From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Hewson carefully shoots himself in the foot-in-mouth.
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.104621.165375@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>
>>GST (mark I) is currently exempted on second had car sales, home sales
>>(new homes get the flow on of GST in the materials and building process)
>>but no tax is paid on the total price and medical expenses.
>>It has nothing to do with the "essentials of life". It has a lot to do with
>>providing a positive stimulus in that direction. It also has a lot to do
>>with the fact that GST on most of these wouldn't work. Are you advocating
>>GST on HECS, just to be fair? Or 15% on share transactions, life insurance,
>>car insurance, bank services like loans, deposits, withdrawals ...
>>now I can handle a GST on agents fees but the underlying transaction
>>must remain GST free.
>Isnt' this discriminatory. How can the government decide
>that these things are good for the country? Shouldn't they
>be left up to market forces. Isn't this distorting the whole
>leveled playing field. Won't these exemptions be subject to
>distortions of personal interest and lobby groups?

No it is called governing. You seem to be operating in stereotype
overload mode. It is my reading of the Hewson agenda to run
a government that sets into place macro-economic reforms that
can in effect run themselves but that the government will intervene
to produce outcomes that are more desirable to their particular
value system, which hopefully matches those of the community.
This is rather different from the intervention on all fronts style
but also nothing close to the complete hands off approach you
attribute to him. It is the same for tariffs, the Coalition has a
general "minimal tariff" policy, which will mean that tariffs will
be removed or reduced considerably on industries that have had them
for decades. The Coalition still understands the role that tariffs
can play to foster new industries or to protect against dumping,
I don't see that the car, sugar, Cloth/Tex/Foot industries quite
fit the bill.

>>Why are private school education and shares investments limited to Liberal
>>voters? Do you actually believe this? Do you actually believe that Liberals
>>are toffy nosed bozos that send their kids to private schools, invest oodles
>>into the stockmarket, own a home or two, and use private medicine exclusively?
>
>>I suppose you also believe in the counter stereo-type that Labor voters
>>are uneducated welfare recipients, who don't invest, go to public school
>>until they are legally able to leave, can barely read/write, vote in ticks
>>and crosses and sit around waiting for the government to do more for them.
>
>No I certainly don't believe in either of these stereotypes,
>but many of the people high up in the liberal party do fit
>them, and there is usually some truth in stereotypes (after
>all that's how they come about). The problem is to step back
>and see if the stereotype is out of date, or if the
>idividual fits it.

Funny, I only know of one person who regularly ignores his
income tax returns, has a passion for French antique clocks, wears
foreign suit exclusively invests in real estate in John Hewsons
electorate, claims bogus living away from home allowances,
makes cunning investments in random primary industries which
grow at an annual rate of 1000%. And I doubt that he votes Liberal,
and his senior advisor, the one that keeps his Dunhill cigars
in the Dunhill humidified vault (it makes them taste better)
doesn't seem to fit the the Labor voting stereotype either!
Of course these guys aren't really having you guys on are they,
they truely and absolutely live and breath the cause of the
common man.

Newsgroups: aus.politics