.

The sheeple should be grateful however as they have live cricket and thugby to distract them.

Don't forget the footBRAWL !!

As for 'we don’t need a civil war, all we have to do is stop feeding the bastards', note that I have in fact proposed the sheeple (if they can be attracted away from 'Days of Our Drearies' for a few minutes) demand total and irrevocable control of the Parliamentary Renumeration Tribunal. Note that the bloodsucking parasites in Canberra are actually our SERVANTS. It therefore stands to reason that we as the employers have every right to dictate working conditions and renumeration. Funnily enough, not one of the bloodsucking parasites I've contacted re this matter have ever responded. Hmmmm

praxidice, it's caused HANDOUTS, as every swing dick has their hand out for support.

It's not rocket science, but if a government over spends, much of which has been wasted, what else can we expect.

Given enough time, perhaps the libs can ONCE AGAIN pay back the debt and accumulate some savings.

But boy that's a tough ask, this time around.

Producer, I would hardly describe the billions paid in royalties, combined with the combined income and payroll taxes, generated by the miners, scraps.

Furthermore, if the royalties are out dated, then surely that's not the miners fault.

Producer "we don’t need a civil war"

It's not a matter of "need", but of inevitability.
Our leaders will persist with their head-in-the-sand, pie-in-the-sky policies until everything just falls apart.

No people in history have ever voluntarily allowed their own destruction.
A backlash is inevitable.

"all we have to do is stop feeding the bastards."

Are you referring to the Third World?
Yes, we should stop all foreign aid, but it's not population growth elsewhere that is a threat to us.

It's the radical changes within our own demographics through immigration that will destabilise us.
All we have to do is close the door.
But that will never happen.

Shockadelic But that will never happen.

thereby guaranteeing our going down the gurgler

Rehctub – What the Australian people get from the mining boom is DISPROPORTIONATE and as you say scraps compared to what all other interested parties receive. Based on your rhetoric you are a blue sheeple and I suspect a parasite as well.

Shockadelic – I wasn’t referring to the third world, I was referring to a far worse group, the PARASITES. Those who receive a DISPROPORTIONATE share of our countries wealth and produce nothing. They include the majority of lawyers, advertisers, bean counters, Ickydumic’s, politicians, professional sports persons, celebrities, etc. etc. They are screwing the third world as well. Because they produce nothing, if we didn’t feed them they would have to become producers or starve.

Here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4QHJ3Ho4QQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTQFtNLvcl8

Until people see government for what it is, a disease that masquerades as its own cure, this is our destiny.

If war breaks out between the BRICS nations and the west (Very likely) and the way Australia is positioned at the moment, many Australian regions will become just like this!

Probably the scariest thing about the bloodsucking parasites (as well as the other parasitic lifeforms as so ably identified by other contributors herein) is that they breed on an exponential scale. One would have hoped that increasing population would invoke some approximation of economies of scale when in fact the very opposite is true. I recall thirty years ago that an average lawyers time was 'worth' around 150% of the average wage whereas the current figure is around 2000% of the average wage. Same applies to a lesser or greater extent with all the other bottom-feeders, and we still haven't considered the prodigious costs of supporting a steadily growing army of has-been bloodsucking parasites. How long will it be before the whole GDP of Australia is devoted to supporting the has-beens ??

This is being a bit Marxist doncha reckon, Producer?

"""
They include the majority of lawyers, advertisers, bean counters, Ickydumic’s, politicians, professional sports persons, celebrities, etc. etc. They are screwing the third world as well. Because they produce nothing, if we didn’t feed them they would have to become producers or starve.
"""

advertisers: Ever tried to promote a product without one? They provide a necessary service IMHO!

bean counters: Reduce the ability of government to steal your production through the use of force and their numbers will drop considerably.

sports persons, celebrities: As much as I despise them myself. They provide entertainment and are no different to you or I. You don't have to watch them if you don't like them. Vote with your wallet!
I do however, feel violated paying for their place of work from my own production.

Ickydumic’s ?

It would be a very boring world if we never took time out for some entertainment and all we ever did is produce according to the world view of Producer. What would be the point of life?

Producer, stop feeding the parasites?
I'm afraid that won't happen either.

One would think that people whose entire life is built on fluff-and-bluff would be that last people to promote policies that will destabilise our society, but strangely they're all card-carrying members of Kill The West.

RawMustard - whilst producer can no doubt return his own eloquent repartee, I believe his point was that since all of the identified groups are non-productive, there is a finite limit to how many of them society can feed, and at the rate they are breeding its a hotly contested race to see exactly which tribe sends the country down the gurgler first. My money is on the has-been bloodsucking parasites for first place with legal leeches only a nose behind but YMMV

RawMustard – It’s called productionism

A complex society requires some essential none productive services (e.g. Health, Education, Security, Justice (not law)) to function. We need to question the balance and degree of these activities and the reward (proportion of productivity) a particular activity attracts. While parasite activities attract more reward than productive ones, productivity will continue to decline along with competitiveness.”

