HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Taxation distorting investment
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:29:39 CST

c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:

>The overall effect is that (during times of sufficient inflation) there were
>massive amounts of investments that were making a real loss that was paid for
>by the tax office (or more precisely, genuine taxpayers such as PAYE
>taxpayers).

Agree totally.

>In conclusion, the macro-economic management of this country (courtesy of the
>Treasury) is fundamentally incompetent.
Agreed. BTW I liked Burnie Fraser's statement that the
reserve bank was completely unresponsible for the state
bank/tricon stuff even though it did a half audit and did
not give any warnings.

>One of the fundamental requirements of
>the tax system is that it should not distort investment decisions (i.e. it
>should not make an investment viable if it was unviable in the absence of
>taxation).  The Treasury made no direct effort to change this situation.  Its
>only effort was to cause a recession that brought down inflation as an
>after-effect.

Here I disaggree, the tax system should be used to distort
investment decisions for the long term benifit of the
country. 

	E.g. tax breaks on R&D and for flegling industries.
	Surtaxes on speculative gains (as opposed to capital gains).
	I would also favour a special monopoly tax for things
		like media monopolies and the FAC.
	This would make it easier for new startes to enter
	the market and break the monopoly. After which the
	tax can be removed.
	Currently the Adelaide Advertiser and the Courier
	Mail's position is unassailable. This tax should
	especially apply to sham competition like the Adel Adver.
	and the News (now folded).

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:43:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.093823.165003@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>David,
>	so far you have avoided the major issue,
>how am I guaranteed that my vote will count fully if you do
>not vote? (In real life this would be a non-issue as I'm
>sure we would vote almost in opposite directions.)
I am not avoiding the issue. My vote counts once same as yours.
I can't be held responsible to ensure that you are a member of
a party that can motivate reasonable numbers to turn out. Think
of those poor demoralised Trotskyites .... are you suggesting
we give them a few thousand extra imaginary votes just
on the off chance they may disenfranchise themselves by
realising they have no chance of winnig?
Come on Mike, be real. If your mob are apathetic or easily demoralised
then get out there and motivate them - don't invent a stick (compulsory
voting) to beat them to the election with and then turn the same stick
on me fer christs sake!
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: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:06:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.092336.164992@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>that one party is clearly better to a given individual. Jesus,
>>very few committees don't recognise a person's right to abstain.
>And those committees will also evict people who do not attend.
>Also most committees will not have preferential voting.
>Abstaining on an issue is saying that you either have no
>preference or the two alternatives have equal merit, or that
>you do not feel entitled to vote on that issue (e.g.
>something affecting a group you do not belong to).
>
>Abstaining on an issue is not equivelent to not voting.
Come again. Could you perhaps amplify the difference because
I thought the damn meaning of the word was "to not partake".
>You are a member of the group the outcome affects.
Is that different when I abstain in any other situation?
>You have a responsability to the other members of the
>electorate.
Yes to act sensibly and not vote at random or without good
reason. Others have a responsibility to accept this.
Something to do with the terms "intellectual dignity"
and "tolerance" - mean anything to you?
>The preferential system allows people to get a very good
>approximation to the intent they disire.
Preferential system is irrelevant when you can't make a decision
for number one - if anything it exacerbates the problem because you
have to rank EVERY party (although if you choose one of two "major"
parties in number one the rest are irrelevant).
I can see you are having trouble dismissing this one. Never mind,
you can always bluster on about how you, in your infinite wisdom
(or predjudices or both) have always clearly seen one party
(Democrats perchance) were better than the others. Those of us
that are "swinging voters" sometimes get caught mid-swing
you might be surprised to know. Still I guess that's the hazzard for
having to think about the relative merits and not just
say "well I've always voted for XXX so.....".
I am tempted to tone down the above - I guess I really have no
reason to suggest that you are a non-thinking party follower but
all the same I am getting thoroughly pissed off with the
assumption that to not have a choice is equivalent to apathy
or shirking the responsibilities I have to society.
*I know it's important to vote
*I know that the system relies on people participating and exercising
  their domocratic rights
*I also know that there are good reasons for not voting on
  particular occasions.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1992 17:26:02

Thursday October 29 1992, Brian Duke writes to All:

BD> There is nothing stupid about trying to pay off the debt. There is,
BD> IMHO, something stupid about voting for a party that, it is now clear
BD> but was not at the election, intends to get the ordinary voter to pay
BD> it off and not have business and the rich pay their share.

