Oxfam highlights inequality as world’s 10 richest men more than double wealth during COVID
January 17 2022 New Daily.
COVID-19 has turbocharged the vast fortunes of the world’s billionaires while causing untold harm for the world’s poor.

The world’s richest 10 men have more than doubled their wealth since the start of the pandemic, while 99 per cent of the global population have been left worse off, according to international charity Oxfam.

When businesses were forced to close and workers confined to their rooms, central banks slashed interest rates to record lows and pumped trillions of dollars into financial markets to help keep the global economy afloat.

But much of that economic stimulus ended up flowing into company coffers and lining the pockets of their billionaire owners.

Now, economists have renewed their call for Australia’s unemployment benefit JobSeeker to be lifted above the poverty line, and Oxfam has pushed for the Australian government to introduce a wealth tax on the mega-rich.



Reversing progress
Released on Monday, Oxfam’s report found that Australia’s 47 billionaires – a list that includes Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest, Anthony Pratt and Gina Reinhardt – were now worth $255 billion.

Globally, the top 10 richest men doubled their wealth to $US1.9 trillion ($2.6 trillion). 

Oxfam public engagement chief Rod Goodburn said the jump in inequality went against recent trends.

“Until the pandemic, the work going on in the development space has actually reduced inequality, particularly over the last 25 years,” said Mr Goodburn, noting this was clear to see when looking at the rise of China and India.

But over the past two years inequality worsened due to “massive injections of finance from central banks into economies”.

Although this funding was important in keeping economies afloat, it had the effect of boosting corporate balance sheets and share prices.

Read – The rich grew richer: Elon Musk’s $167 billion windfall puts fellow billionaires’ gains to shame

Across the globe inequality jumped during the pandemic. Photo: Getty
And the surge in the fortunes of the super wealthy was dramatic.

“The world’s small elite of 2755 billionaires has seen its fortunes
grow more during COVID-19 than they have in the whole of the last
14 years – 14 years that themselves were a bonanza
for billionaire wealth,” Oxfam’s report said.

Meanwhile, Oxfam claimed that 99 per cent of the global population were worse off because of COVID-19 – though its methodology has been called into question.

Mr Goodburn said 99 per cent were worse off because in the developing world “there are many countries that don’t have age pensions, unemployment support or proper child care”.

Social safety net
Some of these support measures were temporarily increased in Australia during the pandemic.

But although these measures supported incomes, they suffered from major design flaws, according to independent economist Nicki Hutley.

“[Such programs] could have been tidied up a bit better along the way. Some companies took the [JobKeeper] payment when they didn’t actually need it,” Ms Hutley said.

The JobSeeker payment was boosted by $550 a fortnight from March 2020 to September 2020 but was then reduced as the economic situation improved.

“We should have just kept it there,” Ms Hutley said.

“It actually brought people back into a situation where they were no longer living below the poverty line and made a huge difference in stimulating the economy.”

At the other end of the spectrum, property owners and people with company shares saw their wealth skyrocket as huge cuts to central bank interest rates boosted asset prices across the board.

“The wealthier you are, the wealthier you get as asset values rise,” Ms Hutley said.



Oxfam’s wealth tax
Oxfam suggests a wealth tax should be introduced in Australia to deal with rising inequality, which has been linked to a greater chance of catching COVID-19.

“In Australia, if you are poor, you are 2.6 times more likely to die from COVID than if you are middle class or wealthy,” Mr Goodburn said.

A wealth tax would not just be used to boost the government’s coffers, it would fund social infrastructure that would in turn improve the lives of poorer Australians.

“[The money could be spent on] everything from health care to education to child care and the social safety net,” Mr Goodburn said.

He said Oxfam’s wealth tax would raise $30 billion a year – an amount sufficient to cover half the costs of achieving the WHO’s goal of vaccinating 70 per cent of the world population by mid-2022.

But not everyone agrees with wealth taxes.

Ms Hutley said they risked eroding incentives “by double taxing people”.

Though she said the tax system should be made more progressive.

“I’m very much opposed to the third tranche of the income tax cuts,” she said.

From 2024, those cuts will eliminate the 37 per cent tax bracket and see everyone earning between $45,000 and $200,000 a year paying the same marginal tax rate of 30 cents in the dollar.

better still.

How about we remove all the free rides dole bludgers, single mothers , abbos and other parasites get.

All pensioners (with a work record of longer than 20 years) should get a substantial rise.

Politicians and Fat Cats should be culled and the incomes of those remaining cut by at least 20%

Valkie wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 6:34am:

How about we remove all the free rides dole bludgers, single mothers , abbos and other parasites get.

you know how many dole bludgers we could pay and for how long with the $89 billion paid out to corporates who should never have claimed it? ::)  And there's a lot more they received in other payments dressed up as fluff or grants.

you've been conned Valkie, and you're stupid enough to believe the hype

Quote:

But not everyone agrees with wealth taxes. Ms Hutley said they risked eroding incentives “by double taxing people”.

Double taxing people? Oh please, cry me a river.

The GST's entire existence is based on double taxing people. People pay income tax on their income, then when they spend what is left, the GST is paid on this after-tax income: double taxation.

In some cases, the GST even triple taxes people. Every time a car is filled up with petrol, about 4 cents a litre is paid as triple taxation: income tax, then fuel excise, then GST on the fuel excise. Other examples exist, such as stamp duties on insurance policies.

If anyone claims to be worried about double taxation, they should be advocating for the abolition of the GST.

Forgoing an opportunity to raise revenue on the grounds of double taxation is specious nonsense that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Much of this wealth gain isn't taxed at all.

Valkie wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 6:34am:

better still. How about we remove all the free rides dole bludgers, single mothers , abbos and other parasites get.

You're not worried about the tax. You just hate poor people. ADMIT IT.

A wealth tax is a very good idea.

Why should wealth and capital not be taxed or taxed very lightly but income from workers be taxed much more heavily?

A worker pays a significant percentage of their income in tax (around 25%-30%), but the revenue they earn their company is only taxed at the company tax rate if it makes a profit for the company (typically 3% of turnover).

It really should be the other way around. We really need to consider taxing companies on their turnover, not their profits. A federal turnover tax of about 1% can replace all state-based payroll taxes if the proceeds are given to the states. It also broadens the tax base by bringing into the tax system about 30% of companies that currently pay no tax. For this to work best, there should be no exemptions.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 10:29am:

Valkie wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 6:34am: How about we remove all the free rides dole bludgers, single mothers , abbos and other parasites get. you know how many dole bludgers we could pay and for how long with the $89 billion paid out to corporates who should never have claimed it? ::)  And there's a lot more they received in other payments dressed up as fluff or grants. you've been conned Valkie, and you're stupid enough to believe the hype

Not conned, just sick to death of lazy parasites sitting on their fat arses doing nothing and demanding more to do it.

The dole should be limited to 12 months.
After the second child, unmarried parental money shoukd be stopped.
And a minimum of 10 years, preferably 30 years of contribution shoukd be required before the age pension is given, and should be more.

But you are right
If business paid tgeir fair share of tax
If politicians and fat cats were paid what tgey are worth
If retired politicians and fat cats got the same pension, with the same requirements as everyone else
And if our idiot grubberment stopped selling off all our resources, just so tgey can be "technically" sold at minimum value and suddenly become 10 times more expensive once they leave our shores.

It would be great.

But its never going to happen
We have one of tge most corrupt and clandestine grubberments on earth
Without a revolution, it will never change.

No new taxes. Make the ones we have, work. The problem with regulation is that it feeds on itself. And there's a whole echelon of office-bludgers who are always inventing new ones, otherwise they might have to go out and get real job. Wealth is not evil, but the Labor Party wants you to believe it is.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:53am:

No new taxes.

Why? All you're doing is shooting down the idea of new taxes without debate or discussion. You're implying that the worst of the current taxes is better than the best tax that currently does not exist. That is not a sound proposition.


issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:53am:

Make the ones we have, work.

No. Some of the current taxes are inefficient to collect, act as unnecessary disincentives, or have other issues. Payroll tax is one example of a bad tax because it is inequitable and discourages the creation of jobs. Replacing payroll tax with a single tax assessed on company turnover would replace an inefficient tax with one that is more efficient to assess.


issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:53am:

The problem with regulation is that it feeds on itself. And there's a whole echelon of office-bludgers who are always inventing new ones, otherwise they might have to go out and get real job.

The post is discussing taxes, not regulations.


issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:53am:

Wealth is not evil, but the Labor Party wants you to believe it is.

That last part is not true. Wealth is not inherently evil. The real evil is found amongst the rich who loot and hoard unearned wealth for themselves.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 10:29am:

Valkie wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 6:34am: How about we remove all the free rides dole bludgers, single mothers , abbos and other parasites get. you know how many dole bludgers we could pay and for how long with the $89 billion paid out to corporates who should never have claimed it? ::)  And there's a lot more they received in other payments dressed up as fluff or grants. you've been conned Valkie, and you're stupid enough to believe the hype

That's the kind of seed money needed for genuine infrastructure upgrade, the kind that will produce prosperity for the nation and genuinely create jobs... but that's too socialist for the major parties.... they are doing well in their capitalist roading.

Bam wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:20am:

A wealth tax is a very good idea. Why should wealth and capital not be taxed or taxed very lightly but income from workers be taxed much more heavily? A worker pays a significant percentage of their income in tax (around 25%-30%), but the revenue they earn their company is only taxed at the company tax rate if it makes a profit for the company (typically 3% of turnover). It really should be the other way around. We really need to consider taxing companies on their turnover, not their profits. A federal turnover tax of about 1% can replace all state-based payroll taxes if the proceeds are given to the states. It also broadens the tax base by bringing into the tax system about 30% of companies that currently pay no tax. For this to work best, there should be no exemptions.

A worker is taxed on turnover, not on profit.  :-?

Valkie wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 11:45am:

Not conned, just sick to death of lazy parasites sitting on their fat arses doing nothing and demanding more to do it.

you mean those like you?

A wealth tax?

Define wealthy.

For Matty...

https://cdn.geckoandfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/grammar.jpg

Poor old bwyannnnnnnnn

Nothing to contribute, so he just acts the ass

---

Bam wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 4:22pm:

issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: No new taxes. Why? All you're doing is shooting down the idea of new taxes without debate or discussion. You're implying that the worst of the current taxes is better than the best tax that currently does not exist. That is not a sound proposition. issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: Make the ones we have, work. No. Some of the current taxes are inefficient to collect, act as unnecessary disincentives, or have other issues. Payroll tax is one example of a bad tax because it is inequitable and discourages the creation of jobs. Replacing payroll tax with a single tax assessed on company turnover would replace an inefficient tax with one that is more efficient to assess. issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: The problem with regulation is that it feeds on itself. And there's a whole echelon of office-bludgers who are always inventing new ones, otherwise they might have to go out and get real job. The post is discussing taxes, not regulations. issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: Wealth is not evil, but the Labor Party wants you to believe it is. That last part is not true. Wealth is not inherently evil. The real evil is found amongst the rich who loot and hoard unearned wealth for themselves.

Like many Labor voters, you resent wealth.

John Smith wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 5:02pm:

Valkie wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:45am: Not conned, just sick to death of lazy parasites sitting on their fat arses doing nothing and demanding more to do it. you mean those like you?

No, more like you.

I have done my time 47 years fully employed.
Paid my taxes all my life.
Done my job and been a worthwhile employee.

Now Im retired, living on my own money, I get nothing from the system I have supported all my life.

Paying for dole bludgers, abbos, illegal immigrants, single mothers who keep churning out kids for cash and a whole lot of other parasites.

I owe no one anything
And everyone owes me.

The likes of Rinehart, Forrest, Packer and their ilk certainly need to be taxed according to their wealth without being able to use any loopholes or tax havens to avoid it. However tax laws made with the best of intentions usually end up working against the ordinary worker instead of ensuring the ultra wealthy pay their share. 

Tax the wealthy

Two words

GOOD LUCK

This is a terrible idea. Unless your plan is to get all the rich people to either leave the country or invest their money overseas.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 6:52pm:

This is a terrible idea. Unless your plan is to get all the rich people to either leave the country or invest their money overseas.

There are hardly any manufacturing companies left
as they can get much cheaper tax to pay
in places like China, Malaysia, Indonesia or Taiwan.

The wages are also cheaper and there is little
cost for health and safety rules.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 6:52pm:

This is a terrible idea. Unless your plan is to get all the rich people to either leave the country or invest their money overseas.

Define rich.

Define wealthy.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 7:46pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 6:52pm: This is a terrible idea. Unless your plan is to get all the rich people to either leave the country or invest their money overseas. Define rich. Define wealthy.

Rich people fall into money or obtain by illegal means.
Wealthy people earned it.

Jasin wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 8:32pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 7:46pm: freediver wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 6:52pm: This is a terrible idea. Unless your plan is to get all the rich people to either leave the country or invest their money overseas. Define rich. Define wealthy. Rich people fall into money or obtain by illegal means. Wealthy people earned it.

Ok, if this is a tax on the wealthy then define wealthy? Is a wealthy person someone with more than 1 home? I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

You can't have a discussion when the meaning of ordinary words are to be disputed first. It just demonstrated and emphasises that the disputants are not standing on the same ground.

Frank wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 8:48pm:

You can't have a discussion when the meaning of ordinary words are to be disputed first. It just demonstrated and emphasises that the disputants are not standing on the same ground.

Exactly!

My notion of "being wealthy" might be very different to yours.

I think they were talking about taxes on income before all the diversions.  It's a tricky beast - legitimate expenses and costs of running a business should be accepted - but the same does not apply to a worker, who gets a few paltry concessions, but nothing like writing off the home base and costs of going to work etc.

It is out of balance.  There are people who roll over income into a super account and pay no tax and live high off the proceeds.

Greens release corporate tax plan to generate $338 billion over the next decade   
ABC News
Posted Mon 6 Sep 2021

Large companies and mining corporations could be paying more tax under a plan by the Greens that is reminiscent of a former Labor policy.

Key points:
A company with a turnover of more than $100 million would face a 40 per cent super-profits tax
The Greens want to see the tax spent on Medicare, JobSeeker and housing
Experts say Australia's corporate tax rate is already higher then many countries
Leader Adam Bandt said the measures would bring in $338 billion over the next decade, which would help fund dental appointments and mental health support, as well as lift the JobSeeker rate.

Elements of the policy mirror Labor's controversial mining tax that passed in 2012 but was later repealed by then-prime minister Tony Abbott.

The Greens' Corporate Super-Profits Tax is the party's attempt to stake out some political ground ahead of the looming federal election, which is likely to be held next year.

However, there are a lot of pieces of the political puzzle that need to fall into place for it to become a reality.

Greens say higher tax is needed
Mr Bandt believes many Australians support big business being hit with additional costs.

"While everyone else has suffered through the pandemic, billionaire corporations have made out like bandits and profits are at record highs," he said.

"A 'tycoon tax' is essential because there's huge wealth in this country, but it's being hoarded by a greedy few."

Under the proposal, a company that has a turnover of more than $100 million would be slugged with the 40 per cent corporate super-profits tax.


The new tax would apply to a company's net revenue, after income tax and a "fair return to shareholders" is deducted.

Independent economist Saul Eslake explained how it could work.

"In effect, they're saying that any company which generates profits that represent a return to shareholders in excess of 6 per cent, or thereabouts, after a payment of the normal company tax, should be paying an additional 40 per cent of those so-called excess profits to the government by way of tax," he said.

Mr Eslake argued that Australia's corporate tax rate was already higher than many other countries.

"Among the 38 or so member countries of the OECD, only Portugal and Colombia, neither of which are particularly developed, have higher statutory corporate tax rates than Australia does," he said.

"Indeed, Australia gets a larger proportion of its total tax revenue from company tax than most other so-called Western economies.