Parasite advertisers are the aids of our society. They are not only super parasites in their own right but spawn a significant number of parasites as well. We need information not advertising. Advertising will tell you DDT kills insects but won’t tell you it will kill you also. Advertising should not be a tax deductable expense.

Parasite Bean Counters receive a generally disproportionate share of our productive wealth. More often than not they are looking for ways to screw the producer to increase their share, not the other way round.

Because advertising cost are built into the products we buy combined with the overwhelming power of the duopoly it is virtually impossible to vote with your wallet when it comes to the corporate entertainment sector. The corporate and advertising entertainment sector receives a disproportionate share of our productive wealth and we pay. This is at the expense of the real grass roots industry which I support with my wallet whenever possible.

Ickydumic’s are academics that crave the centre of attention yet serve no real purpose. They can generally be identified by their scarves, bow ties, brightly coloured spectacle frames and other bling. They are masters of taking over anyone to gain attention.

Until we as a nation of individuals break the current Ineptocracy the parasite class will continue to flourish and production will decline.

“Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

We really need to hang them this September and get thing into proportion!

Producer - A complex society requires some essential none productive services (e.g. Health, Education, Security, Justice (not law)) to function

Maybe, but certainly not to the extent typical of present day versions. For example, Queensland Health employs three mouse jockeys per clinical worker, Energex / Ergon / Powerlink four clerical per operational staffer, IN-justice four administrative per magistrate / judge, and so on. General Disaster did clean out a few departments but as it transpired, the ones dispensed with were mainly lower level types who did the majority of what little work was done.

In Queensland we have a 'Peter Principle'. This entails promoting the hopelessly incompetent beyond their individual level of uselessness. Personally I prefer the generic word 'bureaucrazies' for all public servants. Anyway, after the purge, we now have tribes of high level 'Peter Principle' turkeys who find it a major challenge deciding what end of a biro to suck & which to write with.

I had occasion a while back to do business with one of these galahs. Since it was obvious he didn't fully understand the relationship between us, I figured I needed to enlighten him, but first I asked "do you prefer the Australian, the english or the US dialect ??"
"Australian responds said turkey". "OK says I, here's a Macquarie dictionary, please read the meanings of the words 'public' & 'servant"
True story and one well worth repeating ... really blows the mind of any bureaucrazy.

Praxidice – What you are basically saying there are too many non-productive parasites. If this is the case I agree whole heartedly. The flaw in your approach is I believe although very relevant that you are too specific. My approach is to attempt to drill down to the core issue.

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated. - Confucius

The core issue is too many non-productive parasites being rewarded with a disproportionate and undeserved amount of our productive wealth!

The solution (very condensed version) – Personal income per annum (from all sources including gambling and fringe benefits) should be limited to a range from not only a minimum, but also to maximum linked to sustainable GDP. Income goes up goes up and down with productivity. We share the pain and the wealth. I call it Productionism.

To tease out the question on how the countries productive wealth should be shared should be kept simple as well.

Those who produce should be the ones that should receive a higher share than all others. If it was not for them there would not be any production and therefore nothing to share. Only producers would be able to achieve the higher range of the scale.

Parasite professions should only be able to achieve the maximum of a median range. If they are unhappy with their share they would have to become producers to earn more and in the process contribute to national productivity and wealth.

Everyone irrespective of what they do is entitled to the minimum but must contribute in a meaningful way to their immediate community for a specific amount of time. This activity should be controlled by community not central government.

This has nothing to do with wealth, only the annual income from wealth. I believe would control greed and manipulation by the wealthy and powerful parasite.

The reality of such a concept would be akin to pissing into the wind while watching pigs fly past.

I'm not good at articulating my thoughts in writing, being more a producer(sic) than an academic but I'll give it a go :~)

I think you two are failing to see the value of what you consider to be non productive services. For example you claim:

"""
A complex society requires some essential none productive services (e.g. Health, Education, Security, Justice (not law)) to function
"""

How can something be essential and non productive at the same time?

It's like you think the oil that maintains the plows health is non essential and productive because it's not actually tilling the soil. When in actual fact, without the oil the plow would seize and production of crops would cease! Isn't a doctor or health service the same as the oil?

Education is needed to engineer, build, maintain, use the plow and know what to plant in the tilled soil.

Security being necessary to protect the plow, crop, harvest from theft/destruction.

Justice being necessary to apprehend, recoup loss, prevent further theft/destruction.

To me, all these services are equally as important as the plow, as without them the plow is useless is it not?

