Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:


So what's the problem then?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:


Higher taxes for higher incomes is a way to reshape the exponential relationship between income and effort/value back into a linear one. Relative inequalities remain.

5.5% unemployed people out of a population of 23 million receiving Newstart allowance at $500 per fortnight works out to be $16.5 billion per year. GDP is about $1.372 trillion, so CentreLink payments are only 1% of GDP. That isn't much.

People who have a job are still better off than people without one. Where's the wealth redistribution? If a system preserves relative inequalities, there is no wealth redistribution.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:


How is it communism? You started talking about businesses going broke. You either help businesses or you help people get rich. I am surprised at your response. Initially you tell me I'm socialist for saying that social security is a good thing (helping the people). Now you tell me I'm "communist" for coming up with a scheme that would help businesses. I thought being pro-business was the opposite of communist. Where did I go wrong?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:


Huge numbers of people were already poor in Russia. The communists simply failed to change that. That was the legacy of serfdom and feudalism, which the Russians hoped to change through revolution.

Most people had less than what they needed in Russia. They were below the poverty line. That is in huge contrast to what we have here in Australia, where most people already have what they need, but they don't have what they want. Most Australians are above the poverty line. Your analogy doesn't fit.

In Russia, under the Soviets there were no markets. It was a planned economy. There's a huge difference.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:


How is slave labour communism?

These people weren't saved by capitalism. They were saved by the unions. Workers got together and refused to work. They forced employers to pay them more by striking. Collective action drove wages up. You're blaming communism for poverty in countries where communism never existed. Communism never took hold in the UK. I don't know why you'd be talking about the UK if you wanted to talk about communism. Maybe the USSR but not the UK.

When we buy cheap products made in sweat shops in China, is that communism? I thought it was free trade and globalisation (ie. market-driven capitalism).

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:


I didn't say anything about state-controlled businesses. Businesses are still part of the market. There is no planned economy. Capital doesn't flow to the government (ie. state coffers), but back to the businesses. A portion of income tax will be redirected back to businesses if they invest it in something useful (like giving subsidies or tax cuts).

Under the current system, if an employee receives $100k from company X in gross income, income tax takes away $47k and the employee only gets $53k. The $47k goes to the government and never comes back except through indirect means like tax cuts and subsidies.

What I was suggesting was a "conditional income tax." Instead of the whole $47k going to the government, company X can recover some of that income tax by making some approved investments, like R&D and the purchase of capital goods. The result is that company X loses less of its money and has more opportunities for investment and expansion. The government, on the other hand, loses some potential revenue. The general population in the meantime, is no worse off than before.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 13^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:


Well, like I said, most Australians are above the poverty line. There aren't going to be any peasants here. Higher income taxes on higher income earners and lower or zero income tax on low income earners isn't going to create poverty if most people are already above the poverty line.

We live in a developed country. Life here is much better than in Calcutta or Somalia, but we don't need to live like kings.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:


I don't know where I said "inequalities" were "unfair" and "unethical." I said that the system preserves relative inequalities and was therefore not a redistribution of wealth. People with higher gross incomes still end up with higher net incomes. They retain their advantage. It makes me wonder if you actually read my whole post because you seem to be putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. I think you're arguing against a straw man here.

Wealth accumulation makes an economy inefficient. That's what I did say.

I said it was good for everyone to get social security (even the rich), because I know how stingy some rich people can be. They don't like the idea of the poor catching up to them. They don't like paying taxes. They don't like people getting something for free. Like I said, it preserves relative inequalities. It preserves their advantage. I said that as a response both to their stinginess, as well as a response to you labeling me a "communist." I hope that clarifies things.

I'm not the least bit interested in the inequalities. What I am interested in is efficiency. If people want to become rich and always want the most pay, they become more expensive as workers and employees. It's the reason why Australia can't compete with developing countries on labour costs and with manufacturing. If everyone got a pay cut, we could start competing again. We are a high-cost economy.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:


Me too -- except maybe for the private school part. If your kids are smart and they are willing to work hard, going to a good public school is just as good. I don't support the classism often associated with private education. If you don't send them to a private school, you save money.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:


I disagree. That's what I used to think, but then I learnt that I was just ignorant about what socialism actually was. I was fed the propaganda that socialism, a close relative of communism, was about people being paid the same and that it was about a society that didn't reward effort with incentives. What happened in the Soviet Union was definitely communism, but it wasn't socialism.