"So the case for Australia to do more in that context is, I think, not very compelling."

The tax bill issued to mining companies would be assessed on a project-by-project basis, which is what was recommended in the Ken Henry review commissioned by the former Labor government.

It led to the introduction of the mining tax in 2012 after years of negotiating and lobbying.

That tax was repealed two years later by the Coalition government.

However Mr Bandt is confident there is still support within opposition ranks to bring back such a tax.

"I think the case for a super-profits tax on these billionaire corporations, in a style originally proposed by Kevin Rudd, is only going to grow," he said.

So the wealth tax you're referring to is a tax on certain corporations not individuals. Yes?

Quote:

No. Some of the current taxes are inefficient to collect, act as unnecessary disincentives, or have other issues. Payroll tax is one example of a bad tax because it is inequitable and discourages the creation of jobs. Replacing payroll tax with a single tax assessed on company turnover would replace an inefficient tax with one that is more efficient to assess.

A turnover tax is an even worse idea, if you are talking about unnecessary disincentives. It would skew the entire economy towards high margin business.


Quote:

I think they were talking about taxes on income before all the diversions.

You give them too much credit.

I notice WK's post does not have a link, or any kind of detail about what is being proposed. Anyone know where it came from?

issuevoter wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 5:47pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 4:22pm: issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: No new taxes. Why? All you're doing is shooting down the idea of new taxes without debate or discussion. You're implying that the worst of the current taxes is better than the best tax that currently does not exist. That is not a sound proposition. issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: Make the ones we have, work. No. Some of the current taxes are inefficient to collect, act as unnecessary disincentives, or have other issues. Payroll tax is one example of a bad tax because it is inequitable and discourages the creation of jobs. Replacing payroll tax with a single tax assessed on company turnover would replace an inefficient tax with one that is more efficient to assess. issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: The problem with regulation is that it feeds on itself. And there's a whole echelon of office-bludgers who are always inventing new ones, otherwise they might have to go out and get real job. The post is discussing taxes, not regulations. issuevoter wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:53am: Wealth is not evil, but the Labor Party wants you to believe it is. That last part is not true. Wealth is not inherently evil. The real evil is found amongst the rich who loot and hoard unearned wealth for themselves. Like many Labor voters, you resent wealth.

Since you've decided to resort to strawman fallacies, you're accepting all points I raised without further discussion.

Good. That means you won't be making any further contributions to the topic.

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 8:32am:

Quote: No. Some of the current taxes are inefficient to collect, act as unnecessary disincentives, or have other issues. Payroll tax is one example of a bad tax because it is inequitable and discourages the creation of jobs. Replacing payroll tax with a single tax assessed on company turnover would replace an inefficient tax with one that is more efficient to assess. A turnover tax is an even worse idea, if you are talking about unnecessary disincentives. It would skew the entire economy towards high margin business.

That is just your supposition, offered without any proof.

A 1% tax that replaces other taxes would not distort the economy as much as payroll taxes do. If you assert otherwise without proof I won't accept it.

You have also not proposed any alternative to payroll taxes or turnover taxes that ensures businesses make a contribution to the government-funded spending that they consume. What is your idea for replacing payroll taxes and broadening the company tax base? Go on, show us.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 5:55pm:

The likes of Rinehart, Forrest, Packer and their ilk certainly need to be taxed according to their wealth without being able to use any loopholes or tax havens to avoid it. However tax laws made with the best of intentions usually end up working against the ordinary worker instead of ensuring the ultra wealthy pay their share.

The billionaires are not contributing enough so everyone else has to pay more.

A possible way of ensuring the rich pay more without affecting most workers would be limiting tax deductions in any one financial year to $10 million, or another similarly high figure that most people (maybe 99.99%) won't reach.

Or individual tax deductions can be limited. The "tax advice" deduction is particularly prone to abuse. If anyone is spending a million dollars a year on "tax advice", that's unlikely to be legitimate (especially if this money just happens to end up being paid to family members). A limit of $10,000 a year should be plenty for most people, and this should be paid to qualified accountants, not an income stream for the kids.

Bam wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 9:57am:

Belgarion wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 5:55pm: The likes of Rinehart, Forrest, Packer and their ilk certainly need to be taxed according to their wealth without being able to use any loopholes or tax havens to avoid it. However tax laws made with the best of intentions usually end up working against the ordinary worker instead of ensuring the ultra wealthy pay their share.  The billionaires are not contributing enough so everyone else has to pay more. A possible way of ensuring the rich pay more without affecting most workers would be limiting tax deductions in any one financial year to $10 million, or another similarly high figure that most people (maybe 99.99%) won't reach. Or individual tax deductions can be limited. The "tax advice" deduction is particularly prone to abuse. If anyone is spending a million dollars a year on "tax advice", that's unlikely to be legitimate (especially if this money just happens to end up being paid to family members). A limit of $10,000 a year should be plenty for most people, and this should be paid to qualified accountants, not an income stream for the kids.

I like the idea of limiting deductions. This could work.

It is all explained here

https://mobile.twitter.com/yvtweets/status/1482477560483270665

Belgarion wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 10:06am:

Bam wrote on Jan 19th, 2022 at 9:57am: Belgarion wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 5:55pm: The likes of Rinehart, Forrest, Packer and their ilk certainly need to be taxed according to their wealth without being able to use any loopholes or tax havens to avoid it. However tax laws made with the best of intentions usually end up working against the ordinary worker instead of ensuring the ultra wealthy pay their share.  The billionaires are not contributing enough so everyone else has to pay more. A possible way of ensuring the rich pay more without affecting most workers would be limiting tax deductions in any one financial year to $10 million, or another similarly high figure that most people (maybe 99.99%) won't reach. Or individual tax deductions can be limited. The "tax advice" deduction is particularly prone to abuse. If anyone is spending a million dollars a year on "tax advice", that's unlikely to be legitimate (especially if this money just happens to end up being paid to family members). A limit of $10,000 a year should be plenty for most people, and this should be paid to qualified accountants, not an income stream for the kids. I like the idea of limiting deductions. This could work.

Yes it could work.

A possible problem with it is the possibility of structuring tax affairs so that any extra tax deductions are shifted into future years. However, this can't be done indefinitely because people don't live indefinitely. Any unclaimed deductions would be forfeited on death.

Another possible problem is structuring finances so other people (such as family members) can claim the deductions instead. However, that behaviour would be likely to attract audits.

Bam wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 9:33am:

freediver wrote on Jan 19th, 2022 at 8:32am: Quote: No. Some of the current taxes are inefficient to collect, act as unnecessary disincentives, or have other issues. Payroll tax is one example of a bad tax because it is inequitable and discourages the creation of jobs. Replacing payroll tax with a single tax assessed on company turnover would replace an inefficient tax with one that is more efficient to assess. A turnover tax is an even worse idea, if you are talking about unnecessary disincentives. It would skew the entire economy towards high margin business. That is just your supposition, offered without any proof.

I was hoping you might think for yourself. I guess that was too much to ask.


Quote:

A 1% tax that replaces other taxes would not distort the economy as much as payroll taxes do. If you assert otherwise without proof I won't accept it.

Do you have any proof of your claim?


Quote:

You have also not proposed any alternative to payroll taxes or turnover taxes that ensures businesses make a contribution to the government-funded spending that they consume. What is your idea for replacing payroll taxes and broadening the company tax base? Go on, show us.

What makes you think I want to replace anything?

Perhaps common sense shoukd prevail.

Any grubberment who finds a way to take more money from the rich.

Will in no way pass any of it back down to the poor.

When howard the coward got his GST, there was so much money coming on that hecwas embarrassed to say how much there was.
But it only took 3 years for him and the rest of the parasites to find a way to spend it and more.

---

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 12:40pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 19th, 2022 at 9:33am: freediver wrote on Jan 19th, 2022 at 8:32am: Quote: No. Some of the current taxes are inefficient to collect, act as unnecessary disincentives, or have other issues. Payroll tax is one example of a bad tax because it is inequitable and discourages the creation of jobs. Replacing payroll tax with a single tax assessed on company turnover would replace an inefficient tax with one that is more efficient to assess. A turnover tax is an even worse idea, if you are talking about unnecessary disincentives. It would skew the entire economy towards high margin business. That is just your supposition, offered without any proof. I was hoping you might think for yourself. I guess that was too much to ask.

That is the burden of proof fallacy. YOU made the claim, YOU prove it. It is NOT up to me to prove it for you.


freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 12:40pm:

Quote: A 1% tax that replaces other taxes would not distort the economy as much as payroll taxes do. If you assert otherwise without proof I won't accept it. Do you have any proof of your claim?

Payroll taxes are state-based taxes with different rates in different states. These are usually adjusted every year in various state budgets. Keeping track of these different rates adds a compliance burden on businesses, especially those businesses with offices in multiple states.

Payroll taxes have a threshold where no tax is payable. If a business exceeds that threshold, they must start paying payroll tax. Any business that is close to the threshold may be discouraged from hiring additional staff due to payroll tax. This threshold is typically around 15 full-time staff.

Payroll taxes give an incentive to reduce the pay of workers. This is strongest near the payroll tax threshold.


freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 12:40pm:

Quote: You have also not proposed any alternative to payroll taxes or turnover taxes that ensures businesses make a contribution to the government-funded spending that they consume. What is your idea for replacing payroll taxes and broadening the company tax base? Go on, show us. What makes you think I want to replace anything?

Critics who won't offer alternatives are like eunuchs in a harem. Don't be a eunuch.

The payroll tax sounds like a good candidate to be replaced with the GST.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 8:53pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 8:48pm: You can't have a discussion when the meaning of ordinary words are to be disputed first. It just demonstrated and emphasises that the disputants are not standing on the same ground. Exactly! My notion of "being wealthy" might be very different to yours.

This whole debate demonstrates why the public sector must be able to finance itself, ie, the sovereign currency-issuing  government must be authorized to create its own funds out of thin air,  using its own treasury and central bank.

Thus avoiding the never-ending disputation between private sector individuals re who will pay for public sector spending.

Note: the sovereign currency-issuer is constrained by available resources and the nation' productive capacity, NOT money....which is indeed the constraint facing you and me.

But this simple reality is so removed from individuals' own lived experience, we recoil from it.  Or think inflation will result, not understanding inflation is a resource availability issue, not a quantity of money issue (since money is created out of thin air whether in private banks, or the nation's treasury).   

http://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frauds/

Truth is: "money doesn't grow on rich people" (Stephanie Kelton) ....so we don't need to tax the wealthy  to fund a Job Guarantee, or decent aged-care, age-pensions, healthcare, or education.

Anyway carry on.

Unfortunately most of you would only be convinced if a 'decent' covid variant  appeared,  which forced everyone (except farmers and drivers etc)  into lockdown for a year or more (to avoid catching a truly deadly version of covid capable of killing, eg, half the population who caught it).

Then we would all see the government simply changing (via treasury's computers) the digits in the bank accounts of all locked down workers, so they could pay essential  bills (food rent utilities), without taxing or borrowing money from anyone, (and no job keeper/seeker) for as long as the pandemic lasted....because the government  can't run out of money.... 

Quote:

Or think inflation will result, not understanding inflation is a resource availability issue, not a quantity of money issue (since money is created out of thin air whether in private banks, or the nation's treasury).

Inflation does result. Also, the government funding itself by printing money ends up having the same effect as a tax on people's savings.

freediver wrote on Jan 19^th, 2022 at 6:38pm:

Quote: Inflation does result. Wrong. Inflation is always a result of rising supply constraints, following market failure; and therein lies the problem - the market economy is inadequate as a basis for a functional economy in which sustainable growth with minimum above-poverty employment for all can always be assured. eg, as to so-called "inflation" in the US currently: it's absurd that food, fuel, and rent prices are rising, because there is no REAL shortage of these things, only supply blockages caused by the pandemic. The correct solution as I hinted (in the pandemic) is a suspension of the free market and government-created money credited to workers banks accounts via the treasury's computer to keep citizens alive while in lock-down.  No "inflation". (Pouring money into job keeper was poor policy, risking too much cash in the hands of consumers when the pandemic ended). So your argument fails BECAUSE it assumes an unregulated  market economy must be the basis of the economy, which is by no means the case.       [quote]Also, the government funding itself by printing money ends up having the same effect as a tax on people's savings.

Wrong. So long as there is no resource shortage, there will be no 'inflation' which might affect peoples' savings. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 20^th, 2022 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Jan 19th, 2022 at 6:38pm: Quote: Inflation does result. Wrong. Inflation is always a result of rising supply constraints, following market failure; and therein lies the problem - the market economy is inadequate as a basis for a functional economy in which sustainable growth with minimum above-poverty employment for all can always be assured. eg, as to so-called "inflation" in the US currently: it's absurd that food, fuel, and rent prices are rising, because there is no REAL shortage of these things, only supply blockages caused by the pandemic. The correct solution as I hinted (in the pandemic) is a suspension of the free market and government-created money credited to workers banks accounts via the treasury's computer to keep citizens alive while in lock-down.  No "inflation". (Pouring money into job keeper was poor policy, risking too much cash in the hands of consumers when the pandemic ended). So your argument fails BECAUSE it assumes an unregulated  market economy must be the basis of the economy, which is by no means the case.       [quote]Also, the government funding itself by printing money ends up having the same effect as a tax on people's savings. Wrong. So long as there is no resource shortage, there will be no 'inflation' which might affect peoples' savings.

Where are you getting this crap from?

freediver wrote on Jan 20^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:

Where are you getting this crap from?

Oh.... people like Gittins and Kohler:

http://www.rossgittins.com/2021/03/funding-budget-by-printing-money-is.html

From your link:


Quote:

The monetarist dogma that creating money inevitably leads to inflation turned out to be wrong. It’s inflationary only if it causes the demand for the “real resources” – land, labour and physical capital – used to produce goods and services to exceed the supply of real resources. Until you reach that point, the creation of more money – whether by the banking system or the government – should give you stronger demand and more jobs without causing problems.

The highlighted bit is what proves is doesn't understand the basics of economics. It is not a tap that gets turned on or off. Doing a bad thing does not become good just because you do it to a lesser extent. It is merely not as bad.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2022 at 2:24pm:

The highlighted bit is what proves is doesn't understand the basics of economics. It is not a tap that gets turned on or off. Doing a bad thing does not become good just because you do it to a lesser extent. It is merely not as bad.

Sustainably developing the nation's resources and productive capacity, on behalf of the common prosperity - and staying there - is a good thing.

You don't need to "turn the tap off" when this is achieved.   

You missed the point completely.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2022 at 3:30pm:

You missed the point completely.

Which is?

Gittins correctly pointed out inflation is related to resources availability which must not be exceeded,  not a money supply problem, or "turning taps on or off" in dysfunctional market economies. 

The highlighted bit is what proves he doesn't understand the basics of economics.

Valkie wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 5:49pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 5:02pm: Valkie wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:45am: Not conned, just sick to death of lazy parasites sitting on their fat arses doing nothing and demanding more to do it. you mean those like you? No, more like you. I have done my time 47 years fully employed. Paid my taxes all my life. Done my job and been a worthwhile employee. Now Im retired, living on my own money, I get nothing from the system I have supported all my life. Paying for dole bludgers, abbos, illegal immigrants, single mothers who keep churning out kids for cash and a whole lot of other parasites. I owe no one anything And everyone owes me.

You get the invalid pension, you silly old thing, you know that. It's the reason you're hustling for a pension rise and cuts to the dole. You're just scrounging at the table for scraps, fighting off your fellow beggars.

As the OP points out, the problem is the wealth floating to the top - not due to any natural economic forces, but government regulation and subsidies.

We could fix many of these problems in one go: a universal basic income, a plan proposed by the billionaires themselves: Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc.

