From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:14:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.014211.29490@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.012952.29044@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris
O'Neill) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.221121.3410@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
>>writes:
>>>In article <chris.723944820@suite.sw.oz.au> chris@suite.sw.oz.au (Chris
>>Maltby) writes:
>>>You are making assumptions about the economy remaining static, 
>>
>>You are making assumptions about the economy improving.
>
>Yup, the best thing for a country with a crisis of confidence is
>a new government, just like the Christmas season, it makes people happy
>for a little while. 

In the case of Jeff Kennet's government, "little" is the operative word.

>I also happen to believe that the changes will make it
>more rewarding to work harder

and by coincidence, more rewarding even if you don't work harder as long as
your income is greater than $35000.  The less progressive you make the tax
system, the more rewarding it is for those who are better off.  This is an
inesapable fact.  The trade-off is decided by politics.  But this is becoming
academic anyway, it's probably not worth arguing about Fightback until the new
version is announced.

> and that the present mindset that
>favours mediocrity might change for the better.

Thanks for your mindset.

>>>>To offset the inflationary effect of the GST there is a corresponding
>>>>income tax reduction, and special assistance aimed at asset rich,
>>>>income poor people (retirees). But this new income tax system is
>>>>also less progressive than at present.  That is, the more income
>>>>you get the greater the proportional income tax saving.
>>>>
>>>So what, is it less fair????
>>
>>We have to keep in mind the definitions of fairness used by the right wing of
>>politics.
>
>I have always wanted to know what economics have to do with "the right wing
>of politics"? 

You were talking about the word "fair" (in the context of taxation), not
economics.

>Now lets see, the Communists in Russia are called the "right wing"

Who by?

>The neo-nazis are called right wing, 

Who by?  Natsi stands for Nationalist Socialist by the way.

>conservatives are generally called
>right wing (I note that Grahame Richardson says that for the first time
>the Liberals are the radicals). Now how does your idea of left and right
>wing equate with economics? 

The point was about fairness, not economics.

>Is it relevant?

It is relevant to fairness.

Since you are not clear on what right wing means, I will explain how it affects
taxation.  The most right wing view is that there should be no taxation at all.
 Less right wing is that there should be a certain number of dollars tax for
each person.  Less right wing still is that tax should be a fixed portion of
income regardless of income.  Even less right wing is that the proportion of
tax should increase with income.

>WHat I care about is outcomes not labels like "more progressive" etc,

It's all outcomes.

>who cares, the point is whether it will work 

So don't just automatically assume that it will.

>and whether it will
>improve the population overall. One thing we know is that more of
>the same as advocated by the current regime 

What do you mean by more of the same?  Do you mean more of the same interest
rate policy?  You're not going to get anything better from the Liberal party.

>won't fix the problems.

So are you advocating that more of the same in a stronger dose from the Liberal
party will fix the problems?  The only way that a stronger dose of economic
rationalism could possibly be any help is by putting the economy into an even
worse condition than it is now so that a future Labour government will try to
find out what's wrong with economic rationalism and try to correct the errors
in it.  This is a very negative approach.  If we have a Liberal government then
we will be guaranteed to have another three years of full-on economic
rationalism, regardless of the immediate consequences.  With a Labour
government we won't necessarily have to wait three years before they start
thinking about avoiding the disasters of economic rationalism.  Their policies
are already modified to avoid the obvious flaws in economic rationalism, unlike
the Liberal party.
Newsgroups: aus.politics