I found an article on the life of Karl Marx somewhere, but can't remember where. Maybe it was in a magazine while I was visiting my doctor. I read about his disgust with the "bourgeoisie" and the accumulation of wealth and private property. At the time, it didn't really register. I just put it aside and thought, yeah I still think socialism is bad. The anti-socialist propaganda persisted in me. I continued to believe what most people thought on this side of the former Cold War factions (the U.S. side).

Then the 2008 financial crisis struck. Too many Americans were getting home loans and mortgages, even people who were unemployed. Too many people wanted to be rich. They got into debt thinking they could get through it all and everything would be ok. They did it because everyone else was doing it. Their friends were doing it. Their family was doing it. It was a culture of "keeping up with the Jones's."

When everyone is trying to be rich, they drag the economy down with them. Karl Marx had a point.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:


Again, I think you're arguing against a straw man here. I don't know where I talked about "equal outcomes for all." What I did say was that income tax changes an exponentially increasing curve in the relationship between "income" and "effort/value" back into a linear one. You do know what I mean by exponential and linear relationships don't you? A linear relationship implies proportional, not equal outcomes. Remember the maths you learnt in high school and university?

Linear: y = mx + c                 >> a straight line increasing at a constant rate
Exponential: y = e^x + c       >> a curve that increases faster and faster as x increases

If I was talking about equal outcomes then it would be a linear equation where m = 0: a constant relationship, but I am talking about a case where m > 0: a proportional relationship.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


Unfortunately you did say that.

The 'wealth accumulation' of private individuals and privately owned industries has allowed the West to leave all the others far behind.

Rich people develop new industries which employ thousands of people who don't risk their savings on risky investments such as the rich are willing to do.

The rich are constantly risking their fortunes on property development, niche opportunity investments, venture capital investments, etc etc.

How many times have I heard a boss say "I wish I could work the same hours as you blokes do".

Without these risk-takers this would be a Third World Country.

By removing the motivation and the means for creating personal wealth ~ you soon reduce a nation's economy to a subsistence level.

My friend did a tour of Russia while it was still communist. At around 11.30am the group was shown through a huge factory where it was noticed that the workers were all smoking or eating while sitting next to their machines.

To cut to the chase ~ it wasn't a meal break of any sort. They had finished their Moscow-planned quota for the day. 

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:


Your mask has slipped again.

Here again we see you in the role of petulant leftwinger who is aggrieved that others might be stealing a march on the working classes because they've made personal sacrifices and efforts to rise above the mob.

Leftwingers such as yourself become peeved when others pull ahead of the hoi polloi through sheer hard work, self-discipline, and personal sacrifice.

A private education offers a much more broad and wide-ranging learning experience for the student. It's the extras and the add-ons that hone young intellects and characters to a fine edge that public schools have neither the funds nor the teaching talent to offer.

Get rid of that chip on your shoulder, Mn!  

Stop the 'Tall Poppy' whinging!

If people appear to be of a better class than you ~ then SUCK IT UP, dude! At least you'll never be out of a job for as long as you can polish their boots and chauffeur them around town.

Sheesh. Some people.

I'm hoping Lady Mantra here will eventually give me a chauffeuring job as in 'Driving Miss Daisy'. 

(Yes, I'll wear 'black-face' if that's what she insists upon... )

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:


I never actually said that. I said I was against classism. That isn't the same as saying "all children are the same." I said that if your child was smart, they didn't need a private school education. People aren't smarter because they get a private school education. If they're smart, they don't need one. Private schools are for people who want or need extra help. It's a brute force approach to education.

I said absolutely nothing about everyone being the same. Where did that come from? Quote me if I did.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:


Never mind. If you don't have the time to read history books, that's ok. It's a busy world.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:


How was anything I said totalitarianism and authoritarianism? I never said anything about people being forced to do anything.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:


I didn't do anything of the sort.

Torpedo wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:


Once again, people are putting words into my mouth.

Mnemonic wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:54pm:

you know, there is a strong theory, that if Einstein's parents didn't push hard enough for his education, he wouldn't become what he became

Life_goes_on wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:38pm:


Moot point.

Some will say 'Yay' and some will say 'Nay'.

I don't like religious schools getting any funding from the taxpayers ~ especially Islamic schools where kids born in Australia are carefully tutored in the cultural traditions and heritage of the Middle Eastern character and identity.   

To support such a non-assimilist and alienating program for Australian-born children under the aegis of an 'Islamic education' would seem to me to be utterly self-defeating from the point of view of wanting our own culture and our own heritage to be securely guaranteed for the foreseeable future.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

Um, it's quite apparent that you are a lazy thinker: smoke crack much mr hardcore?