Mechanisation is steadily replacing the majority of jobs: manufacturing, transport, warehousing, retail; these workforces are about to be decimated. Even the service sector is being outsourced to foreign call centres, if not to bots.

It's pointless blaming dole bludgers when the shortage of jobs is systemic. The billionaires themselves are acknowledging this - many are asking to be taxed. Bill Gates puts the growing income gap and wealthy tax evasion up there with malaria and lack of clean drinking water as a pressing global problem. 

We could replace all those benefits - the pension, the dole, child subsidies - with a universal basic wage. No work for 20 years, no cut-off after a year, no means testing, everybody. The payment could then be taxed accordingly, or taken back, based on your income.

We've seen the results - the covid payments were an economic stimulus that saved us from recession. Problem is, we borrowed the money rather than taxing the wealthy. The result? The cash just flowed into the coffers of Harvey Norman et al.

A reasonable universal income of about $300 a week paid to all working-age adults would more than double our Centrelink budget, so we'd need a wealth tax to cover it. No problem, the big billionaires are already supporting that. This is an idea who's time has come.

Stop fighting for scraps, leftards, let's give everybody a fair go and take back our fair share. Companies will still do business in Australia. It's time to take the next logical step in human evolution.

Quote:

As the OP points out, the problem is the wealth floating to the top - not due to any natural economic forces, but government regulation and subsidies.

The OP says nothing of the sort. It's just wow, look at all that money, let's take it.

freediver wrote on Jan 18^th, 2022 at 6:52pm:

This is a terrible idea. Unless your plan is to get all the rich people to either leave the country or invest their money overseas.

Oh, ja. Remember that pearler during the mining tax debate? Rudd caved. Meanwhile, the industry thrived. BHP and Rio aren't going anywhere. They pay the major parties and stack Parliament House with lobbyists to have their say, but they're here for the long haul.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 1:58pm:

Quote: As the OP points out, the problem is the wealth floating to the top - not due to any natural economic forces, but government regulation and subsidies. The OP says nothing of the sort.

Oh, I see. You want to play no-speaka-da-English, eh?

Que?


Quote:

The world’s richest 10 men have more than doubled their wealth since the start of the pandemic, while 99 per cent of the global population have been left worse off, according to international charity Oxfam.

Quote:

When businesses were forced to close and workers confined to their rooms, central banks slashed interest rates to record lows and pumped trillions of dollars into financial markets to help keep the global economy afloat. But much of that economic stimulus ended up flowing into company coffers and lining the pockets of their billionaire owners.

Quote:

But over the past two years inequality worsened due to “massive injections of finance from central banks into economies”.

Quote:

But over the past two years inequality worsened due to “massive injections of finance from central banks into economies”.

Quote:

Across the globe inequality jumped during the pandemic

Quote:

The world’s small elite of 2755 billionaires has seen its fortunes grow more during COVID-19 than they have in the whole of the last 14 years – 14 years that themselves were a bonanza for billionaire wealth,” Oxfam’s report said.

Quote:

"The wealthier you are, the wealthier you get as asset values rise,” Ms Hutley said.

Quote:

"The wealthier you are, the wealthier you get as asset values rise,” Ms Hutley said.

Ah. How unnatural.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 2:21pm:

Quote: "The wealthier you are, the wealthier you get as asset values rise,” Ms Hutley said. Ah. How unnatural.

How inscrutable. Are you being economical with  your words to avoid making an argument?

Oh-er, looks like you made one here:


freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2022 at 2:24pm:

The highlighted bit is what proves is doesn't understand the basics of economics. It is not a tap that gets turned on or off. Doing a bad thing does not become good just because you do it to a lesser extent. It is merely not as bad.

I'm curious. When you bring ethics into a discussion on fiscal stimulous, how do you define concepts like "good" and "bad"?

That's a question.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 8:44am:

The highlighted bit is what proves he doesn't understand the basics of economics.

Don't you read replies? Here it is again:

Gittins correctly pointed out inflation is related to resources availability (demand for which must not be exceeded)  NOT a money supply problem, or "turning taps on or off" in dysfunctional market economies. 

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 2:21pm: Quote: "The wealthier you are, the wealthier you get as asset values rise,” Ms Hutley said. Ah. How unnatural. How inscrutable. Are you being economical with  your words to avoid making an argument? Oh-er, looks like you made one here: freediver wrote on Jan 21st, 2022 at 2:24pm: The highlighted bit is what proves is doesn't understand the basics of economics. It is not a tap that gets turned on or off. Doing a bad thing does not become good just because you do it to a lesser extent. It is merely not as bad. I'm curious. When you bring ethics into a discussion on fiscal stimulous, how do you define concepts like "good" and "bad"? That's a question.

One is sometimes obliged to be economical with the truth... and truth is such a fragile beast it oft times needs to be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies...

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 1:53pm:

Stop fighting for scraps, leftards, let's give everybody a fair go and take back our fair share. Companies will still do business in Australia. It's time to take the next logical step in human evolution.

Yes the Right are laughing all the way to the bank, when Leftards all around the world are arguing among themselves.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 2:58pm:

One is sometimes obliged to be economical with the truth...

Never "obliged", no.   


Quote:

and truth is such a fragile beast it oft times needs to be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies...

Example?   

Of course, that will require you defend your version of "truth"....

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 2:21pm: Quote: "The wealthier you are, the wealthier you get as asset values rise,” Ms Hutley said. Ah. How unnatural. How inscrutable. Are you being economical with  your words to avoid making an argument? Oh-er, looks like you made one here: freediver wrote on Jan 21st, 2022 at 2:24pm: The highlighted bit is what proves is doesn't understand the basics of economics. It is not a tap that gets turned on or off. Doing a bad thing does not become good just because you do it to a lesser extent. It is merely not as bad. I'm curious. When you bring ethics into a discussion on fiscal stimulous, how do you define concepts like "good" and "bad"? That's a question.

We all agree on what is bad. We only disagree on whether it becomes good, or doesn't happen at all, if you do it in small amounts.

People with assets getting richer when asset prices rise is entirely natural. My apologies, I didn't think this would come across as inscrutable.


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 2:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 8:44am: The highlighted bit is what proves he doesn't understand the basics of economics. Don't you read replies? Here it is again: Gittins correctly pointed out inflation is related to resources availability (demand for which must not be exceeded)  NOT a money supply problem, or "turning taps on or off" in dysfunctional market economies.

It is a meaningless distinction. Like saying that prices reflect where the demand curve lies rather than where the supply curve lies. He is appealing to, and manipulating, people such as yourself who do not understand economics.

What really gives away the fact he has no clue what he is talking about is when it suggests the effect disappears when you do it in smaller amounts. Not sure why you still seem incapable of comprehending this point.

Quote:

We all agree on what is bad. We only disagree on whether it becomes good, or doesn't happen at all, if you do it in small amounts.

Then we agree that taxing future generations to pay big business for nothing in return is bad public policy. This is the point of the OP.

The solution to rectifying this bad is taxing the billionaires, most of whom pay less tax than you or I.

Most would agree with this proposal, including the billionaires themselves. For Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, it's one of the most pressing global bads on the planet.

You, on the other hand, disagree. Perhaps you would like to outline your own solution - your alternative to placing the tax burden on middle income earners and getting everyone to pay their share.

Over to you.

Quote:

Then we agree that taxing future generations to pay big business for nothing in return is bad public policy.

I'd describe it as meaningless communist propaganda.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 4:11pm:

Quote: Then we agree that taxing future generations to pay big business for nothing in return is bad public policy. I'd describe it as meaningless communist propaganda.

yes, you do that a lot when you try to hide behind gibberish

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 3:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 1:53pm: Stop fighting for scraps, leftards, let's give everybody a fair go and take back our fair share. Companies will still do business in Australia. It's time to take the next logical step in human evolution. Yes the Right are laughing all the way to the bank, when Leftards all around the world are arguing among themselves.

The "right" are an ideological gaggle in Australia. They used to be a harmless mob of pastoral squatters, protectionists and fixed-currency types, pro-union, pro status quo.

This all changed in the 80s, not only due to new economic ideas, Friedman, Hayek, etc, but the monopolisation of the media by Murdoch, who took over the lion's share of the media in Australia, US and UK.

The "right" subsequently became a self-interested, morally-bankrupt outfit, led by the loudest columnists and commentators in the News Ltd press, Fox and Sky. They reached their peak with the election of Trump, then came crashing down just as hard.

Interestingly, the "right" is a different beast in English-speaking countries with non-Murdoch friendly media laws. Canada and New Zealand are completely different countries as a result.

The "left" have had a journey of their own, the centre-left being neutralised by the fact that, with the exception of the US, they have achieved their signature policies - universal education, health care, the welfare state, worker safety policies, etc.

This required a turn, which was met by the advancing Green parties, who ate into their base. The industrial base, or what's left of it, has increasingly turned right.

The rich, however, are above all this, but have formed a technocracy. While predominantly anti-union, the Silicon Valley elites are pro-Green and pro-wealth distribution. Unlike the pastoralists and wealthy landholders of the past, their investment requires a knowledge base, which brings an awareness of social issues.

The industrial/Cold War dichotomy of "left" and "right" doesn't do the new order justice. Such terms usually prevent understanding. They're blunt,  ideological, and only rarely relevant, but carry so much baggage they're important.

It would be a mistake, however, to identify with either of them. The economy, like nature, is neutral.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 4:11pm:

Quote: Then we agree that taxing future generations to pay big business for nothing in return is bad public policy. I'd describe it as meaningless communist propaganda.

That's right, after you tried no-speaka, you now want to play Red Peril.

I mean, yeah-but-no-but, you still haven't addressed the issue - your alternative to placing the tax burden on middle income earners and getting everyone to pay their share.

Don't want to say?

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 4:11pm: Quote: Then we agree that taxing future generations to pay big business for nothing in return is bad public policy. I'd describe it as meaningless communist propaganda. That's right, after you tried no-speaka, you now want to play Red Peril. I mean, yeah-but-no-but, you still haven't addressed the issue - your alternative to placing the tax burden on middle income earners and getting everyone to pay their share. Don't want to say?

You are so well versed in parroting this gibberish that you don't even realise that normal people have no idea what you are ranting about.

I don't support a wealth tax .... but when it comes to FD......

Slap it on the tnuc.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 3:08pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 2:58pm: One is sometimes obliged to be economical with the truth... Never "obliged", no.    Quote: and truth is such a fragile beast it oft times needs to be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies... Example?    Of course, that will require you defend your version of "truth"....

How remiss of me - the only truth is what the state tells us, yes?  Take it or leave it on your way to the gulag or worse.

Actually, this is two quotes - one from an M.I.6 agent giving testimony here, the other from Winston Churchill.  I just mixed them together to give you all something to think about.... in the case of the agent economy with the truth was not intended to mislead, but rather to reveal only what was necessary... the rest is Winston.

Friends - I think it's high time Billy Jack put in another appearance - the boy's been quiet for a while and jest plain sick there, friends, due to the constant harping going on here...

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 2:21pm: Quote: "The wealthier you are, the wealthier you get as asset values rise,” Ms Hutley said. Ah. How unnatural. How inscrutable. Are you being economical with  your words to avoid making an argument? Oh-er, looks like you made one here: freediver wrote on Jan 21st, 2022 at 2:24pm: The highlighted bit is what proves is doesn't understand the basics of economics. It is not a tap that gets turned on or off. Doing a bad thing does not become good just because you do it to a lesser extent. It is merely not as bad. I'm curious. When you bring ethics into a discussion on fiscal stimulous, how do you define concepts like "good" and "bad"? That's a question.

Fiscal stimulous?  Is that, like.. a kind of cloud?

Look, its a simple thing to show proof surely.

Proof tgat taxing people more so that those who wont/dont work will be so much better off.

After all, most workers are already handing over at least 25% of their income
And businesses find some really great tax dodges, thanks to very carefully worded tax laws.

What will happen.
Is tgat the workers will be taxed more and businesses and multinationals will still dodge taxes.

Pauleen Hanson had a great idea.
One that frightened multinationals, banks and the rich so much tgat they put her in gaol to shut her up.

A money transfer tax.
Its a simple thing really.
Every time money is transfered from one place to another, you pay a small tax.
2% or 3%.

For a worker this would mean
3% to have money transfered into their account
3% to buy something or take money out
3% to put money into super etc.

Where the big money comes in is big money transactions.
Banks, multinationals and megga rich transfer money into off shore accounts.
Banks in particular par no tax on money that is "in transit" which is one reason they take 5 business days to clear a cheque.

Imagine if every time someone put money into the bank or removed money from the bank they paid 3% tax.
Imagine how many billions would be taxable from bank transfers every single day.
Imagine how many billions would be taxable on money transferred overseas.
Imagine how many billions would be taxable on money moved from one account to another.

The grubberment would be literally swimming in cash.
And "the rich" woukd have no way to dodge.

Quote:

Pauleen Hanson had a great idea. One that frightened multinationals, banks and the rich so much tgat they put her in gaol to shut her up. A money transfer tax. Its a simple thing really. Every time money is transfered from one place to another, you pay a small tax. 2% or 3%.

Another terrible idea from someone who is clueless about economics. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No more so that when it comes to politicians trying to interfere with the economy.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 6:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 4:43pm: freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2022 at 4:11pm: Quote: Then we agree that taxing future generations to pay big business for nothing in return is bad public policy. I'd describe it as meaningless communist propaganda. That's right, after you tried no-speaka, you now want to play Red Peril. I mean, yeah-but-no-but, you still haven't addressed the issue - your alternative to placing the tax burden on middle income earners and getting everyone to pay their share. Don't want to say? You are so well versed in parroting this gibberish that you don't even realise that normal people have no idea what you are ranting about.

Que?

Valkie wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 8:02pm:

Look, its a simple thing to show proof surely. Proof tgat taxing people more so that those who wont/dont work will be so much better off. After all, most workers are already handing over at least 25% of their income And businesses find some really great tax dodges, thanks to very carefully worded tax laws. What will happen. Is tgat the workers will be taxed more and businesses and multinationals will still dodge taxes. Pauleen Hanson had a great idea. One that frightened multinationals, banks and the rich so much tgat they put her in gaol to shut her up. A money transfer tax. Its a simple thing really. Every time money is transfered from one place to another, you pay a small tax. 2% or 3%. For a worker this would mean 3% to have money transfered into their account 3% to buy something or take money out 3% to put money into super etc. Where the big money comes in is big money transactions. Banks, multinationals and megga rich transfer money into off shore accounts. Banks in particular par no tax on money that is "in transit" which is one reason they take 5 business days to clear a cheque. Imagine if every time someone put money into the bank or removed money from the bank they paid 3% tax. Imagine how many billions would be taxable from bank transfers every single day. Imagine how many billions would be taxable on money transferred overseas. Imagine how many billions would be taxable on money moved from one account to another. The grubberment would be literally swimming in cash. And "the rich" woukd have no way to dodge.

Tobin taxes didn't come from Pauline, dear, they're a one-world government plan to give something back to the tinted developing countries, shafted by globalisation.

Sure, they're a jolly good idea, and alas, they'll never happen.