You can claim that these services are overdone in relation to the plow ie, not enough plows and too many of the other. But who is to decide who owns the plow and who provides the essential services in order for the plow to remain productive? One would think with no intervention from parasitic government; the free market and capitalism would ensure an even balance?

If you begin down the road of forced production by any means and who gets what, who does what, would it not be worse than the system we have now? I think it would be considered communism not Productionism and has failed miserably in all places it's been tried.

Killing off incentive is the fastest way down the drain and that's a big problem right now! Aim your problems at the real parasites. Take away the forced distribution of wealth we have now and those parasites will be forced automatically into your world view.

Draconian responses? Won't that just create more paper-pushers?

The problem isn't necessarily the industries/occupations, but their misuse (frivolous lawsuits, excessive legislation).

One reason for high salaries is the progressive income tax. The more you earn, the more you lose in tax.
A flat tax would remove at least that incentive.

Also, removing tax deductions for such salaries. Companies will think twice if they know they can't claim deductions for those high salaries and other perks.

Creating maximum income limits would be unfair for those with uncertain future income like artistic occupations.
They make a million one year and nothing for the next five.

RawMustard – Clearly you have thought and are prepared to challenge the concept. I take my hat off.

To be a producer one must produce something as a means to survive or that can be traded for those things you don’t produce.
A parasite produces nothing. If you had a world full of only doctors, teachers, policemen and lawyers, they would not survive.

I classify the above group of parasites as essential to a COMPLEX society. You could have a society of producers that is simple, sick and dumb, without tools and no rule of law with none of the above group. Not desirable but possible, whereas the other scenario is impossible.

You say - all these services are equally as important as the plow, as without them the plow is useless is it not?

The plough is not essential. Hunter gathers society did not have ploughs.

An academic could invent a plough, but unless one is produced it is nothing, does nothing. Production trumps academia.

The producer of the plough would own the plough; however the inventor would trade his idea for produced goods. The plough would enable the producer to produce more for the same effort, enabling the producer to support himself, the inventor and others. This is represented by our free market system and patent law.

Cont.

Cont.

Now this is important and key to the concept. The flaw in the current system is that NON-ESSENTIAL PARRASITES are receiving a DISPROPORTIONATE share of productive wealth. These include advertisers, professional sports persons, celebrities’ etc. etc.

Productionism does not force an individual to become a producer, it simply recognises the producer as the key to wealth and rewards him the most, but this has limits as well. More production means everybody (parasites as well) do proportionally better. Less production everybody gets proportionally less.

Communism - A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

What I have suggested recognises we are not equal and have different aspirations, wants and needs and is not controlled by the state. It simply rewards the makers more than the takers and limits total reward to total production.

Shockadelic – Look at the big picture, specifics distort.

I don't have an issue with rewarding enterprise, the human animal won't achieve anything without it. Obviously a brain surgeon who has spent twenty years getting educated to a point where he or she can mess with peoples grey matter is worthy of a tad more than a council street sweeper. What I think we all have a problem with is legal leeches, public company CEOs, entertainers & footbrawlers who produce diddley squat, getting more than someone who has devoted their whole life to actually IMPROVING the country. It may be that the likes of the red-headed witch & the RAbbott are low on the pay scale compared with the aforementioned, however given the precious little they do & the fact that most is actively vindictive, the clowns would be grossly overpaid at $2pa

Formalizing a control mechanism, is, as has been noted, near impossible. The untold arrogance & avarice of the culprits renders creation of an control a herculean task. What I believe will happen is that the long awaited financial crash will eventuate & there won't be money to pay these parasites. Said parasites will then need to produce or perish (no dole with no gubmunt income). Exactly what parasites CAN produce is another question, sees there will be a steep learning curve for some

Praxidice – I agree if we as a people are unable to recognise that it is not possible to continue to take from the planet at the current levels the serious problem we have will be the downfall of the human race and will change this planet to a point where life as we know it no longer exists.

I would however like to think that as a civilisation we have the ability to produce less and have more. I know it sounds like an oxymoron but if you think about it. If we stop making all the crap that we don’t need and share the value of essential production more proportionally the majority of us would have more. Those who get less are getting too much now anyway.

The new pope said we need to stop working for money, instead have money working for us or words that effect. I hate to say it but I tend to agree with him and he has an imaginary friend, wears a dress and a funny hat. The Rolling Stone’s said “Your as slave to money then you die”, which is equally true.

Producer - The new pope said we need to stop working for money, instead have money working for us or words that effect.

Have you noticed that the vast majority of people who make statements like that have never once in their whole life had to think about actually supporting themselves ?? I haven't had reason to read up on the life and times of this pontiff but I'd be surprised if he had any personal acquaintance with 'work'. The 'holy' roman church certainly has no shortage of money working for it being one of the biggest landowners on planet earth. Assuming catholics still regard the bible as authorative, one wonders how the organization rationalizes its status with Matthew 21:12.

