HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:32:04 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au


 
>Mad Dog Hewson is elected (he is an unpaid guest worker from a foreign
>economy) and slaps on a 15% tax on life itself, he also lowers personal
>taxes and tries to help out the needy. In this economy Joe Poor
>pays no personal taxes, and receives a $20 family allowance increase
>Joe Rich pays $250 in income taxes but $180 in indirect taxes.
 
You seem to have forgotten about the indirect taxes on Joe Poor. What
if Joe Poor has no family to claim an allowance for? You only seem to
have taken into account the first round of tax cuts for Joe Rich -
what of the second round which increases his disposable income more.
Where is this increase in income from tax cuts to come from?
 
What of the assumption that prices will not go up by 15% (GST) but
only 4.4% (or whatever it is now) because some prices will become
cheaper due to cheaper fuel, cheaper overheads etc. All this is based
on the premise that the savings are to be passed onto the consumer.
Hopefully they will be but I doubt it very much.
 
>He also realises now that he can work a bit harder and accumulate
>capital faster ... he does this and soon all is well.
 
Oh yes he most certainly will realise that he can "accumulate capital
faster" but does this unequivocally mean "all is well"? I doubt it.
 
>In effect, given adequate compensation, a less regressive tax system
>can be fairer to the lower tax groups. Most analyses of Fightback conclude
>that it is a win for the poor and the rich and a lose for the middle,
>who just like the above example would need to readjust their spending
>patterns to take into account the shifts. The middle class is in a good
>financial position to do this.
 
What analysis says that it is better for the poor? I challenge you to
show me how the poor are going to be better off under fightback. Go
on, prove it.
 
>You forgot to mention that Fightback includes measure that will
>reduce the cost of labour, transportation and consequently production,
>this will provide a positive stimulus for investment, sales and employment.
>
>So you are right, you don't think that these are important and want
>more of the same vote for the government.
 
I rather think you mean "... and consequently an increase in
production.". Don't you?
 
How does it reduce the cost of labour if not by reducing the wage of
the worker? Is this the distribution from middle to top you are
talking of? The cost of transportation has been falling for years,
just go and ask a truck driver, the cost of labour has also been
falling but this doesn't necessarily mean that productivity is any
higher. If in the event that these reforms under way now can do this
without a shift in the tax burden then why go down an unchartered path
just for the sake of some economic model which tells us (depending on
the figures you input) just how grand life will be.
 
 
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:16:24 GMT

brian@mel.dit.csiro.au (Brian May) writes:
>Have you ever bothered to ponder the situation that a business can and will
>manipulate what people 'want'. That is the basis of advertising. Your 
>unwavering belief that a business operates on a pure reactionary basis to
>consumers needs shows a naieve trust.

Aren't you clever Brian!  You've seen through the basis of
advertising!  I trust that you will act against the evil manipulators
by only patronizing businesses which don't advertise.

BTW, business does not "react" to consumers' needs.  It must
anticipate them.

>For god's sake - go watch "Manufacturing Consent". It's serialised on
>channel 2, 8:30PM Tuesdays - you did miss the introduction this week though.
>If you still have the same views after watching that, further discussion is
>pointless as you're always going to have this myopic political viewpoint.

So everybody who disagrees with Chomsky has a myopic political
viewpoint and further discussion becomes pointless with him?

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: s9000289@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Coincidence
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:24:41 +1000
Organization: University of New South Wales

Is it just a coincidence that Keating announced the changes to the
Oath of Allegiance on the same day as the release of the new and improved
Fightback! ?

If so, it seems to have worked to some degree, all the newsprograms I've
seen today (actually only 2) lead with the Oath story and gave second
billing to Fightback!

Cameron

Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam)
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy
Organization: Collaborative Information Technology Research Institute
Distribution: aus
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:58:27 GMT

brian@mel.dit.csiro.au (Brian May) writes:

>Please don't insult our intelligence. You seriously believe that placing
>societal control in the hands of business (via pure consumerism) will
>result in a fairer, happier etc etc society? Who controls most governmental
>policies in the current day?  _Business_. Ooooooh, conspiracy theory.
>Better get out of here, you never know who might be reading this thread.....