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 1:53pm:

Valkie wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 5:49pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 5:02pm: Valkie wrote on Jan 18th, 2022 at 11:45am: Not conned, just sick to death of lazy parasites sitting on their fat arses doing nothing and demanding more to do it. you mean those like you? No, more like you. I have done my time 47 years fully employed. Paid my taxes all my life. Done my job and been a worthwhile employee. Now Im retired, living on my own money, I get nothing from the system I have supported all my life. Paying for dole bludgers, abbos, illegal immigrants, single mothers who keep churning out kids for cash and a whole lot of other parasites. I owe no one anything And everyone owes me. You get the invalid pension, you silly old thing, you know that. It's the reason you're hustling for a pension rise and cuts to the dole. You're just scrounging at the table for scraps, fighting off your fellow beggars. As the OP points out, the problem is the wealth floating to the top - not due to any natural economic forces, but government regulation and subsidies. We could fix many of these problems in one go: a universal basic income, a plan proposed by the billionaires themselves: Musk, Zuckerberg, Gates, etc. Mechanisation is steadily replacing the majority of jobs: manufacturing, transport, warehousing, retail; these workforces are about to be decimated. Even the service sector is being outsourced to foreign call centres, if not to bots. It's pointless blaming dole bludgers when the shortage of jobs is systemic. The billionaires themselves are acknowledging this - many are asking to be taxed. Bill Gates puts the growing income gap and wealthy tax evasion up there with malaria and lack of clean drinking water as a pressing global problem.  We could replace all those benefits - the pension, the dole, child subsidies - with a universal basic wage. No work for 20 years, no cut-off after a year, no means testing, everybody. The payment could then be taxed accordingly, or taken back, based on your income. We've seen the results - the covid payments were an economic stimulus that saved us from recession. Problem is, we borrowed the money rather than taxing the wealthy. The result? The cash just flowed into the coffers of Harvey Norman et al. A reasonable universal income of about $300 a week paid to all working-age adults would more than double our Centrelink budget, so we'd need a wealth tax to cover it. No problem, the big billionaires are already supporting that. This is an idea who's time has come. Stop fighting for scraps, leftards, let's give everybody a fair go and take back our fair share. Companies will still do business in Australia. It's time to take the next logical step in human evolution.

Karnal.....take a closer look at who you're name dropping.

These names and their fellow elite buddies are the reason behind why economies are struggling.

You're referring to them as though they represent the Messiah. They're not. They collectively represent the Anti Christ himself.

I am all for fair taxation. (I do note that a lot of wealth is not cash in the bank but the valud of assetts. So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea).

On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class.
As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways.

Life is not JUST about money.

If only the terminally lazy would work.

Then they might not complain about not having what they want so much.

---

Such a national wage guarantee would die under inflationary pressures, same as rises in unemployment and pensions and wages etc never keep up with rising costs of living - a situation never more clear than at this time, with the advents of the two monsters globalisation and privatisation.

The poor suffering power suppliers are putting their prices through the roof now - poor darlings simply cannot afford people with lovely rooftop panels any more, so they are working on getting costs to those people back on track by raising prices and cutting return for power supplied.

Time to get rid of them and revert power supply to a government operation at one price.  Privatisation has failed - admit it and seek something better... the old mix worked quite well, thank you very much. Wish I could afford batteries.

We have the spectre of reduction in employment, thinning out of employment opportunities via immigration and preference for certain groups over mainstream Australia, same with training, and consequent overall lower incomes for the majority - along with shutting industries down and importing everything at inflated prices, leaving endless poverty-stricken disaster areas where once were thriving communities.  Then add to that the reality that Australia/Australians are still treated as "rich" First Worlders and charged top price for everything imported while steadily subsiding into a neo-Fascist, neo-
Feudal shattered and failed society of Robber Barons and Itinerant Worker Peasants seeking a meal at every town.

Madness - pure madness........A hundred years odd of genuine progress shattered in a generation and all diluted down to the lowest common denominators the chiefs could find in this world.

Poor Fellow - My Country...

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2022 at 3:42pm:

People with assets getting richer when asset prices rise is entirely natural. My apologies, I didn't think this would come across as inscrutable.

It's only 'natural' in the present evil monetary system, which results in billionaires  doubling their wealth while they are asleep. (Nice 'work' if you can get it....). 

Any increase in the wealth of billionaires - which is gained when the recipient is asleep - should be taxed at 90%, as Oxfam advises.

Yet MMT offers an alternative solution to the current evil system which forces government to tax or borrow from greedy individuals who don't want to pay taxes (ie all of us, whether paupers or billionaires, which is the Left's dilemma).

Meanwhile RW 'individual sovereignty' ideologues are supremely indifferent: "let them eat cake". No increased taxes on the wealthy allowed. 

[Louis XVI was advised by one of his more enlightened  economic advisors to increase taxes on the aristocracy, but he was swayed by his more self-interested economic advisors.... which resulted in all of them, including the King,  losing their heads.....]


Quote:

It is a meaningless distinction. Like saying that prices reflect where the demand curve lies rather than where the supply curve lies.

Which is not a meaningless distinction.

I could design a planned, functioning  economy, without recourse to money at all, and yet provide for individual incentive, to implement "from each according to ability", to each according to creative contribution  (....slight change in the 2nd part of Marx's formulation).

Which all goes to show resource availability is the limiting factor, not resource demand limited by price.


Quote:

Not sure why you still seem incapable of comprehending this point.

Addressed above. Your assumption of correct price determination in free markets, as the necessity for prosperous development, is based on obsolete classical economics. 

Quote:

Any increase in the wealth of billionaires - which is gained when the recipient is asleep - should be taxed at 90%, as Oxfam advises.

Can you quote oxfam?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 11:41am:

Can you quote oxfam?

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity

"Billionaires’ wealth has risen more since COVID-19 began than it has in the last 14 years. At $5 trillion dollars, this is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began. A one-off 99 percent tax on the ten richest men’s pandemic windfalls, for example, could pay:

-to make enough vaccines for the world;
-to provide universal healthcare and social protection,
-fund climate adaptation
-and reduce gender-based violence in over 80 countries;

All this, while still leaving these men $8 billion better off than they were before the pandemic".

My mistake, the recommendation is 99%....

Meanwhile it's clear to which group of Louis XVI's economic advisors you relate....

"In a new briefing “Inequality Kills,” published today ahead of the World Economic Forum’s Davos Agenda, Oxfam says that inequality is contributing to the death of at least 21,000 people each day, or one person every four seconds. This is a conservative finding based on deaths globally from lack of access to healthcare, gender-based violence, hunger, and climate breakdown."

The guillotine is waiting.....

Countries that discourage personal wealth.

Are ruled by despots, pretenders who are capable of nothing but taking.

They are singularly unremarkable in that no one tries very hard.

Valkie wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 12:06pm:

Countries that discourage personal wealth. Are ruled by despots, pretenders who are capable of nothing but taking. They are singularly unremarkable in that no one tries very hard.

Like billionaires doubling their wealth while they are asleep? 


https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity


" "Billionaires’ wealth has risen more since COVID-19 began than it has in the last 14 years. At $5 trillion dollars, this is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began" .

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 12:03pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 11:41am: Can you quote oxfam? https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity "Billionaires’ wealth has risen more since COVID-19 began than it has in the last 14 years. At $5 trillion dollars, this is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began. A one-off 99 percent tax on the ten richest men’s pandemic windfalls, for example, could pay: -to make enough vaccines for the world; -to provide universal healthcare and social protection, -fund climate adaptation -and reduce gender-based violence in over 80 countries; All this, while still leaving these men $8 billion better off than they were before the pandemic". My mistake, the recommendation is 99%.... Meanwhile it's clear to which group of Louis XVI's economic advisors you relate.... "In a new briefing “Inequality Kills,” published today ahead of the World Economic Forum’s Davos Agenda, Oxfam says that inequality is contributing to the death of at least 21,000 people each day, or one person every four seconds. This is a conservative finding based on deaths globally from lack of access to healthcare, gender-based violence, hunger, and climate breakdown." The guillotine is waiting.....

Are they actually advising a 99% tax on the windfalls?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 12:11pm:

Are they actually advising a 99% tax on the windfalls?

"A one-off 99 percent tax on the ten richest men’s pandemic windfalls...."

Ok, a suggestion...

And your advice or suggestion is....?

Not really a suggestion either. There is nothing to suggest oxfam thinks that is a good idea. Just that they think the money appears to be there.

My advice is that wealth taxes a great way of getting people to leave the country, spend their money overseas, hide their wealth, not bother working as hard, and skew the economy significantly, but a really bad way to raise revenue. Which is why no-one does it.

Frank wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 9:10am:

On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money.

That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know.

Life IS not just about money. People put in effort and initiative for all sorts of reasons. Cash profits are only one, but a basic income doesn't stop anybody chasing more cash.

Most families provide their kids with basic incomes or sustenance once they reach working age - even more so for the rich. This doesn't stop kids getting jobs, setting up businesses or investing their wealth.

A universal basic income is the only way to truly level the playing field in a capitalist economy, as every cashed-up schoolboy knows.

Quote:

That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know.

Would you have to get rid of all the dictatorships first?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 12:28pm:

Not really a suggestion either. There is nothing to suggest oxfam thinks that is a good idea. Just that they think the money appears to be there. My advice is that wealth taxes a great way of getting people to leave the country, spend their money overseas, hide their wealth, not bother working as hard, and skew the economy significantly, but a really bad way to raise revenue. Which is why no-one does it.

Apart from France, Portugal, Spain...

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/what-is-a-wealth-tax/#:~:text=France%2C%20Portugal%20and%20Spain%20are,the%20higher%20the%20tax%20rate.

Que?

Exactly what I suggested would happen:

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/lessons-from-history-france-s-wealth-tax-did-more-harm-than-good/

While most decent people would support policies to address rising inequality and support those worst hit by the pandemic, history suggests introducing a wealth tax is unlikely to be the best way to do it. As Mr Healey concluded, there is a little evidence that, all things considered, it can be sufficiently lucrative.

Back in 1990, around a dozen European countries had a wealth tax, but most have been abolished

In 1982, Francois Mitterand, the first left-wing president of France’s Fifth Republic, introduced a wealth tax that was swiftly abolished by Jacques Chirac in 1986, but reinstated two years later when Mr Mitterand was voted back in. The tax – called the ISF (impôt sur la fortune) – stayed in place until 2017 when it was abolished by current president Emmanuel Macron.

The rate was charged on individuals with a net worth over €1.3m (£1.14m), with the rate ranging from 0.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent (on assets over €10m). While it might have helped social solidarity in France, the revenue it raised was paltry. In 2015, a total of 343,000 households paid €5.22bn, an average of about €15,200 per household, according to the Financial Times. It accounted for less than 2 per cent of France’s tax receipts.

What’s more, it led to an exodus of France’s richest. More than 12,000 millionaires left France in 2016, according to research group New World Wealth. In total, they say the country experienced a net outflow of more than 60,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2016. When these people left, France lost not only the revenue generated from the wealth tax, but all the others too, including income tax and VAT.

French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the ISF ended up costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated. In a paper published in 2008, he concluded that the ISF caused an annual fiscal shortfall of €7bn and had probably reduced gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 0.2 per cent a year. What's more ISF fraud mainly involving an underassessment of property assets was estimated at around 28 per cent of total revenues.

Most wealth taxes have failed to bring in much revenue and ultimately proved politically unsustainable. Higher taxes and the flight of a cohort of France’s richest will have helped to reduce inequality, which is lower than in the UK, according to the Gini coefficient. But it is hard to see that it left the country better off.

I know, from personal experience what overtaxing does.

Every bonus i got for my hard work was taxed at the highest rate.
What this meant for me was a $10,000.00 bonus became a smidgen over $5,000.00 with no benefit to me at all.

It became a truely sore point to hand over half of my bonus for hard work to a parasitical grubberment, who then threw it at even bigger parasites who sat on their arses and did sweet FA every day.

Oh i tried to fiddle it, taking other benifits or non-monitary things like free trips and car upgrades.
But the slimy grubberment and public servants gradually ground down even that, deeming it as taxable.

Every pay rise was also taxed at the highest rate.
Meaning that i was again paying more and more tax, for no real benifit.
Even pumping as much as i could into super ( with a lower tax rate) was limited.
Just another way to screw me.
And my profits on investments were taxed, you guessed it, at the highest rate.
Every cent was checked and re-checked by the slimy grubberment.
Every deduction questioned.
I have been investigated several times, once receiving a letter from the tax thieves stating that i had been checked and had paid what was due.
I didnt even know i was being checked.

Cant get me now.
Living off my super means no more tax returns.
My accountant watches for anything, but assures me im good.
My investments return just enough to be under the radar.

When the term TAX THE RICH is rolled out.
What it really means is TAX THE POOR SOD EARNING A BIT MORE THAN THE AVERAGE.
Big players, multinationals, big business, politicians and senior public servants all have nice little schemes to avoid tax, some even get money back.
But those on a professional wage or contract suffer the most.
No wonder most professionals leave Australia for elsewhere. 

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 1:26pm:

Exactly what I suggested would happen: https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/lessons-from-history-france-s-wealth-tax-did-more-harm-than-good/ While most decent people would support policies to address rising inequality and support those worst hit by the pandemic, history suggests introducing a wealth tax is unlikely to be the best way to do it. As Mr Healey concluded, there is a little evidence that, all things considered, it can be sufficiently lucrative. Back in 1990, around a dozen European countries had a wealth tax, but most have been abolished In 1982, Francois Mitterand, the first left-wing president of France’s Fifth Republic, introduced a wealth tax that was swiftly abolished by Jacques Chirac in 1986, but reinstated two years later when Mr Mitterand was voted back in. The tax – called the ISF (impôt sur la fortune) – stayed in place until 2017 when it was abolished by current president Emmanuel Macron. The rate was charged on individuals with a net worth over €1.3m (£1.14m), with the rate ranging from 0.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent (on assets over €10m). While it might have helped social solidarity in France, the revenue it raised was paltry. In 2015, a total of 343,000 households paid €5.22bn, an average of about €15,200 per household, according to the Financial Times. It accounted for less than 2 per cent of France’s tax receipts. What’s more, it led to an exodus of France’s richest. More than 12,000 millionaires left France in 2016, according to research group New World Wealth. In total, they say the country experienced a net outflow of more than 60,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2016. When these people left, France lost not only the revenue generated from the wealth tax, but all the others too, including income tax and VAT. French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the ISF ended up costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated. In a paper published in 2008, he concluded that the ISF caused an annual fiscal shortfall of €7bn and had probably reduced gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 0.2 per cent a year. What's more ISF fraud mainly involving an underassessment of property assets was estimated at around 28 per cent of total revenues. Most wealth taxes have failed to bring in much revenue and ultimately proved politically unsustainable. Higher taxes and the flight of a cohort of France’s richest will have helped to reduce inequality, which is lower than in the UK, according to the Gini coefficient. But it is hard to see that it left the country better off.

Yet simple confiscation of 99% of only the 10 wealthiest  billionaires' pandemic-related gains would yield $5 trillion....and they would still be $8 billion better off than before the pandemic.

Global mobility of capital - and tax havens -  are a problem. 

Meanwhile, you claim Gittins doesn't know what he is talking about, and that governments must tax or borrow from greedy financiers, as if this is written down on a tablet from God.....all the time telling us why taxation (on the rich)  is a bad thing.

You still haven't explained how everyone can participate in the economy at above-poverty level, given the massive mis-allocation of resources enabling the world's wealthiest 10 men  to double their claims on the world's resources, even while asleep, at the same time as poverty is killing people at the rate of 1 every 4 seconds.    

The guillotine is waiting.....

Quote:

Yet simple confiscation of 99% of only the 10 wealthiest  billionaires' pandemic-related gains would yield $5 trillion....and they would still be $8 billion better off than before the pandemic.

Simple eh? Which countries would we have to invade to do that? Or did you not intend this as anything more than a fantasy?


Quote:

Meanwhile, you claim Gittins doesn't know what he is talking about

I claim that it is bleeding obvious to anyone who understands economics, based on what he said.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 2:00pm:

Simple eh? Which countries would we have to invade to do that? Or did you not intend this as anything more than a fantasy?

Right, so there goes the tax option...so Musk can continue selling joyrides in space to millionaires, while poverty remains entrenched even in rich countries 


Quote:

I claim that it is bleeding obvious to anyone who understands economics, based on what he said.