It is stupid to say that "business" should "pay its share". To the extent that
businesses employ people in Victoria, taxing them will reduce employment. If
they are not forced to remain in Victoria, increasing taxes will make them shift
States.

For a case in point, one way of raising money is by bank charges. A company
based in several States can arrange to have all its cheques drawn on an account
in a low-taxing State. Some of our customers do this. The savings are,
apparently, worth the inconvenience.

If you increase stamp duty you create a disincentive to investment. Our firm was
considering purchasing unused land a few years ago in order to provide for
further expansion. Government subdivision charges (the land was part of a larger
block) would have come to many tens of thousancds of dollars; money which would
be payable immediately and which could not be mortgaged against. This was enough
for us to decline the purchase. The land is still unused.

If you increase payroll tax, which is the most effective State tax, you are
increasing the cost of employment. Our firm is already highly automated, and if
labor costs rise it is an incentive for us to automate yet further. Even if we
are reluctant to cut staff numbers (we are) we can still make staff savings by
using automation instead of *increasing* staff numbers.

The problem is that we have no State income tax. This is the only way that a
progressive tax could be brought into place. Even that tax would encourage an
exodus of people from this State, and so would be undesirable.

If Victoria is to get out of its current situation it needs more growth.
Something like 40% of its revenue comes from payroll tax, and if this is to grow
businesses will have to be able to devote themselves to productivity. The
reforms to Workcare that I have heard sound very promising; I can go into our
experiences with the previous system at length.

I do not think Jeff Kennett has acquitted himself very well thus far, but I am
far more optimistic about his rule than that of Joan Kirner.

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:23:34 CST
 <1992Nov2.135535.11020@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au> <1d5a3fINN9af@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU> <1992Nov3.110327.4812@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>

suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>that one party is clearly better to a given individual. Jesus,
>very few committees don't recognise a person's right to abstain.
And those committees will also evict people who do not attend.
Also most committees will not have preferential voting.
Abstaining on an issue is saying that you either have no
preference or the two alternatives have equal merit, or that
you do not feel entitled to vote on that issue (e.g.
something affecting a group you do not belong to).

Abstaining on an issue is not equivelent to not voting.
You are a member of the group the outcome affects.
You have a responsability to the other members of the
electorate.
The preferential system allows people to get a very good
approximation to the intent they disire.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: allanc@cs.su.oz.au (Restless Wanderer)
Subject: Re: ALP in the Lead
Reply-To: allanc@cluster.cs.su.oz (Restless Wanderer)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:01:36 GMT

Just a note to voice(?) my personal disapproval at our moralistic PM.
I mean ,from a man who uses terms such as " scum sucking ","pigs"
"gutless,spinless cretins " in parliament.
Now comes his moral outrage about his own inability to control what his
children watch on tv.

How dare such an arsewipe,force his ineptitude upon the rest of the
country.
If he doesn't want to watch whats on tv,turn it OFF.

DOWN with censorship. !!!!!!!!!
(ah well,I feel better now)


******************************************************************************
* Allan Creighton           "There are important matters to be resolved here *
* Dept of Computer Science   and the fear of being hanged on a democratic    *
* University of Sydney       gallows will delay me until next spring"         *
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Regressive state Taxes: was Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 4 Nov 92 15:10:40 CST
 <1992Oct30.005834.24819@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> 
 <1992Oct30.052141.10422@trl.oz.au> <1992Nov1.032511.27302@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1992Nov2.002752.2292@trl.oz.au>

c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:

>In article <1992Nov1.032511.27302@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:

>>There are plenty of other
>>govt charges that are "progressive"

>Name a State Government tax that is progressive apart from stamp duty on
>transfer of title.