"Pure consumerism" is a very apt label to describe the sovereignty of
the consumers which prevails in a market society.  Direction of
production will not be in the hands of business, but of the
consumers.  Entrepreneurs only succeed by correctly anticipating the
wants of the consumers and satisfying them.

--
	Daniel Lam			Phone 	+61 3 2822426
	Melbourne, Australia		Fax   	+61 3 2822490

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: joe@csource.oz.au (Joe Slater)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: GST - double tax?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 09:06:00

Tuesday December 15 1992, speednut@werple.apana.org.au writes to All:

saoa> But wait, that's not all. What of the "proposal" to eliminate payroll
saoa> tax. How do they propose to achieve this? Correct me if I am wrong but
saoa> the tax is a state tax and unless they use the foreign affairs section
saoa> of the constitution (is there an international treaty on standard
saoa> taxes ???? :-> ) they cannot force the states to drop payroll tax.

I think you will find that nobody defends payroll tax. It's generally
recognised as being a bad tax. The States would be very grateful if the
Commonwealth were to offer to replace payroll tax with a better source of
funds. In any event, the Commonwealth could simply stop cooperating in its
collection. I don't think the States would be very happy about having to
implement the structure using their own resources.

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Revenue and Lead in petrol (was: We also need better roads?)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:30:33 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson)
Original Subject: Re: Revenue and Lead in petrol (was: We also need
better roads?)
 
>If the subsidy per new block in that outer suburban area is $70,000
>(and I've heard this figure from several different sources)
>then it's not just one bad or courrupt local council that's involved.
>In Europe, they probably don't have this sort of subsidy, so may make
>different choices.  Let's forget about the disincentives, until we can
>deal with the bigger problem of incentives and subsidised urban sprawl.
>
>The question is, how do you or I stop our tax dollars being spent in
>this way?
 
 
Not so many years ago (ok it was the '70s) the decentralization
(decentraliSation) of many companies was well under way. Companies got
paid to relocate both themselves and as much of their workforce as they
liked to country areas. The goal was to provide jobs and money to
country communities. A lot of these companies were heavy-light
industries. Well no thanks to Mr Halfpenny (metal union honcho) and his
wage claim per week agenda (endemic at this time) a lot of these
industries failed and eventually closed their doors. Now this is not to
blame Mr Halfpenny (far from me to point a finger at a person whose
ideal is to protect the worker at any cost, even the worker's job - but
I digress) but to indicate that there was a real plan to establish some
sort of band-aid to urban sprawl and rural decay.
 
The real problem was (as is still the case) no public transport. All
goods had to be freighted over existing single lane (some dual lane)
highways and arterial roads in order to reach their destination. Instead
of providing a very efficient fast train network, the government left it
to the road system to cope. Well it didn't.
 
What I am getting at is that a policy should be put in place that for
the next twenty years will see an earnest attempt to relocate a lot of
people out of major cities - especially Melbourne. Something like a fast
rail link (bit the dust already) which stopped at a few towns could help
people make up their minds. Many costs are cheaper in the country and
people can benefit from the ability to breathe rather clean air and
travel to work in less-stressful situations.
 
Perhaps I am being too idealistic (was that a chorus of YES I heard) but
it works so wonderfully well in Japan (the travelling to work part - and
yes I know you can't compare us geographically) that I truly envy them
for it.
From: Fernando.Jose.Olmos@f366.n633.z3.fidonet.org (Fernando Jose Olmos)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Save Vic!
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:32:07

This is a letter I've sent to many newspapers and
other media outlets.


18 December, 1992


          Mr. Kennett and his government are shredding this
          state to pieces and with no heart what so ever. His
          government have turned the clock back decades and
          without no prior public consultation. Schools are
          being wiped out like flies and for what ? To save a
          few million ? To then spend that money on pay-rises
          for themselves ? Why is this happening ? More
          seriously - Why do we let it happen ?

          Labour opened many wounds, but the Liberals are
          rubbing more salt into those wounds. They want to
          impose a 'softer' GST, get rid of many government
          enterprises, reduce the dole time to 9 months,
          further reduce the number of schools, and even get
          rid of public transport all-together. Who do you
          think is justifiably going to suffer ? The rich
          bureaucrats that lived of rorting the system ? No!
          You and I are going to suffer and hurt real badly
          the way things are going.