Your understanding of economics is the same as Louis XVI's conservative economists (rather than his progressive economists, whose tax policies would have saved the Monarchy).....and you still haven't offered an alternative to taxation.

The guillotine is waiting....

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 1:26pm:

Exactly what I suggested would happen: https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/education/2021/02/11/lessons-from-history-france-s-wealth-tax-did-more-harm-than-good/ While most decent people would support policies to address rising inequality and support those worst hit by the pandemic, history suggests introducing a wealth tax is unlikely to be the best way to do it. As Mr Healey concluded, there is a little evidence that, all things considered, it can be sufficiently lucrative. Back in 1990, around a dozen European countries had a wealth tax, but most have been abolished In 1982, Francois Mitterand, the first left-wing president of France’s Fifth Republic, introduced a wealth tax that was swiftly abolished by Jacques Chirac in 1986, but reinstated two years later when Mr Mitterand was voted back in. The tax – called the ISF (impôt sur la fortune) – stayed in place until 2017 when it was abolished by current president Emmanuel Macron. The rate was charged on individuals with a net worth over €1.3m (£1.14m), with the rate ranging from 0.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent (on assets over €10m). While it might have helped social solidarity in France, the revenue it raised was paltry. In 2015, a total of 343,000 households paid €5.22bn, an average of about €15,200 per household, according to the Financial Times. It accounted for less than 2 per cent of France’s tax receipts. What’s more, it led to an exodus of France’s richest. More than 12,000 millionaires left France in 2016, according to research group New World Wealth. In total, they say the country experienced a net outflow of more than 60,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2016. When these people left, France lost not only the revenue generated from the wealth tax, but all the others too, including income tax and VAT. French economist Eric Pichet estimated that the ISF ended up costing France almost twice as much revenue as it generated. In a paper published in 2008, he concluded that the ISF caused an annual fiscal shortfall of €7bn and had probably reduced gross domestic product (GDP) growth by 0.2 per cent a year. What's more ISF fraud mainly involving an underassessment of property assets was estimated at around 28 per cent of total revenues. Most wealth taxes have failed to bring in much revenue and ultimately proved politically unsustainable. Higher taxes and the flight of a cohort of France’s richest will have helped to reduce inequality, which is lower than in the UK, according to the Gini coefficient. But it is hard to see that it left the country better off.

Oh? Pichet published his paper on the wealth tax in 2008, dear. You may recall the subsequent global financial crisis and covid outbreaks.

The Gini Coefficient has France at 32.4, the UK at 35.1 - that's less inequality.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country

Times change. You?

Quote:

Your understanding of economics is the same as Louis XVI's conservative economists (rather than his progressive economists, whose tax policies would have saved the Monarchy).....and you still haven't offered an alternative to taxation.

Again, why do you keep asking such idiotic questions? Why should I offer an alternative to taxation? Have I ever said all taxes should be abolished?


Quote:

The Gini Coefficient has France at 32.4, the UK at 35.1 - that's less inequality.

Because people are actually better off, or because 60,000 millionaires left the country, taking all their money, income, and associated government revenue with them? I expect North Korea also has a fantastic Gini coefficient. That does not mean we should follow their lead.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 3:12pm:

Quote: Your understanding of economics is the same as Louis XVI's conservative economists (rather than his progressive economists, whose tax policies would have saved the Monarchy).....and you still haven't offered an alternative to taxation. Again, why do you keep asking such idiotic questions? Why should I offer an alternative to taxation? Have I ever said all taxes should be abolished? [quote]The Gini Coefficient has France at 32.4, the UK at 35.1 - that's less inequality.

Because people are actually better off, or because 60,000 millionaires left the country, taking all their money, income, and associated government revenue with them? I expect North Korea also has a fantastic Gini coefficient. That does not mean we should follow their lead.[/quote]

Is that a question?

You think that a low Gini coefficient is a good thing, because you equate it with equality. But I'm pretty sure you will find a low Gini coefficient is strongly correlated with oppression. That's because fundamentally, if people are given the choice, they choose self determination, not equality.

You assume that France's low coefficient is good for the French people, but like communism, the wealth tax actually made them worse off, and slightly more equal in the process.

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 12:58pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know. Life IS not just about money. People put in effort and initiative for all sorts of reasons. Cash profits are only one, but a basic income doesn't stop anybody chasing more cash. Most families provide their kids with basic incomes or sustenance once they reach working age - even more so for the rich. This doesn't stop kids getting jobs, setting up businesses or investing their wealth. A universal basic income is the only way to truly level the playing field in a capitalist economy, as every cashed-up schoolboy knows.

"That's just ideology"  - one Bbwianesque great divide ideologue is enough. That's just ideology - that's a stupid ideological yeah-but, paki.

You start by saying it needs to be measured and tested - and end by asserting that is the only way, and never mind the measuring and testing. That IS blinkered, stupid ideology.

Anyway, my main point is not about money but about constituting a permanent underclass of whom nothing is expected by the rest of society. Institutionalised drongo class.
Temporary help converted to permanent sit down money, no questions asked. Society-wide remote Abo life.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 5:58pm:

You think that a low Gini coefficient is a good thing, because you equate it with equality. But I'm pretty sure you will find a low Gini coefficient is strongly correlated with oppression. That's because fundamentally, if people are given the choice, they choose self determination, not equality. You assume that France's low coefficient is good for the French people, but like communism, the wealth tax actually made them worse off, and slightly more equal in the process.

I most certainly do not. Afghanistan has the lowest Gini coefficient.

France and the UK, however, have almost exactly the same GDP per capita and average household income - the UK about $150 a year more - median.

France has better benefits, holidays, and public services than the UK. I certainly know where I'd rather live.

You?

the wealthy are usually the innovators, go-getters, hard chargers and winners.

the more of them you have the better

if i had a farm of racehorses, i would love to have a Winx.

the rediculous idea that i would tax Winx (make her give up her food to some scrubby brumby that will produce, for me, no income, nothing, zero, zilch) is verging on the insane.

in fact, we should find the successful and give them MORE resources bacaue they will use it well.

giving it to chodes will see it wasted on tattooes and mag wheels

Quote:

I most certainly do not.

So why did you pretend a lower Gini coefficient means something good?


Quote:

France has better benefits, holidays, and public services than the UK. I certainly know where I'd rather live.

And it would be an even better place if they had not made the mistake, twice in the last two decades, of implementing a wealth tax. Unless of course you are one of those people who think the mere presence of people who are wealthier than you is a bad thing.

Frank wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 6:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 12:58pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know. Life IS not just about money. People put in effort and initiative for all sorts of reasons. Cash profits are only one, but a basic income doesn't stop anybody chasing more cash. Most families provide their kids with basic incomes or sustenance once they reach working age - even more so for the rich. This doesn't stop kids getting jobs, setting up businesses or investing their wealth. A universal basic income is the only way to truly level the playing field in a capitalist economy, as every cashed-up schoolboy knows. "That's just ideology"  - one Bbwianesque great divide ideologue is enough. That's just ideology - that's a stupid ideological yeah-but, paki. You start by saying it needs to be measured and tested - and end by asserting that is the only way, and never mind the measuring and testing. That IS blinkered, stupid ideology. Anyway, my main point is not about money but about constituting a permanent underclass of whom nothing is expected by the rest of society. Institutionalised drongo class. Temporary help converted to permanent sit down money, no questions asked. Society-wide remote Abo life.

We have that already, dear. We call them dole bludgers. Ask Valkie.

A universal basic income is no more than a negative tax. A subsidy, just for being here, for being human, just for being you.

You? Yes, dear boy, you'd get it too.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 6:12pm:

Quote: I most certainly do not. So why did you pretend a lower Gini coefficient means something good?

Because it was in your article, you silly old thing.

You know, the one from 2008. It had the wrong info.

You?

aquascoot wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 6:11pm:

the wealthy are usually the innovators, go-getters, hard chargers and winners. the more of them you have the better if i had a farm of racehorses, i would love to have a Winx. the rediculous idea that i would tax Winx (make her give up her food to some scrubby brumby that will produce, for me, no income, nothing, zero, zilch) is verging on the insane. in fact, we should find the successful and give them MORE resources bacaue they will use it well. giving it to chodes will see it wasted on tattooes and mag wheels

The innovators and go-getters are stuck investing in those those mag wheels, dear. They sell. Where else are they going to put their money?

Oh, there's Netflix, Facebook and Pornhub, but the rich have got just as many choices as the chodes.

Those with capital have the same size dicks, you know, they just have a few more choices where to stick them.

Anyway, your latest stance on big pharma and corporate wealth is rather down on big business, remember?

That was last week, anyway. You might have forgotten.

It's a lady's prerogative to change her mind, no?

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 6:13pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 12:58pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know. Life IS not just about money. People put in effort and initiative for all sorts of reasons. Cash profits are only one, but a basic income doesn't stop anybody chasing more cash. Most families provide their kids with basic incomes or sustenance once they reach working age - even more so for the rich. This doesn't stop kids getting jobs, setting up businesses or investing their wealth. A universal basic income is the only way to truly level the playing field in a capitalist economy, as every cashed-up schoolboy knows. "That's just ideology"  - one Bbwianesque great divide ideologue is enough. That's just ideology - that's a stupid ideological yeah-but, paki. You start by saying it needs to be measured and tested - and end by asserting that is the only way, and never mind the measuring and testing. That IS blinkered, stupid ideology. Anyway, my main point is not about money but about constituting a permanent underclass of whom nothing is expected by the rest of society. Institutionalised drongo class. Temporary help converted to permanent sit down money, no questions asked. Society-wide remote Abo life. We have that already, dear. We call them dole bludgers. Ask Valkie. A universal basic income is no more than a negative tax. A subsidy, just for being here, for being human, just for being you. You? Yes, dear boy, you'd get it too.

Oh??

No more than a negative tax!

What is that, Punjabi schoolboy? You give people money for .... er.... nothing. How long before it's pwogwessive: give you more the less you do for society. Tax the creators, negative tax the deadbeats.

Sounds like your idea, paki, hustling for your 10 rupees.

Start dancing.

Frank wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 8:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:13pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 12:58pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know. Life IS not just about money. People put in effort and initiative for all sorts of reasons. Cash profits are only one, but a basic income doesn't stop anybody chasing more cash. Most families provide their kids with basic incomes or sustenance once they reach working age - even more so for the rich. This doesn't stop kids getting jobs, setting up businesses or investing their wealth. A universal basic income is the only way to truly level the playing field in a capitalist economy, as every cashed-up schoolboy knows. "That's just ideology"  - one Bbwianesque great divide ideologue is enough. That's just ideology - that's a stupid ideological yeah-but, paki. You start by saying it needs to be measured and tested - and end by asserting that is the only way, and never mind the measuring and testing. That IS blinkered, stupid ideology. Anyway, my main point is not about money but about constituting a permanent underclass of whom nothing is expected by the rest of society. Institutionalised drongo class. Temporary help converted to permanent sit down money, no questions asked. Society-wide remote Abo life. We have that already, dear. We call them dole bludgers. Ask Valkie. A universal basic income is no more than a negative tax. A subsidy, just for being here, for being human, just for being you. You? Yes, dear boy, you'd get it too. Oh?? No more than a negative tax! What is that, Punjabi schoolboy? You give people money for .... er.... nothing. How long before it's pwogwessive: give you more the less you do for society. Tax the creators, negative tax the deadbeats. Sounds like your idea, paki, hustling for your 10 rupees. Start dancing.

Just so. Absolutely nothing - you too.

Do you see? We're British. It's just the kind of chaps we are, no?

You're a stingy old half-Kraut, but that's just you.

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 8:20pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:13pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 12:58pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know. Life IS not just about money. People put in effort and initiative for all sorts of reasons. Cash profits are only one, but a basic income doesn't stop anybody chasing more cash. Most families provide their kids with basic incomes or sustenance once they reach working age - even more so for the rich. This doesn't stop kids getting jobs, setting up businesses or investing their wealth. A universal basic income is the only way to truly level the playing field in a capitalist economy, as every cashed-up schoolboy knows. "That's just ideology"  - one Bbwianesque great divide ideologue is enough. That's just ideology - that's a stupid ideological yeah-but, paki. You start by saying it needs to be measured and tested - and end by asserting that is the only way, and never mind the measuring and testing. That IS blinkered, stupid ideology. Anyway, my main point is not about money but about constituting a permanent underclass of whom nothing is expected by the rest of society. Institutionalised drongo class. Temporary help converted to permanent sit down money, no questions asked. Society-wide remote Abo life. We have that already, dear. We call them dole bludgers. Ask Valkie. A universal basic income is no more than a negative tax. A subsidy, just for being here, for being human, just for being you. You? Yes, dear boy, you'd get it too. Oh?? No more than a negative tax! What is that, Punjabi schoolboy? You give people money for .... er.... nothing. How long before it's pwogwessive: give you more the less you do for society. Tax the creators, negative tax the deadbeats. Sounds like your idea, paki, hustling for your 10 rupees. Start dancing. Just so. Absolutely nothing - you too. Do you see? We're British. It's just the kind of chaps we are, no? You're a stingy old half-Kraut, but that's just you.

That is as coherent a case as you have ever made, paki.

Pick up the 10 rupees and the bananas on the way out. The door will bang you on the arse if you are lucky.

Frank wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 8:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 8:20pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:13pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 12:58pm: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally chande social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. That's just ideology. Universal basic income needs to be tested and measured to know. Life IS not just about money. People put in effort and initiative for all sorts of reasons. Cash profits are only one, but a basic income doesn't stop anybody chasing more cash. Most families provide their kids with basic incomes or sustenance once they reach working age - even more so for the rich. This doesn't stop kids getting jobs, setting up businesses or investing their wealth. A universal basic income is the only way to truly level the playing field in a capitalist economy, as every cashed-up schoolboy knows. "That's just ideology"  - one Bbwianesque great divide ideologue is enough. That's just ideology - that's a stupid ideological yeah-but, paki. You start by saying it needs to be measured and tested - and end by asserting that is the only way, and never mind the measuring and testing. That IS blinkered, stupid ideology. Anyway, my main point is not about money but about constituting a permanent underclass of whom nothing is expected by the rest of society. Institutionalised drongo class. Temporary help converted to permanent sit down money, no questions asked. Society-wide remote Abo life. We have that already, dear. We call them dole bludgers. Ask Valkie. A universal basic income is no more than a negative tax. A subsidy, just for being here, for being human, just for being you. You? Yes, dear boy, you'd get it too. Oh?? No more than a negative tax! What is that, Punjabi schoolboy? You give people money for .... er.... nothing. How long before it's pwogwessive: give you more the less you do for society. Tax the creators, negative tax the deadbeats. Sounds like your idea, paki, hustling for your 10 rupees. Start dancing. Just so. Absolutely nothing - you too. Do you see? We're British. It's just the kind of chaps we are, no? You're a stingy old half-Kraut, but that's just you. That is as coherent a case as you have ever made, paki. Pick up the 10 rupees and the bananas on the way out. The door will bang you on the arse if you are lucky.

Old boy, you're a record at the end of the song, playing a crack, endlessly, repeatedly. You have nothing left to say, just this:

So, so unfair.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 12:09pm:

Valkie wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 12:06pm: Countries that discourage personal wealth. Are ruled by despots, pretenders who are capable of nothing but taking. They are singularly unremarkable in that no one tries very hard. Like billionaires doubling their wealth while they are asleep?  https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity " "Billionaires’ wealth has risen more since COVID-19 began than it has in the last 14 years. At $5 trillion dollars, this is the biggest surge in billionaire wealth since records began" .

Are these the wealthy people you'd like to see a wealth tax aimed at?