Your point is quite valid re the take take take mentality of the human race as a whole. I've always argued that the word 'developer' should really be 'attila' after the famous barbarian, since their real line of business is rape and pillage. Furthermore, the erstwhile 'deadly sin' of greed has been transformed into something highly desirable, particularly by legal leeches, public company CEOs and suchlike bottom-feeders. Even the highly desirable ideal of reducing atmospheric emissions has been highjacked by the lunatic fringe who claim that several hundred years frantic pumping who knows what into our ecosystem whilst busily destroying the natural regulation system doesn't amount to outright environmental vandalism. Don't get me started on the carbon tax male bovine dropping.

to be continued

continued

As I've suggested elsewhere, I believe a major financial crash is far more imminent than an environmental reckoning, mind you anyone with a plurality of functional grey cells couldn't help notice signs Mother Nature / Gaia is not happy. I've chosen to act as if both a financial crash AND an environmental reckoning are looming, consequently I expect to be somewhat better placed than the average mug to weather the storms. A particularly attractive point about a major financial upheaval is the certain end of human parasitology. That said, given their total lack of anything vaguely approximating ethics, one doesn't need to be a clairvoyant to predict a rebirth of highway robbery (in addition that is to the form practiced by folk in blue uniforms and driving vans mit cameras inside)

Producer "Shockadelic – Look at the big picture, specifics distort."

But you must deal with specifics.
It's all very well to rabbit on about "parasites", but it was proposed to put income limits on individuals.
You cannot tax, legislate or regulate vague generalities, you must deal with specific people or acts.

Creating more bureaucracy to deal with "parasites" only exacerbates the problem.
As praxidice predicts, there will be an economic/environmental day of reckoning soon.
One doesn't need to do anything about "parasites".

Shockadelic – With respect I disagree.

The way we approach the current situation is dealing with symptoms of the disease and ignoring the disease itself.

For example, the much debated carbon tax is an attempt to deal with the symptom of global warming caused by the release into the atmosphere of carbon from vast deposits of stored carbon. This is dealing with the symptom.

The disease is the removal and burning of stored carbon sources. The cure is to stop removing them and stop burning them.
The reason we dig them up is to fuel unsustainable growth within a finite system. Logic would suggest if we reduce the unsustainable growth we would also reduce the requirement to remove stored carbon.

This poses the question, how do we control unsustainable growth?

Growth’s primary driver is the pursuit of the holy dollar. We applaud those who are able to accrue vast amounts of it especially if they do very little for it. One of the easiest ways to accrue vast amounts of the holy dollar is to have some low paid mug remove carbon deposits and burn them. The trick is to sit back with your bean counters, consultants; shareholders etc. etc. and do nothing. All we have are parasites with snouts in the trough producing nothing and raping the planet in the process.

Now you see how complex the above has become and I’m quite sure you are able to wedge a side argument in at a number of areas. This is only one aspect of our complex society. It is in the interests of the parasite to facilitate this discussion as it draws attention away from the cause, greed.

Cont.

Cont.

I say the core issue is too many non-productive parasites being rewarded with a disproportionate and undeserved amount of our productive wealth!

The solution (very condensed version) – Personal income per annum (from all sources including gambling and fringe benefits) should be limited to a range from not only a minimum, but also to maximum linked to sustainable GDP. Income goes up goes up and down with productivity. We share the pain and the wealth. I call it Productionism.

This controls greed, over production, underproduction, and sustainability, rewards the productive, enables but controls non-productive activities and reduces growth. Most importantly it distributes productive wealth proportionately without stifling productivity.

Dear Producer

I have no argument with your logic, in fact from my perspective at least the points are exceptionally well reasoned, however the question is whether or not its too late in the day to prevent the day of reckoning, whether it be environmental or financial ?? In 'The vanishing Face of Gaia' (as well as in earlier books), James Lovelock goes to great lengths to postulate a tipping point beyond which we are incapable of preventing what lays beyond, essentially similar to the point of no return with international aircraft travel. Whilst I haven't delved to the same extent in economic areas, the same 'tipping point' must surely apply there as well. I suggest that the parasitic snouts who by their very avarice will cause the financial crash are either too arrogant, incapable of recognizing, or unwilling to admit, their culpability. These issues I can live with, however in the interests of self-preservation, one must consider what happens with supremely arrogant bloodsucking parasitic snouts mit born to rule syndrome when their whole reason for existence, namely the love of money, is suddenly destroyed. My best guess is the resurgence of highway robbery on a grand scale that makes blue-uniformed flash for cash operations look like a church run charity appeal.