One of the worst is BAD/FID tax which is utterly regressive,
particularly in SA. My accounts are still with suncorp so I
don't know for sure the details, but the proportion of tax
on a $100 withdrawal was much higher than on a $1000
withdrawal and trivial for $50000.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:15:51 GMT

In article <brian.721533413@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>In article <brian.721369072@coombs> brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:
>>>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>>>
>>>>A vote is a vote is a vote.. and only counts
>>>>once (no more no less). 
>>>
>>>	Really?  Then what happens to the preferences you cast David?
>
>[...David's incorrect view of the voting system deleted in order to save 
>bandwidth...]
>
>>Are you really so ignorant of the operation and rationale
>>for proportional voting? Or have you just decided that you must challenge
>>everything I say?
>
>	No David, simply pointing out the stupidity of what you say.  It
>shows a real lack of understanding of the _PREFERENTIAL_ (not the proportional)
>voting system for you to believe that your vote is, only counted "once".
>
>	It is indeed counted as often as there are candidates on the ballot
>until the candidate which most closely resembles the one of your first choice,
>achieves the required number of votes to win the seat.  Perhaps you should
>go and learn a little about what your are mouthing off about?
>

Well I apologise for saying proportional when I meant preferential.
Nonetheless, your interpretation is not very useful nor correct in
spirit. It's not another vote you get when your preferences are distributed.
If you want to be pedantic and tell me to go off and learn I suggest
you read carefully the literature on the preferential voting system.
The literature, not without good reason, talks in the singular about your
vote not counting until all preferences are numbered. Your complete set
of preferences is one single vote. How these preferences come into play
does not change the fact that it is the action of one vote.
I'd be interested to know how many support your warped view that
someone whos preferences has to be distributed has actually gained more votes.

d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Regressive state Taxes: was Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:24:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.151041.164988@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
writes:
>c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov1.032511.27302@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
>>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>>There are plenty of other
>>>govt charges that are "progressive"
>
>>Name a State Government tax that is progressive apart from stamp duty on
>>transfer of title.
>
>One of the worst is BAD/FID tax which is utterly regressive,
>particularly in SA. My accounts are still with suncorp so I
>don't know for sure the details, but the proportion of tax
>on a $100 withdrawal was much higher than on a $1000
>withdrawal and trivial for $50000.

Yes, it's appalling how the Federal Government got away with the BAD tax.  If
they can go to the trouble (or force the banks to go to the trouble) of
calculating an amount for each debit, what was the problem with applying the
same percentage for each debit.

By the way the Victorian FID is 0.06%.  It was initially 0.03%.  The wedge is
getting thicker.

Chris O'Neill
Telecom Research
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 07:14:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.102116.164994@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>b_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au (Brian Duke) writes:
>
>>Compulsory voting places an obligation on the authorities to provide these
>>polling booths where people live. Without it there would be a tendency
>>to say "They don't have to vote. If they really want to they can spend
>>all week getting to the polling booth".
>
>Precisely, without compulsory voting you don't have equal
>access nor equal voting power (value).
Look - if you guys want to say that making voting non-compulsory
means the electoral office is allowed to be slacker in making
it easy for people to vote, then you obviously don't value
the right to vote highly independently of anything else.
I do value that right highly and
independently. Compulsory or not makes no difference - I won't be
making excuses for the electoral office to become slack - I'm
a bit surprised you seem ready to let them.
Please don't use your own slackness in allowing the above scenario
to be used as a straw man.
Jesus, talk about confusing the issues.
d.s.
-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: Joe.Slater@f351.n632.z3.fidonet.org (Joe Slater)
Sender: acsnet@csource.oz.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Vic Ministers Get $20,000 pay rise.
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1992 10:17:03

Friday October 30 1992, Chris Maltby writes to All:

CM> I think this comment is fair enough, but it's worth noting that the
CM> ALP always cops the "jobs for the boys" worse than the conservatives.

W.A. Inc is a closed book to you, isn't it, Chris?

jds

 * Origin: What horrors wait for me in this, the Phantom's Opera? (3:632/351)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Australia's Debt
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 23:24:55 GMT

In article <rakesh.721126947@sungear> rakesh@mame.mu.OZ.AU (Rakesh DESAI)
writes:
>This thursday I read an interesting letter to Editor in Age.  I forgot
>the name of the writer, but it sums up as follows.
>
>Australia has a foreign debt of the order of $150 billion.  That amounts
>to 38% of Gross Domestic Product.  Ten years ago the same no. amounted
>to 17%.  According to writer if this figure reaches beyond 50% than
>there will be grave crisis.  