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 6:26pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:11pm: the wealthy are usually the innovators, go-getters, hard chargers and winners. the more of them you have the better if i had a farm of racehorses, i would love to have a Winx. the rediculous idea that i would tax Winx (make her give up her food to some scrubby brumby that will produce, for me, no income, nothing, zero, zilch) is verging on the insane. in fact, we should find the successful and give them MORE resources bacaue they will use it well. giving it to chodes will see it wasted on tattooes and mag wheels The innovators and go-getters are stuck investing in those those mag wheels, dear. They sell. Where else are they going to put their money? Oh, there's Netflix, Facebook and Pornhub, but the rich have got just as many choices as the chodes. Those with capital have the same size dicks, you know, they just have a few more choices where to stick them. Anyway, your latest stance on big pharma and corporate wealth is rather down on big business, remember? That was last week, anyway. You might have forgotten. It's a lady's prerogative to change her mind, no?

aqua is a friend of small business, not big business

The superior man keeps his business small.

Frank wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2022 at 9:10am:

I am all for fair taxation. (I do note that a lot of wealth is not cash in the bank but the valud of assetts. So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea). On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally change social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money.

Not only but also


The fatal flaw of the universal basic income is the same one that hampers most existing anti-poverty programs: a lack of emphasis on encouraging work. Instead, these programs have sought to provide directly whatever poor people happen to lack. The result has been more than 50 years of massive public outlays, with little benefit other than making recipients dependent on government. The ongoing rise in worker’s disability claims follows a long string of recent expansions of welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and even free phones to boost the standard of living among poor citizens.

In the long run, this transfer-focused approach to welfare does more than create a disincentive to work. In his book The Welfare Trait, British neurobiologist Adam Perkins argues that dependence on welfare creates work-resistant personalities, which are often passed on from one generation to the next. As one review of Perkins’s work puts it, the welfare state “becomes a production line for damaged kids” and encourages parents in unemployed households to have more children than families led by breadwinners.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/against-universal-basic-income-15636.html

freediver wrote on Jan 24^th, 2022 at 7:32pm:

The superior man keeps his business small.

Yep 👍

And that same superior man keeps a very good accountant on his toes by making sure all business interests are structured so as to comply with tax laws AND minimise tax obligations.

In short.

There are ways and means around wealth taxes.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 9:32am:

freediver wrote on Jan 24th, 2022 at 7:32pm: The superior man keeps his business small. Yep 👍 And that same superior man keeps a very good accountant on his toes by making sure all business interests are structured so as to comply with tax laws AND minimise tax obligations. In short. There are ways and means around wealth taxes.

Always plenty of wriggle room in any rules that affect those with the wherewithal... the problem here is big business - small businesses generally are good at keeping their taxes reasonably straight.  When they have tills and such they have no real choice anyway, though some can still get away with cash work, though, frankly, most of that ends up in the economy at the next step anyway.  It is when masses of money are shipped offshore by the container load that the problems begin and end.

The problem is mega-businesses not paying anything.... profit margins are so low you have to wonder why they're in business at all if it's so bad.... can't even earn enough to pay taxes so why are they not just on the dole?

Look at Terminal Patrick - absolutely withering on the vine they are... can't afford costs of wages to keep going.... they should just sell up and move on then ...................... let someone else take the catastrophic losses...  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

aquascoot wrote on Jan 24^th, 2022 at 6:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:11pm: the wealthy are usually the innovators, go-getters, hard chargers and winners. the more of them you have the better if i had a farm of racehorses, i would love to have a Winx. the rediculous idea that i would tax Winx (make her give up her food to some scrubby brumby that will produce, for me, no income, nothing, zero, zilch) is verging on the insane. in fact, we should find the successful and give them MORE resources bacaue they will use it well. giving it to chodes will see it wasted on tattooes and mag wheels The innovators and go-getters are stuck investing in those those mag wheels, dear. They sell. Where else are they going to put their money? Oh, there's Netflix, Facebook and Pornhub, but the rich have got just as many choices as the chodes. Those with capital have the same size dicks, you know, they just have a few more choices where to stick them. Anyway, your latest stance on big pharma and corporate wealth is rather down on big business, remember? That was last week, anyway. You might have forgotten. It's a lady's prerogative to change her mind, no? aqua is a friend of small business, not big business

Wealth taxes are for billionaires, dear - those with dicks wider than they're long.

You?

Frank wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 8:48am:

Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: I am all for fair taxation. (I do note that a lot of wealth is not cash in the bank but the valud of assetts. So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea). On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally change social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. Not only but also The fatal flaw of the universal basic income is the same one that hampers most existing anti-poverty programs: a lack of emphasis on encouraging work. Instead, these programs have sought to provide directly whatever poor people happen to lack. The result has been more than 50 years of massive public outlays, with little benefit other than making recipients dependent on government. The ongoing rise in worker’s disability claims follows a long string of recent expansions of welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and even free phones to boost the standard of living among poor citizens. In the long run, this transfer-focused approach to welfare does more than create a disincentive to work. In his book The Welfare Trait, British neurobiologist Adam Perkins argues that dependence on welfare creates work-resistant personalities, which are often passed on from one generation to the next. As one review of Perkins’s work puts it, the welfare state “becomes a production line for damaged kids” and encourages parents in unemployed households to have more children than families led by breadwinners. https://www.city-journal.org/html/against-universal-basic-income-15636.html

That's ideology, dear. It's not the experience of the small number of trials into universal basic income.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map

We're entering a new stage of capitalism, where the machines are taking over. In some countries, at some point in time, the right to workforce participation will no longer be able to be fulfilled. The current model of unemployment subsistence will no longer be relevant.

The question for the state, therefore, is how it manages the question of work and divvying up the spoils.

You'll be okay, dear boy, you'll be dead.

Same as it ever was, no?

Karnal wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 10:22am:

Frank wrote on Jan 25th, 2022 at 8:48am: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: I am all for fair taxation. (I do note that a lot of wealth is not cash in the bank but the valud of assetts. So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea). On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally change social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. Not only but also The fatal flaw of the universal basic income is the same one that hampers most existing anti-poverty programs: a lack of emphasis on encouraging work. Instead, these programs have sought to provide directly whatever poor people happen to lack. The result has been more than 50 years of massive public outlays, with little benefit other than making recipients dependent on government. The ongoing rise in worker’s disability claims follows a long string of recent expansions of welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and even free phones to boost the standard of living among poor citizens. In the long run, this transfer-focused approach to welfare does more than create a disincentive to work. In his book The Welfare Trait, British neurobiologist Adam Perkins argues that dependence on welfare creates work-resistant personalities, which are often passed on from one generation to the next. As one review of Perkins’s work puts it, the welfare state “becomes a production line for damaged kids” and encourages parents in unemployed households to have more children than families led by breadwinners. https://www.city-journal.org/html/against-universal-basic-income-15636.html That's ideology, dear. It's not the experience of the small number of trials into universal basic income. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map We're entering a new stage of capitalism, where the machines are taking over. In some countries, at some point in time, the right to workforce participation will no longer be able to be fulfilled. The current model of unemployment subsistence will no longer be relevant. The question for the state, therefore, is how it manages the question of work and divvying up the spoils. You'll be okay, dear boy, you'll be dead. Same as it ever was, no?

That's Bbwianesque stupidity,  with the studied flick of a limp wrist: ideology. Because universal basic wage has nuffin' to do wiv ideology or nuffin'. Oh, yes.

Collect 13,000 rupees or the equivalent in bananas, paki.

Its funny how tge ones bleating for more tax from the rich.

Have never worked a day in their lives, living off the taxes paid by working people.

Groggy and his socks are prime examples.
Spend all day on forums whyning and winging about what they dont have.
And fantasizing about what they coukd have if only they could get the rich to pay more tax.

---

Karnal wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 10:11am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 24th, 2022 at 6:15pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:26pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 6:11pm: the wealthy are usually the innovators, go-getters, hard chargers and winners. the more of them you have the better if i had a farm of racehorses, i would love to have a Winx. the rediculous idea that i would tax Winx (make her give up her food to some scrubby brumby that will produce, for me, no income, nothing, zero, zilch) is verging on the insane. in fact, we should find the successful and give them MORE resources bacaue they will use it well. giving it to chodes will see it wasted on tattooes and mag wheels The innovators and go-getters are stuck investing in those those mag wheels, dear. They sell. Where else are they going to put their money? Oh, there's Netflix, Facebook and Pornhub, but the rich have got just as many choices as the chodes. Those with capital have the same size dicks, you know, they just have a few more choices where to stick them. Anyway, your latest stance on big pharma and corporate wealth is rather down on big business, remember? That was last week, anyway. You might have forgotten. It's a lady's prerogative to change her mind, no? aqua is a friend of small business, not big business Wealth taxes are for billionaires, dear - those with dicks wider than they're long. You?

She said - "Give me twelve inches and make it hurt!"

So the billionaire did the deed six times and refused to pay her...........

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 24^th, 2022 at 7:02am:

Are these the wealthy people you'd like to see a wealth tax aimed at?

Definitely. I'm for reward for effort. But I'm a follower of the new economics aka MMT, not classical economics.

As Stephanie Kelton, author of 'The Deficit Myth' said; "money doesn't grow on rich people". 

IOW, a currency-issuing government doesn't need rich people's  money, the problem is their outsize influence on the democratic process. 

In the meantime, a functional economy must implement above poverty employment for all, which will  require  intervention in the market economy, AND higher taxes for millionaires as well as billionaires, to pay for said intervention (ie a Job guarantee).

MMT of course eliminates the the need for government to tax or borrow in order to spend, but that's apparently too 'socialist' for the present crop of central bankers still deluded by classical economics.

Fun and games ahead, as pandemic-related poverty increases around the world, and central banks raise interest rates to avoid inflation - exactly the wrong move.

Frank wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 8:48am:

So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea).

Oh.... you are good at perceiving the difficulties of taxing billionaires, so nuttin' can be done....


Quote:

On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally change social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class.

Which is why MMT'ers prefer a Job Guarantee....but you of course, deluded by classical economics, fall back to your conservative default position which is ..... 'nuttin can be done'   (aka 'there is no alternative', TINA, proclaimed by that economic genius, Margaret Thatcher. 


Quote:

As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.

Some would however take the opportunity offered by the UBI and start their own businesses; but yes - the UBI is a cop-out to avoid implementing universal above-poverty participation in the economy.


Quote:

The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways.

Certainly life on the dole is a a demoralizing dystopian reality.


Quote:

Life is not JUST about money.

After you can pay for the basics, eg good housing, good food and utilities.....yes, so true.


Quote:

The fatal flaw of the universal basic income is the same one that hampers most existing anti-poverty programs: a lack of emphasis on encouraging work.

More exactly, failure to actually engage people in work.


Quote:

Instead, these programs have sought to provide directly whatever poor people happen to lack.

Any work program is supposed to enable recipients pay for basics.


Quote:

The result has been more than 50 years of massive public outlays, with little benefit other than making recipients dependent on government.

Sometimes you make a correct statement :-) 


Quote:

The ongoing rise in worker’s disability claims follows a long string of recent expansions of welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and even free phones to boost the standard of living among poor citizens.

Welfare is always a disaster, a stop gap; and admission of a dysfunctional economy which fails to engage everyone according to ability, whether in the private sector, or public sector (which will need to act as employer of last resort, when the private sector cannot employ everyone (which is   always  the case in practice).


Quote:

In the long run, this transfer-focused approach to welfare does more than create a disincentive to work. In his book The Welfare Trait, British neurobiologist Adam Perkins argues that dependence on welfare creates work-resistant personalities, which are often passed on from one generation to the next. As one review of Perkins’s work puts it, the welfare state “becomes a production line for damaged kids” and encourages parents in unemployed households to have more children than families led by breadwinners. https://www.city-journal.org/html/against-universal-basic-income-15636.html

All presenting  an excellent case for a Job Guarantee., to wit:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Case-Job-Guarantee-Pavlina-Tcherneva/dp/1509542108

"One of the most enduring ideas in economics is that unemployment is both unavoidable and necessary for the smooth functioning of the economy. This assumption has provided cover for the devastating social and economic costs of job insecurity. It is also false.

In this book, leading expert Pavlina R. Tcherneva challenges us to imagine a world where the phantom of unemployment is banished and anyone who seeks decent, living-wage work can find it - guaranteed. This is the aim of the Job Guarantee proposal: to provide a voluntary employment opportunity in public service to anyone who needs it. Tcherneva enumerates the many advantages of the Job Guarantee over the status quo and proposes a blueprint for its implementation within the wider context of the need for a Green New Deal.

This compact primer is the ultimate guide to the benefits of one of the most transformative public policies being discussed today. It is essential reading for all citizens and activists who are passionate about social justice and building a fairer economy".


...but you of course - being a comfortable conservative-  will deny the possibility of tax reform, the possibility of implementing universal participation in the economy, and be satisfied with  just blaming poverty on its victims; even as poverty is killing 24,000 people a day while billionaires continue to double their wealth in their sleep....

Nice. 

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 9:49am:

Look at Terminal Patrick - absolutely withering on the vine they are... can't afford costs of wages to keep going.... they should just sell up and move on then ...................... let someone else take the catastrophic losses...  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

Gee Grappler, another good post, and a welcome laugh as well...

Valkie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 12:07pm:

Its funny how tge ones bleating for more tax from the rich. Have never worked a day in their lives, living off the taxes paid by working people.

Oxfam? Picketty? Yellen? Sanders? 


Quote:

Groggy and his socks are prime examples. Spend all day on forums whyning and winging about what they dont have. And fantasizing about what they coukd have if only they could get the rich to pay more tax.

Nonsense. The issue is to stop billionaires increasing their out-sized claims on the earth's resources - even while they  are asleep, and guaranteeing above poverty participation for everyone else.

As Frank said in a rare moment of insight, "money isn't everything".

Quote:

Always plenty of wriggle room in any rules that affect those with the wherewithal... the problem here is big business - small businesses generally are good at keeping their taxes reasonably straight.

;D


Quote:

The problem is mega-businesses not paying anything.... profit margins are so low you have to wonder why they're in business at all if it's so bad....

They are not actually that low. In the end, shareholders want distributions. This is distorted in the media by cherry picking stats. There are some years when most large businesses make a loss or very small profit. For the next few years that stats comparing $1 tax paid for $2000 turnover get passed around and around by the unionists and communists, as though it happens every year.


Quote:

We're entering a new stage of capitalism, where the machines are taking over. In some countries, at some point in time, the right to workforce participation will no longer be able to be fulfilled.

The unions have been campaigning against this right for centuries.

Yuval Harari has a lot of interesting writing on what he thinks might happen in the future. So far, the machines just seem to create more jobs, and better jobs.


Quote:

Definitely. I'm for reward for effort. But I'm a follower of the new economics aka MMT, not classical economics.

You are not a follower of MMT. You are a follower of idiot youtube "economists" who pick and choose soundbites from MMT to misinterpret.


Quote:

Oh.... you are good at perceiving the difficulties of taxing billionaires, so nuttin' can be done....

About what? Does their mere existence bother you?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 6:55pm:

Quote: Always plenty of wriggle room in any rules that affect those with the wherewithal... the problem here is big business - small businesses generally are good at keeping their taxes reasonably straight. ;D [quote]The problem is mega-businesses not paying anything.... profit margins are so low you have to wonder why they're in business at all if it's so bad....

They are not actually that low. In the end, shareholders want distributions. This is distorted in the media by cherry picking stats. There are some years when most large businesses make a loss or very small profit. For the next few years that stats comparing $1 tax paid for $2000 turnover get passed around and around by the unionists and communists, as though it happens every year.


Quote:

We're entering a new stage of capitalism, where the machines are taking over. In some countries, at some point in time, the right to workforce participation will no longer be able to be fulfilled.

