Belly, I see you're on about multinationals not paying tax again. Any luck with the comparison?

You simply can not make a claim that these entities don't pay one cent in tax until you have the facts, otherwise it's just here say.

In order to make a claim you must look at all the contributing factors, not just the juicy bits.

I have read all the posts and find it amazing that those defending the unions refuse to accept, what has been made patently clear, on this particular topic alone, so far.
It must be said that the union movement was started by people who were no better than politicians.
They were predators.
They saw an opportunity to make money and at the same time make themselves look good.
There has NEVER been a social conscience in their rise to stardom.
I won't say that the govt is also to blame because those who are pro union will jump on that statement and not let it go, at the expense of the truth.
I have discussed this in previous topics and what MUST happen now that we're neck deep in doo-doo, is for our economy to take a haircut.
We must lower our standing of living.
The unions in their haste to acquire power and wealth, as they could see a better and socially more acceptable format than just being another political party (labour), decided to make it appear they were the workers champions and produced a very ill-conceived mantra.
They were successful in selling themselves to the those of less fortitude and lacking in self worth or convictions.
Most joined the unions because of peer pressure, others because they just didn't care one way or another.
Few were staunch believers of the union 'faith'.
As much as the faithful want to demonise the company, I'm sorry, your taking the lazy way again.
If you have a problem with big companies not paying enough tax, it won't be long till the even more useless ones will be back in govt, you can put it to your soul mates then to get them to change the tax system for big business and multi nationals.
Good luck with that.
If they say they will, they will make it appear as though they have, but nothing will really change.
BTW, if you think that the political parties are all independent, think again.
It is one big SWAMP.

"It must be said that the union movement was started by people who were no better than politicians.
They were predators."

Tell that to the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

is mise,
very interesting, I had never heard of them. I imagine they'd be turning in their graves at today's
outfits.

rehctub,
>Aiden, how does a machine, that replaces workers, make workers more productive.
>...the worker that gets to operate the machine produces more work, but at the cost of other workers jobs/shifts.
You shouldn't be baffled, because you've answered your own question. The workers who operate the machine produces more work, and others are freed up to do produce more work elsewhere.

>As for debt, if it is so serviceable, as you claim, why then has it not gone down?
Because the government has been putting more money into the economy than it's been taking out.

Electronic money effectively operates as a closed loop, so this shows up on the accounts as debt, but there is never any problem servicing it.

>Of cause we can keep printing money, but it is my understanding that to print money, one has to put up security.
Your understanding is incorrect; security is not needed with a floating currency the government issues, for there's no chance at all of the government being unable to repay it. "Printing money" nowadays doesn't usually mean physical printing; it means the government effectively borrowing from itself - though for reasons of history and bank liquidity, it's usually done via a bond issue rather than directly.

>Or are you suggesting we just keep printing money forever. Would that not make $1000 worth 50 cents in time?
Increasing the money supply is inflationary whether it is done in the public or private sector. But meanwhile there's a strong deflationary effect from advancing technology and mechanisation (those machines get things done a lot more cheaply than more workers). The main function of economic policy should be to balance those out, so that we get adequate job creation everywhere without excessive inflation. But for about a decade in general, and longer in my state, too little money has been going into the economy, so we've needlessly had high unemployment.

In boom times, and indeed boom locations, the government should take more money out of the economy than it puts in (aka run a surplus) to control inflation. But surpluses aren't intrinsically desirable.

individual,
"The opposition doesn't do it's job so who better than a Union not aligned with any political party to be the watchdog over a Government to keep it accountable ?"
EVERYONE!
I mean that in two ways: firstly I can't think of anyone WORSE than a union to keep the government accountable, even before we consider the problem of keeping the union accountable. Secondly, we should crowdsource scrutiny of almost everything.

"Lesser Govt fees & chatges are really a no brainer to get costs back to an internationally competitive level."
That could help, but at most it's only a small part of the solution.