The thing that is a concern is that the (real) foreign debt appears to be
increasing indefinitely with no sign that it will stabilize.  If this continues
we will reach the point where all our exports are not sufficient to pay the
(real) interest on the foreign debt.  If that happens it will be virtually
impossible to prevent the debt rising indefinitely.  Hence there must be a
crunch before that happens.

The logical thing to happen is for the exchange rate to adjust so that the
current account becomes balanced.  However, for some reason, this does not
happen.  Real interest rates relative to overseas are one of the main reasons
but there are others.

>Govt will have to stop spending i.e. lot of
>welfares will have to go.  

There was a hypothesis called the Twin Deficits Theory that said that if the
Government had a deficit in its budget then this helped to cause a trade
deficit and a current account deficit.  Some time ago, this was shown to be
bogus.

Ask yourself, why is cutting spending on welfare necessary to reduce the trade
deficit?

>Govt may have to devalue dollar 

The dollar's value is set by the market, not the Government.

>and in short
>it will become absolute gloomy affair.  Further he writes neither
>Liberal nor Labor are addressing how they are going to pull us out of
>this mess.
>
>My question to people with knowledge of economics on the net is,  is
>this debt crisis really as grave as it sounds?  Are we going the same
>way as Brazil did a few years ago?  What is remeady?  Cut Govt
>expenditure or open up everything for foreign investors?
>
>Replies welcome.
>
>rakesh
>
>ps on the same line I read US has debt of US$ 4000 billion and it
>amounts to some 52% of GDP.   Does that mean US$ need to be devalued?

Chris O'Neill
Telecom Research
Newsgroups: aus.politics
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Subject: Re: Compulsory Voting
Organization: Monash University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:21:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.100533.165011@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter) writes:
>
>>>	It MEANS that we DO NOT HAVE A COMPULSORY VOTING SYSTEM.  C
>>The electoral office says different.
>>>Are you claiming that you should not be compelled by society to attend
>>>particular places if societ decides that is best?  If you do, then you'd
>>>better perhaps explain why then we have compulsory education, compulsory
>>>driving tests (if you want to drive) and other aspects of our lives which
>>>we accept as needing some degree of regulation.
>>NO. So why suggest i am?
>David, he is not suggesting you are, he is saying that the
>principle is morally and operationally the same. He is
>asking why you are hung up about this and inconsistent.
I thought it was so obvious as to not need stating. I aggree on
the principle (that there are certain things where the rights of individuals
have to be supressed for the greater good). No argument.
I also thought it was obvious that what I was arguing was that
there is no clear evidence that compulsory voting improves our society.
Against this it is entirely evident that it has the adverse effect
of masking the "couldn't give F*CK vote" purely to make us look
better on paper.
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
Subject: Re: Compulsory voting (Re: Will Victorians vote stupid yet again...?)
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:25:43 CST
 <1992Nov1.134734.16208@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au>           
 <1992Nov1.231512.14159@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>       
 <1992Nov2.135535.11020@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au> <brian.720755433@coombs>     
 <1992Nov4.150018.164987@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <miw.720942261@cc.uq.oz.au> 
 <1992Nov6.110148.165016@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> <miw.721018388@cc.uq.oz.au>

miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams) writes:

>mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:

>>But these people do not claim to represent you and indeed do
>>not. In this case it is up to you to field better candidates
>>and elect them so that your representatives could counteract
>>them in parliament.

>Yes, but even the people who represent other constituencies can affect
>*me*, and since my vote cannot affect whether or not they get elected,
>the system is, by your, definition, undemocratic.

Hold on, where did I say that?

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: ALP in the Lead 
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 10 Nov 92 11:28:30 CST
Distribution: aus


If a federal election for the House of Reps were held today
which one of the following would your vote for? If
uncommitted, which party do you lean to?

		ALP	Lib/Nat	ADem
Oct 23-25 92	37	49	6
Nov 6-8		45	41	5

This was in the australian front page.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: For david and others
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:46:55 CST
Distribution: aus

Contrary to what you may believe, I am in fact a swinging
voter.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au