The unions have been campaigning against this right for centuries.

Yuval Harari has a lot of interesting writing on what he thinks might happen in the future. So far, the machines just seem to create more jobs, and better jobs.


Quote:

Definitely. I'm for reward for effort. But I'm a follower of the new economics aka MMT, not classical economics.

You are not a follower of MMT. You are a follower of idiot youtube "economists" who pick and choose soundbites from MMT to misinterpret.


Quote:

Oh.... you are good at perceiving the difficulties of taxing billionaires, so nuttin' can be done....

About what? Does their mere existence bother you?[/quote]

Caught out!  If they're not that low why do they not pay taxes in full and why do they oft-times feel the need to cut their worker's incomes?  Why waste money engaging in futile industrial warfare?  Patricks/Corrigans did this years ago with The Invasion Of The Scabs - and now they have gained - and learned - exactly nothing. 

There is no divine right of shareholders to put their money into the shares pokie and get it back....

I see you are not only talking to me here, freed - who is the other voice in your head?  If you stick to one set of quotes that you try to refute at a time, it is much easier for you and everyone else... reading this, many would think I said all those things.....

I stick to responding to the bits I said that you tried to refute.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 6:01pm:

In this book, leading expert Pavlina R. Tcherneva challenges us to imagine a world where the phantom of unemployment is banished and anyone who seeks decent, living-wage work can find it - guaranteed. This is the aim of the Job Guarantee proposal: to provide a voluntary employment opportunity in public service to anyone who needs it. Tcherneva enumerates the many advantages of the Job Guarantee over the status quo and proposes a blueprint for its implementation within the wider context of the need for a Green New Deal. This compact primer is the ultimate guide to the benefits of one of the most transformative public policies being discussed today. It is essential reading for all citizens and activists who are passionate about social justice and building a fairer economy".[/i] ...but you of course - being a comfortable conservative-  will deny the possibility of tax reform, the possibility of implementing universal participation in the economy, and be satisfied with  just blaming poverty on its victims; even as poverty is killing 24,000 people a day while billionaires continue to double their wealth in their sleep.... Nice.

I am not going to be swayed by an Amazon book blurb for a Bulgarian Associate Professor at some liberal art college.

https://starwarsintrocreator.kassellabs.io/#!/DMuFmS-pmBs6TB9y9ATb

Quote:

Caught out!  If they're not that low why do they not pay taxes in full and why do they oft-times feel the need to cut their worker's incomes?

You aren't making any sense Grapps.


Quote:

There is no divine right of shareholders to put their money into the shares pokie and get it back....

Sure, but if the money is there, it is there right to take it, and there is no way for them to do so without the tax man finding out. Have you completely forgotten what we were discussing?


Quote:

reading this, many would think I said all those things.....

Rest assured Grapps, you only said the things that you said.

Frank wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 10:37am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 25th, 2022 at 10:22am: Frank wrote on Jan 25th, 2022 at 8:48am: Frank wrote on Jan 23rd, 2022 at 9:10am: I am all for fair taxation. (I do note that a lot of wealth is not cash in the bank but the valud of assetts. So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea). On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally change social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class. As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.  The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways. Life is not JUST about money. Not only but also The fatal flaw of the universal basic income is the same one that hampers most existing anti-poverty programs: a lack of emphasis on encouraging work. Instead, these programs have sought to provide directly whatever poor people happen to lack. The result has been more than 50 years of massive public outlays, with little benefit other than making recipients dependent on government. The ongoing rise in worker’s disability claims follows a long string of recent expansions of welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and even free phones to boost the standard of living among poor citizens. In the long run, this transfer-focused approach to welfare does more than create a disincentive to work. In his book The Welfare Trait, British neurobiologist Adam Perkins argues that dependence on welfare creates work-resistant personalities, which are often passed on from one generation to the next. As one review of Perkins’s work puts it, the welfare state “becomes a production line for damaged kids” and encourages parents in unemployed households to have more children than families led by breadwinners. https://www.city-journal.org/html/against-universal-basic-income-15636.html That's ideology, dear. It's not the experience of the small number of trials into universal basic income. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map We're entering a new stage of capitalism, where the machines are taking over. In some countries, at some point in time, the right to workforce participation will no longer be able to be fulfilled. The current model of unemployment subsistence will no longer be relevant. The question for the state, therefore, is how it manages the question of work and divvying up the spoils. You'll be okay, dear boy, you'll be dead. Same as it ever was, no? That's Bbwianesque stupidity,  with the studied flick of a limp wrist: ideology. Because universal basic wage has nuffin' to do wiv ideology or nuffin'. Oh, yes. Collect 13,000 rupees or the equivalent in bananas, paki.

Nuffin', old boy, except for the link posted. Read it at your will - or not.

We wouldn't want you thrashing about on the floor, having read something.

On the contrary, we want you poised in your coffin, best dressed, just so.

Carry on, dear boy. Death becomes you, no?

Valkie wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 12:07pm:

Its funny how tge ones bleating for more tax from the rich. Have never worked a day in their lives, living off the taxes paid by working people. Groggy and his socks are prime examples. Spend all day on forums whyning and winging about what they dont have. And fantasizing about what they coukd have if only they could get the rich to pay more tax.

Spoken like a true invalid pensioner. Wealth taxes don't tax working people, Matty, they tax wealth-management funds that never get taxed at all.

You used to think they should be taxed too,  remember? You got the idea off Pauline.

That was last week. This week you want to bleat on about Groggy. You must be on holidays, no?

But I'm curious. Where does an invalid go?

Somewhere with a bit of fresh air, one hopes. We wouldn't want you ending up like poor old Frank, you poor old thing.

It happens to us all in the end, no?

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 6:55pm:

The unions have been campaigning against the right for workforce participation for centuries.

 

A tricky reply from a deluded classical economist.

The unions wanted to achieve living wages in the face of the depredations of greedy capitalists. 

OTOH, the idea of universal above-poverty  participation in the economy  can only be achieved via a Job Guarantee (by definition), the central tenet of MMT. Your delusional classical economics rules this out.


Quote:

Yuval Harari has a lot of interesting writing on what he thinks might happen in the future. So far, the machines just seem to create more jobs, and better jobs.

Like running around on scooters with no workplace regulations, and other mickey-mouse gig economy 'jobs'. 


Quote:

You are not a follower of MMT. You are a follower of idiot youtube "economists" who pick and choose soundbites from MMT to misinterpret.

I am a socialist who sees the  choices made available to an electorate with MMT, eg, implementation of a Job Guarantee.

Your deluded - and hence evil - classical economics based on the theory of unlimited wants in the face of scarcity is obsolete  because modern AI and IT assisted economies have removed any REAL scarcity of essentials (good food, housing, clothing, utilities and education) in the modern world.   


Quote:

About what? Does their mere existence bother you?

 

Don't you read the debates you are replying to?

The debate is concerned with billionaires doubling their wealth in their sleep, while poverty-related conditions are killing 24,000 people every day (as per Oxfam report re the covid pandemic).   

Quote:

The unions wanted to achieve living wages in the face of the depredations of greedy capitalists.

That's how they try to spin it, but it was the greedy capitalists that gave it to them, despite the union antics, not because of it. The unions have slowed down this progress at every step of the way, effectively stealing from future generations with their greed and laziness.


Quote:

OTOH, the idea of universal above-poverty  participation in the economy  can only be achieved via a Job Guarantee (by definition), the central tenet of MMT.

No it isn't. It is the central tenet of the idiot youtube "economists" you follow, who attempt to give themselves credibility by claiming to be MMT'ists.


Quote:

I am a socialist

Pretending to be a MMT'ist.


Quote:

Your deluded - and hence evil - classical economics

Do you think mainstream eocnomics is evil?


Quote:

Don't you read the debates you are replying too? The debate is concerned with billionaires doubling their wealth in their sleep

Why the compulsion to "do something" about that?

Frank wrote on Jan 25^th, 2022 at 8:26pm:

I am not going to be swayed by an Amazon book blurb for a Bulgarian Associate Professor at some liberal art college.

Of course not, you have proved you are incapable debate many times.

I refute every and all of your deluded classical economics based nonsense, whereas you merely shouted "ideology" at someone who rightly said YOU were hiding behind ideology.

Pathetic. 

But Just in case you do erroneously think you are capable of debate, start with this:



Quote:

...but you of course - being a comfortable conservative-  will 1. deny the possibility of tax reform, given the false TINA narrative. 2. deny the possibility of implementing universal participation in the economy, 3. and be satisfied with  just blaming poverty on its victims; even as poverty is killing 24,000 people a day while billionaires continue to double their wealth in their sleep....

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 1:10pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 25th, 2022 at 8:26pm: I am not going to be swayed by an Amazon book blurb for a Bulgarian Associate Professor at some liberal art college. Of course not, you have proved you are incapable debate many times. I refute every and all of your deluded classical economics based nonsense, whereas you merely shouted "ideology" at someone who rightly said YOU were hiding behind ideology. Pathetic.  But Just in case you do erroneously think you are capable of debate,  try this: Quote: ...but you of course - being a comfortable conservative-  will 1. deny the possibility of tax reform, given the false TINA narrative. 2. deny the possibility of implementing universal participation in the economy, 3. and be satisfied with  just blaming poverty on its victims; even as poverty is killing 24,000 people a day while billionaires continue to double their wealth in their sleep....

Not taking you seriously and not taking an intelligent, well-thought out argument seriously are NOT the same thing, pal, don't  kid yourself.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 1:01pm:

... it was the greedy capitalists that gave it to them, despite the union antics, not because of it.

Like during the Industrial revolution before unions existed, and children from poor families were forced to work in coal  mines...


Quote:

The unions have slowed down this progress at every step of the way, effectively stealing from future generations with their greed and laziness.

Your narrative  is a particularly evil formulation re "progress"  during the unfolding of the industrial revolution, based on the deluded classical economics theory of unlimited wants in the face of scarcity that existed at the time.  Needless to say, Marx put considerable effort into trying to understand what was going on.


Quote:

No it isn't. It is the central tenet of the idiot youtube "economists" you follow, who attempt to give themselves credibility by claiming to be MMT'ists.

That's not debate. The JG is the central tenet of MMT; indeed the JG is the price anchor mechanism (inflation control). 


Quote:

Pretending to be a MMT'ist.

Nope, both.


Quote:

Do you think mainstream eocnomics is evil?

Yes...let's see... billionaires doubling their wealth in their sleep, while 24,000 people die from  poverty related condtions every day.

Sheer, unadulterated evil.


Quote:

Why the compulsion to "do something" about that?

Proving my point you are knowingly evil... since you conspired to simply omit the latter half of the sentence:

"  while poverty-related conditions are killing 24,000 people every day (as per Oxfam report re the covid pandemic)" . 

Frank wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 1:19pm:

Not taking you seriously and not taking an intelligent, well-thought out argument serioysly are NOT the same thing, pal, don't  kid yourself.

Nevertheless, you run out of debating skills  very quickly, not bothering to debate any of this: 


Quote:

So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea).

Oh.... you are good at perceiving the difficulties of taxing billionaires, so nuttin' can be done....


Quote:

On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally change social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class.

Which is why MMT'ers prefer a Job Guarantee....but you of course, deluded by classical economics, fall back to your conservative default position which is ..... 'nuttin' can be done'   (aka 'there is no alternative', TINA, proclaimed by that economic genius, Margaret Thatcher.


Quote:

As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.

Some would however take the opportunity offered by the UBI and start their own businesses; but yes - the UBI is a cop-out to avoid implementing universal above-poverty participation in the economy.


Quote:

The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways.

Certainly life on the dole is a a demoralizing dystopian reality.


Quote:

Life is not JUST about money.

After you can pay for the basics, eg good housing, good food and utilities.....yes, so true.

Quote:

The fatal flaw of the universal basic income is the same one that hampers most existing anti-poverty programs: a lack of emphasis on encouraging work.

More exactly, failure to actually engage people in work.


Quote:

Instead, these programs have sought to provide directly whatever poor people happen to lack.

Any work program is supposed to enable recipients pay for basics.


Quote:

The result has been more than 50 years of massive public outlays, with little benefit other than making recipients dependent on government.

Sometimes you make a correct statement :-)


Quote:

The ongoing rise in worker’s disability claims follows a long string of recent expansions of welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and even free phones to boost the standard of living among poor citizens.

Welfare is always a disaster, a stop gap; and admission of a dysfunctional economy which fails to engage everyone according to ability, whether in the private sector, or public sector (which will need to act as employer of last resort, when the private sector cannot employ everyone (which is   always  the case in practice).


Poor Frank - after all that effort (which I refuted easily) - is too exhausted to attempt to defend any of his erroneous arguments.....

Quote:

Like during the Industrial revolution before unions existed, and children from poor families were forced to work in coal  mines...

The only people forcing them to work in the coal mines were their parents.


Quote:

Sheer, unadulterated evil.

So what they teach to undergraduate economics students in modern universities is "sheer, unadulterated evil"?


Quote:

Proving my point you are knowingly evil... since you conspired to simply omit the latter half of the sentence:

What makes you think the latter half justifies your compulsion to 'do something' about rich people?

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 2:12pm:

The only people forcing them to work in the coal mines were their parents.

...otherwise the entire family would starve to death...


Quote:

So what they teach to undergraduate economics students in modern universities is "sheer, unadulterated evil"?

Fortunately the first recently published  MMT text book ("Macroeconomics" by Mitchell, Wray and Watts) is now entering economic faculties around the world. So the current evil orthodoxy will soon be thrown into the dust-bin of history.


Quote:

What makes you think the latter half justifies your compulsion to 'do something' about rich people?

Actually I'm an MMT'er; I'm more interested in establishing  an above poverty Job Guarantee.......since "money doesn't grow on rich people" (Kelton)...  who are just as likely to waste it on joyrides in space for millionaires, while poverty and war  - the consequences of your evil 'scarcity' orthodoxy - are killing millions of people annually.

But Oxfam, the IMF et al are still infested with the monetary delusions of orthodoxy, so it's  they, or Oxfam at least who - unlike your conservative indifferent self -  feel  compelled to  "do something' about rich people".

Quote:

...otherwise the entire family would starve to death...

So what you are saying is, instead of "forcing" children to do anything, the coal mines saved not only their lives, but the rest of their family?


Quote:

Actually I'm an MMT'er; I'm more interested in establishing  an above poverty Job Guarantee.......

Something like work for the dole?


Quote:

But Oxfam, the IMF et al are still infested with the monetary delusions of orthodoxy, so it's  they, or Oxfam at least who - unlike your conservative indifferent self -  feel  compelled to  "do something' about rich people".

You are the one who keeps insisting we "do something" about them. Reminds me of Neonazis talking about Jews. You seem more interested in attacking the rich than actually helping the poor.

freediver wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 6:14pm:

So what you are saying is, instead of "forcing" children to do anything, the coal mines saved not only their lives, but the rest of their family?

No. The coalmines ruined  children's lives, because evil capitalists refused to pay living wages to parents.


Quote:

Something like work for the dole?

No.


Quote:

You are the one who keeps insisting we "do something" about them.

I just refuted that in my last post, can't you read? Oxfam is jumping up and down about billionaires; MMT shows us sovereign currency issuing governments don't need their money in order to spend (though billionaires outsize influence on democratic processes is egregious).



Quote:

Reminds me of Neonazis talking about Jews. You seem more interested in attacking the rich than actually helping the poor.

Again, you are just proving you can't read (or actually you are genetically ideologically blind): I distinctly said MY interest is in implementing an above-poverty  JG.

Why are there so many billionnaires in 'socialist' China?

Quote:

No. The coalmines ruined  children's lives, because evil capitalists refused to pay living wages to parents.

