From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:37:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.013702.29526@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.041401.15407@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris
O'Neill) writes:
>>In the case of Jeff Kennet's government, "little" is the operative word.
>
>Of course the previous government which you seem to support, was able to keep
>the people of Victoria happy by borrowing on their behalf so that they could
>look like the caring concerned little citizens that they were, now that
>meany Jeff K. has to actually make Victoria pay for itself and he will be
>know as the bad guy. What exactly do you oppose about the "Kennett reforms"
>it sure is easy to play games with this bad-guy stereotype but how about
>some specifics??? 

You wouldn't happen to be employed under a Victorian State Industrial award or
be covered by WorkCover and be at risk of losing an arm or something.  You're
not!  Lucky you.

>Nope that would be too hard, and maybe if you did mention
>them and they were put in the context of what came before him it might
>make you look like a partisan twerp, 

No, it just makes you look like a partisan twerp.

>so it is best to just stick to the glib remarks.

I'll leave that to you.

>>> and that the present mindset that
>>>favours mediocrity might change for the better.
>>
>>Thanks for your mindset.
>
>Is the fact that your added zero to this discussion indicative of yours?
        ^^^^ i.e. Ray Loyzaga's opinion

So the points of mine that you deleted without response are zero.  Does this
mean that any argument against yours for which you could not think of a
response does not exist.  i.e. there is no valid argument against your point of
view.  You are always right.

>>>>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.
>
>No, I was talking economics, 

Well if you refer back to your statement:

>>>So what, is it less fair????

which was in response to:

>>>>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.

then I would hope that you notice that you used the word fair and did not say
anything directly to do with economics.

>you seem to want to concentrate on one
>aspect, tax, to show that less progressive is less fair or course this
>seem to ignore any other avenue of addressing the "fairness" question.

It does not ignore any other avenue, it just says it is part of the fairness
question.

>>>Now lets see, the Communists in Russia are called the "right wing"
>>
>>Who by?
>
>The press, Yeltsin, every political commentator I have heard.
>I guess you must have missed the last few years of Gorbachev, the coup
>and the next 18 months Russian independent rule.

Well I'm sorry if anyone changes the original meaning.  I'll get a dictionary
meaning for you tomorrow.

>>>The neo-nazis are called right wing, 
>>
>>Who by?  Natsi stands for Nationalist Socialist by the way.
>Happy Birthday, since I guess you were born yesterday, are you serious?
>You don't recognise that Nazi's are known as right wing??? 

I think you'd better enlighten us with your understanding of the term "right
wing".

>Ok
>so they call themselves Nationalist Socialists, big deal, I guess
>if they call themselves the National front for the salvation of the
>Jewish state, you'll think the Holocaust was a Hollywood invention
>you really have to be kidding, or maybe your for real and any
>attempt at intellegent reasoning with you is a waste of time?

You'd better not get too carried away with your ignorance.

>>>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.
>But you were judging "fairness" with pseudo-economics.

Please explain.

>>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.
>
>Isn't it the "left wing" view that tax should be a flat 100%, no money,
>from each according to ability, to each according to need ...
>Now doesn't that map onto no tax, since there is no money and therefore
>right wing according to your definition?
>Or maybe we should forget about "wings" and say that people differ according
>to their views on the need for progressive taxation.

Yes, we should forget about wings until you understand what they mean.

Newsgroups: aus.politics