          Children are playing in the streets because their
          playgrounds cannot be funded any more, middle aged
          workers are joining the queues because they are
          considered 'in excess'. At a time when unemployment
          issues are a high priority the government, and yes
          us too, should keep those workers where they are,
          better fund small businesses, and create further
          enterprises for better growth. It beats me how the
          government is creating jobs by putting more people
          on the dole.

          This state is going into a one-way road to chaos,
          bitterness, and division amongst all communities.
          The worst that can happen is what we see everyday in
          other 'lesser developed' countries. Surely we are
          better than this; and surely we will do something
          about it.

          How about petitions to the government to stop our
          schools from being closed ? Letters to Mr. Kennett
          stating that you will never vote for them again;
          either state or federal - they only hear the polls
          anyway, so this would be effective. Why not a Save
          Victoria Rally, where children, students, workers,
          business people, elderly, and the general community
          can participate - except for politicians. There are
          many more things we can do; and frankly in the end
          it is up to us to bring this country back onto its
          feet. If we cannot be bothered to do it, then
          governments will and we all know what a good job
          they do, don't we ?
 
... MONEY TALKS ...   but all mine ever says is GOODBYE!
 * Origin: HotShot BBS Thomastown , Vic (3:633/366)
From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 14:30:23 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
 
>Have you heard of the term "competition"? Apparently it still occurs,
>which is why prices have actually fallen in some areas during the
>recession as suppliers attempt to foster demand by cutting their margins.
>All it takes is for one vendor to pass on the drop it his costs of production
>and the others will need to follow to stay in business.
 
Of course I have heard of it, so let me put it another way. While the
current price of a good is quite competitive why pass on the savings
in fuel, for instance? Suppose a Holden dealer in the country
receives his parts from Melbourne/Sydney/whatever, and because of
Fightback his petrol is now 15c cheaper (assuming the full amount is
passed onto the consumer), and therefore his parts should now carry
less delivery and stocking fee. But what if he is the only dealer?
Why should he? Hell, this even applies in the metropolitan area of
any of our capital cities.
 
 
>It has already been outlined that they will need to use some constitutional
>powers to get this up, but the states have for years been arguing
>that they would prefer a formula funding model rather that things
>like payroll tax. It is also important to note that the 2 biggest
>states are Coalition controlled (and maybe WA and SA by the election)
>so it is up to the Feds to make the payroll compensation fair.
 
Well I hope there is no chance of the thing not coming off or there
is a challenge to the high court. All supposition, I know.
 
Oh, only 1 major state is coalition controlled, as NSW is in the
hands of those independents, isn't it?
 
>>The real problem (to me) is that the Fightback package relies heavily on
>>everything integrating perfectly. It relies on micro-economic reform
>>(jeez I hate that term! - Why do I use it?), industrial reform,
>>reduction of tariffs, co-operation of the states (taxes) and so on. If
>>one of these sectors/sections doesn't come to the party, are we up the
>>proverbial creek????
>
>No we aren't up the creek, we just aren't going to get the best out of it.
 
I would challenge that conclusion in light of an inability (albeit
remote?) to remove payroll tax. This seems to be the crux of their
package (or at least media-wise) and if the full benefits aren't
passed on, then the repercussions will be enormous.
From: hoconnel@iti.org (Heath O'Connell)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Date: 11 Dec 1992 01:41:43 GMT
Organization: The University of Adelaide
Distribution: aus
NNTP-Posting-Host: adelphi.itd.adelaide.edu.au

curmi@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Jamie Paul CURMI) writes:

>....I mean...get serious!!!  Dignity!!!  I personally liked the sound of an
>Ocker than some toffy-nosed-git.  Dignity!!!  HA HA HA! You made my day! ;-)

	Then you won't be appreciated by Mr Keating.

	(When does Dr Hewson come across as toffy-nose?)

--
		hoconnel@adelphi.physics.adelaide.edu.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain)
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:30:41 GMT

In <dyfl.723703108@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:

>It is a good thing to have a positive balance of payments under free
>market conditions, but to achieve it with distortionary taxes,
>tariffs, or subsidies is useless.  It's like achieving a high score
>in an IQ test by cheating:  the indicator looks good, but it isn't
>indicating what you're really interested in -- economic prosperity.

Really? Japan must really be in a hopeless economic state then...