Most people, on having their own life saved, as well of that of their family, are a bit more grateful. They do not turn around with such venom and complain they didn't get more.

If the coal mines saved their lives, as well as their families lives, isn't that by definition a living wage?

Would you prefer they adopted the unionist philosophy and let a large number of those families die so that a small number could live slightly more comfortable lives, while calling their starving compatriots scabs for trying to take their overpaid jobs?


Quote:

No.

Then what would it be like?


Quote:

Oxfam is jumping up and down about billionaires; MMT shows us sovereign currency issuing governments don't need their money in order to spend (though billionaires outsize influence on democratic processes is egregious).

Printing money is just another way of taking it off people. Doing it a little bit is just slightly less stupid, but that is irrelevant because if you try to print enough money to fund a huge social program like giving everyone a guaranteed job, you will have skyrocketing inflation.


Quote:

I distinctly said MY interest is in implementing an above-poverty  JG.

Do you get to keep the job if you never turn up for work?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 2:07pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 26th, 2022 at 1:19pm: Not taking you seriously and not taking an intelligent, well-thought out argument serioysly are NOT the same thing, pal, don't  kid yourself. Nevertheless, you run out of debating skills  very quickly, not bothering to debate any of this:  Quote: So taxing billionnairs on their assetts would require thdm to sell some of it to get liquid asetts to pay the fax, unless they transferred shares and stocks to the tax office to own by way of tax payment - a daft idea). Oh.... you are good at perceiving the difficulties of taxing billionaires, so nuttin' can be done.... [quote] On universal wage regardless of ability, contribution, assetts, wealth etc - this would fundamentally change social relations,  creating an underclass from which nothing is expected. In essence it would create a class of people, a caste similar to the untouchables or the pre-emancipation negros, a second or third order lumpen prole class.

Which is why MMT'ers prefer a Job Guarantee....but you of course, deluded by classical economics, fall back to your conservative default position which is ..... 'nuttin' can be done'   (aka 'there is no alternative', TINA, proclaimed by that economic genius, Margaret Thatcher.


Quote:

As with legalised drugs, the number of 'users' of the universal wage as their permanent sole source of money (plus petty crime) and permenant relationship tie to the rest of society would grow relentlessly.

Some would however take the opportunity offered by the UBI and start their own businesses; but yes - the UBI is a cop-out to avoid implementing universal above-poverty participation in the economy.


Quote:

The whole idea of thriving, initiative, effort, excellence, giving it a go, trying again, failing beter, getting up and keeping going - and all the psychological, social, economic, emotional furniture that comes with such age old values would be radically changed in unforeseen but invariably distopian, degenerate ways.

Certainly life on the dole is a a demoralizing dystopian reality.


Quote:

Life is not JUST about money.

After you can pay for the basics, eg good housing, good food and utilities.....yes, so true.

Quote:

The fatal flaw of the universal basic income is the same one that hampers most existing anti-poverty programs: a lack of emphasis on encouraging work.

More exactly, failure to actually engage people in work.


Quote:

Instead, these programs have sought to provide directly whatever poor people happen to lack.

Any work program is supposed to enable recipients pay for basics.


Quote:

The result has been more than 50 years of massive public outlays, with little benefit other than making recipients dependent on government.

Sometimes you make a correct statement :-)


Quote:

The ongoing rise in worker’s disability claims follows a long string of recent expansions of welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing assistance, and even free phones to boost the standard of living among poor citizens.

Welfare is always a disaster, a stop gap; and admission of a dysfunctional economy which fails to engage everyone according to ability, whether in the private sector, or public sector (which will need to act as employer of last resort, when the private sector cannot employ everyone (which is   always  the case in practice).


Poor Frank - after all that effort (which I refuted easily) - is too exhausted to attempt to defend any of his erroneous arguments.....


[/quote]

Just so, dear. The UBI is indeed a cop-out, offered by the scions of capitalism.

It shares its cloth with previous social democratic projects, the aged pension, the NHS, and FD's favourite, universal suffrage.

Iraq is the next South Korea, all that. Oh, and the Ba'athists had a fuel subsidy to boot.

UBI is centre-ground, and by no means revolutionary. Bill Gates wants it.

You?

Oh God 😳

Pages and pages of cr@p.

Let's cut to the chase :

1. A wealth tax can be introduced in Australia at any time.

2. If it does it will be great. Why? It will make those who are not wealthy feel better. Plus it will make the Federal Govt who initiates the tax look better.

3. Those targeted by a wealth tax won't mind a wealth tax. Why? They will not be affected because they have exceptional tax law accountants who will restructure their financial affairs so as to preclude them from paying more tax.

Conclusion : A wealth tax will be a win win for everyone because it will APPEAR to be doing something when in actual fact it will do SFA.

Ok I'll let you all get back to whatever it was you were quibbling about.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 11:39pm:

Oh God 😳 Pages and pages of cr@p. Let's cut to the chase : 1. A wealth tax can be introduced in Australia at any time. 2. If it does it will be great. Why? It will make those who are not wealthy feel better. Plus it will make the Federal Govt who initiates the tax look better. 3. Those targeted by a wealth tax won't mind a wealth tax. Why? They will not be affected because they have exceptional tax law accountants who will restructure their financial affairs so as to preclude them from paying more tax. Conclusion : A wealth tax will be a win win for everyone because it will APPEAR to be doing something when in actual fact it will do SFA. Ok I'll let you all get back to whatever it was you were quibbling about.

Thanks for the contribution, dear. We could say the same for any government policy, no?

Collective farms - great leap forward - perestroika - building a great, big, beautiful wall which we'll get Mexico to pay for, believe me...

As you were, no?

Behave Musta.

You've gone all over the world and travelled back a century just in your last post.

Besides ....your contribution is also off topic.

That makes you NAUGHTY!

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27^th, 2022 at 12:30am:

Behave Musta. You've gone all over the world and travelled back a century just in your last post. Besides ....your contribution is also off topic. That makes you NAUGHTY!

14/ A significant % of people thoroughly enjoy being subjugated.

Karnal wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 11:27pm:

Just so, dear. The UBI is indeed a cop-out, offered by the scions of capitalism.

It's the next best option to a Job Guarantee, certainly better than below poverty welfare, provided it can pay a living wage...which is the problem; a decent UBI would be enormously expensive, even if it was means-tested (and no longer 'U'). 


Quote:

It shares its cloth with previous social democratic projects, the aged pension, the NHS, and FD's favourite, universal suffrage.

Correct, and you will see I have not rejected it outright, above. But how do you intend to fund a decent UBI, say, double the present job seeker allowance (or not much less)?

And you have seen the rabid right's objections in this thread; eg, lazy bums contributing nothing, in a continuous high/drunken stupor, etc, etc. 


Quote:

Iraq is the next South Korea, all that. Oh, and the Ba'athists had a fuel subsidy to boot.

But not a UBI?


Quote:

UBI is centre-ground, and by no means revolutionary. Bill Gates wants it.

Apart from the fact Gates is deluded by mainstream economics, I welcome his stance (and he does want higher taxes on the wealthy).


Quote:

You?

I'm an MMTer, and hence can fund the preferable Job Guarantee (preferable to the 'sit on your arse' UBI) without resort to raising taxes ... which is always a difficult proposition in a democracy because we are all - or more accurately, the 'aspirational' middle class to whom Albo is pitching his policies - greedy  s**ts who don't want to pay higher taxes...

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 26^th, 2022 at 11:39pm:

Let's cut to the chase : 1. A wealth tax can be introduced in Australia at any time. 2. If it does it will be great. Why? It will make those who are not wealthy feel better. Plus it will make the Federal Govt who initiates the tax look better.

Wrong. It will enable the Federal government to properly fund age-care as per royal commission recomendations, for example.


Quote:

3. Those targeted by a wealth tax won't mind a wealth tax. Why? They will not be affected because they have exceptional tax law accountants who will restructure their financial affairs so as to preclude them from paying more tax.

Correct.  And your solution is .....do nothing?


Quote:

Conclusion : A wealth tax will be a win win for everyone because it will APPEAR to be doing something when in actual fact it will do SFA.

Wrong,  a wealth tax which actually transfers some of the loot gained by billionaire parasites while they were asleep (during the pandemic), will eg improve the lot of aged care residents who are currently lying in their own faeces for hours on end, as noted in the recent royal commission. 


Quote:

Ok I'll let you all get back to whatever it was you were quibbling about.

Meanwhile you didn't have to gumption to reply to my rebuttal of your support for 'survival of the fittest' ideation.

And indeed our children's future is being stolen, via your evil orthodox monetary system, as capitalist profit-gougers continue to pour - unabated - filth, pollution and CO2 into the planet's fragile environment.    

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 27^th, 2022 at 1:05pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 26th, 2022 at 11:27pm: Just so, dear. The UBI is indeed a cop-out, offered by the scions of capitalism. It's the next best option to a Job Guarantee, certainly better than below poverty welfare, provided it can pay a living wage...which is the problem; a decent UBI would be enormously expensive, even if it was means-tested (and no longer 'U').  Quote: It shares its cloth with previous social democratic projects, the aged pension, the NHS, and FD's favourite, universal suffrage. Correct, and you will see I have not rejected it outright, above. But how do you intend to fund a decent UBI, say, double the present job seeker allowance (or not much less)? And you have seen the rabid right's objections in this thread; eg, lazy bums contributing nothing, in a continuous high/drunken stupor, etc, etc.  [quote]Iraq is the next South Korea, all that. Oh, and the Ba'athists had a fuel subsidy to boot.

But not a UBI?


Quote:

UBI is centre-ground, and by no means revolutionary. Bill Gates wants it.

Apart from the fact Gates is deluded by mainstream economics, I welcome his stance (and he does want higher taxes on the wealthy).


Quote:

You?

I'm an MMTer, and hence can fund the preferable Job Guarantee (preferable to the 'sit on your arse' UBI) without resort to raising taxes ... which is always a difficult proposition in a democracy because we are all - or more accurately, the 'aspirational' middle class to whom Albo is pitching his policies - greedy  s**ts who don't want to pay higher taxes...
[/quote]

I'm not sure how you'd run a job guarantee, given the private sector has most of the jobs.

UBI is different. People spend much of their lives in school, training and retirement, or as carers. UBI guarantees an income.

I'd tax a UBI back once employed. It would amount to little more than a rise to Newstart payments, and by basic, I'd suggest about $300 a week - adjusted to the consumer price index or a similar measure..

Anyone could be entitled after, say, 18. It could be managed by the ATO, not Centrelink. This would do away with all the administration around Newstart. Disability and aged pensioners would get a top-up.

It would probably double the current social security bill, and I'd raise upper-level taxes to pay for it. I think you'd find a significant proportion of people willing to pay more if the money went to citizens as opposed to government departments. I'd sell it as paying for all that unpaid labour, such as mothers, carers, etc, as well as future-proofing our welfare state for pending lay-offs.

$300 a week is not enough to make people complacent, and people don't work merely for money anyway. We need to be honest about how the economy works - unemployment is not about bludging, but structural problems, as covid has shown. Tory governments around the world were able to sell jobkeeper payments during covid, we could be honest about the future of work and sell a UBI this way. The rabid right were able to accept this.

I'd probably wait for Murdoch to die first before implementing it. The big problem is the rabid tabloid news, not so much the "right" per se, but I'd like to see it tested thoroughly first to see how it impacts on production and consumption and the wider economy.

Karnal wrote on Jan 27^th, 2022 at 1:37pm:

I'm not sure how you'd run a job guarantee, given the private sector has most of the jobs.

Well, I won't explain MMT to you here, so let's have a look at your proposal (I will just  say there is an infinite amount of work which people would like done, but which the private sector is not interested in doing). 


Quote:

UBI is different. People spend much of their lives in school, training and retirement, or as carers. UBI guarantees an income.

   Yes (much like a JG).


Quote:

I'd tax a UBI back once employed. It would amount to little more than a rise to Newstart payments, and by basic, I'd suggest about $300 a week - adjusted to the consumer price index or a similar measure..

Sounds good...but will those 'aspirational' middle class types be willing to pay the tax?


Quote:

Anyone could be entitled after, say, 18. It could be managed by the ATO, not Centrelink. This would do away with all the administration around Newstart. Disability and aged pensioners would get a top-up.

Sounds good.


Quote:

It would probably double the current social security bill, and I'd raise upper-level taxes to pay for it. I think you'd find a significant proportion of people willing to pay more if the money went to citizens as opposed to government departments. I'd sell it as paying for all that unpaid labour, such as mothers, carers, etc, as well as future-proofing our welfare state for pending lay-offs.

The high-lighted: that's a good point. At present much tax money is wasted on the poverty industry, which is why the 'abo gap' remains entrenched; the money goes to the employees of the poverty industry,  not the intended recipients.  [But speaking of abos, a UBI would NOT work, because the level of dysfunction in that community is already  too great. A JG is definitely required in that case].


Quote:

$300 a week is not enough to make people complacent, and people don't work merely for money anyway.

That would work with government subsidized housing (rents are too high in the private market).


Quote:

We need to be honest about how the economy works - unemployment is not about bludging, but structural problems, as covid has shown. Tory governments around the world were able to sell jobkeeper payments during covid, we could be honest about the future of work and sell a UBI this way. The rabid right were able to accept this.

Agreed. But evil mainstream economists are already shouting about "debt which will burden our grandchildren", etc,  to encourage/frighten  the electorate to return to business as usual, eg, balanced budget BS, inflation BS etc. 

And hardly a day goes by without ignorant ABC journalists harassing politicians of all stripes about the 'debt which must be repaid'.


Quote:

I'd probably wait for Murdoch to die first before implementing it. The big problem is the rabid tabloid news, not so much the "right" per se, but I'd like to see it tested thoroughly first to see how it impacts on production and consumption and the wider economy.

Certainly something has to be done, to avoid the disastrous consequences of entrenched poverty and spiraling inequality.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 27^th, 2022 at 1:29pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 26th, 2022 at 11:39pm:   Let's cut to the chase : 1. A wealth tax can be introduced in Australia at any time. 2. If it does it will be great. Why? It will make those who are not wealthy feel better. Plus it will make the Federal Govt who initiates the tax look better. Wrong. It will enable the Federal government to properly fund age-care as per royal commission recomendations, for example. Quote: 3. Those targeted by a wealth tax won't mind a wealth tax. Why? They will not be affected because they have exceptional tax law accountants who will restructure their financial affairs so as to preclude them from paying more tax. Correct.  And your solution is .....do nothing? [quote]Conclusion : A wealth tax will be a win win for everyone because it will APPEAR to be doing something when in actual fact it will do SFA.

Wrong,  a wealth tax which actually transfers some of the loot gained by billionaire parasites while they were asleep (during the pandemic), will eg improve the lot of aged care residents who are currently lying in their own faeces for hours on end, as noted in the recent royal commission. 


Quote:

Ok I'll let you all get back to whatever it was you were quibbling about.

Meanwhile you didn't have to gumption to reply to my rebuttal of your support for 'survival of the fittest' ideation.

And indeed our children's future is being stolen, via your evil orthodox monetary system, as capitalist profit-gougers continue to pour - unabated - filth, pollution and CO2 into the planet's fragile environment.    
[/quote]

I disagree with just about everything you post. Why? You're seriously ignorant and/or you talk utter cr@p.

That's also why I don't bother responding to you much.

Lisa Jones wrote on Jan 27^th, 2022 at 2:06pm:

I disagree with just about everything you post. Why? You're seriously ignorant and/or you talk utter cr@p. That's also why I don't bother responding to you much.

That's Franks' position; the ignorant claiming the right not to debate.

Hint: this is a debating forum, if you can't defend your position, you are about as useful as an astray on a motorbike.

Gawd....talk about Hillary's 'deplorables', you join that 'elite' group of no-hopers, and yet want to be taken seriously...