Marty.
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Martin J. Gleeson  | Computer Science, Melbourne Uni, Oz |    ...  __o    Outta
gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.oz.au |     E Pluribus Unix         |  ...   -\<,       my
"We gladly feast on those who would subdue us." - Addams |  ....(_)/(_)..  way!
 "I can't give you brains, but I can give you a diploma." - The Wizard of Oz
---------------------=============***O***=============-------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: boyd@prl.dec.com (Boyd Roberts)
Subject: Re: Brendan Jones in the red corner, Daniel Lam in the blue corner
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Paris Research Laboratory
Distribution: aus
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:57:58 GMT

In article <dyfl.723948077@munagin>, dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam) writes:
> 
> BTW, does anybody even remotely agree with me?
> 

No.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@prl.dec.com

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Organization: Monash University
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 01:09:31 GMT

In article <JEREMY.92Dec10082822@chook.adelaide.edu.au> jeremy@cs.adelaide.edu.au (Jeremy Webber) writes:
>Well, if the GST is going to save us, why is it that Britain has had a
>GST (or VAT) for the last 15 years and is in a far worse mess than we
>are [we have yet to have our first serious urban poverty riots, though
>don't hold your breath...]
While I certainly don't want to claim that the GST is going to "save us"
(not completely anyway:-)) - it is very arguable that your Britain
analogy can cut both ways. If you move your baseline around (try around
20 years for example) you can "prove" that Britain has narrowed the gap
at least on some indicators. With both economies going through cycles
that don't have exactly the same periods, you can pick two comparison
times and virtually prove all you like. We then trail off into
endless discussions about the effect of North Sea Oil, the entry into the EEC,
Thatchers many policies etc and we get nowhere. What you CAN say, however,
it that the VAT hasn't lead to the end of the world in all of the countries it
has been installed - that at least puts paid to many of the more
extremist propaganda against it.
d.s.

-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:42:11 GMT

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. I also happen to believe that the changes will make it
more rewarding to work harder and that the present mindset that
favours mediocrity might change for the better.

>>>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"? Now lets see, the Communists in Russia are called the "right wing"
The neo-nazis are called right wing, 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? Is it relevant?
WHat I care about is outcomes not labels like "more progressive" etc,
who cares, the point is whether it will work and whether it will
improve the population overall. One thing we know is that more of
the same as advocated by the current regime won't fix the problems.
From: harold@cs.uq.oz.au (Andrew Wood)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: The Lam philosophy (was Re: JJJ...)
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:51:00 GMT
Reply-To: harold@cs.uq.oz.au
Distribution: aus

In <dyfl.724400023@phobos> dyfl@kbs.citri.edu.au (Daniel Lam) writes:

>gleeson@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Red Mountain) writes:
>>before (see laissez-faire economics), and fairly universally assessed to
>>be one encouraging oppression and exploitation on a large scale. But I
>>may be wrong in assuming that exploitation and oppression are things you
>>don't want to see. Please tell me I'm right. 

>No exploitation and oppression occurs under laissez-faire.  It is
>just a system in which factors of production are employed according
>to choices made by consumers rather than by a central government.
>The historical myth that capitalism impoverished workers has been
>thoroughly debunked.  Capitalism led to tremendous increases in
>wealth and everybody got richer.

Oh Marvelous!
You really seem to want to treat all of us debating you with absolute contempt!

The tenet that 'laissez-faire' makes everyone better off is fundamental
to your argument that it is a better system, yet it seems beneath you
either to substantiate your claim, or to debate the numerous arguments
that have been presented which refute your point.

The final two sentences of the above paragraph are outrageous. 
You _cannot_ make such statements without justification.

What debunking are you talking about?
Laissez-faire capitalism directly led to the impoverishment of workers
during the industrial revolution. It was not until the organisation of 
labour, and the intervention of government that some sharing of wealth
and prosperity occured -- well after laissez-faire went out the window.

I'm not going on to the rest of your arguments, because after starting
with such falsehoods, you could have demonstrated anything you chose.

Andrew
--
  __0    _-_|\      harold@cs.uq.oz.au is: Andrew Wood
 -\<,   /     * <-- Comp Sci Dept, U. of QLD, Brisbane 
0/  0   \_.-._/     
             v      "This is a job for 'The Australian'"    Delicatessen.