$60b wiped off market (1 Viewer)

[Tennisaddict]

US killing our external stability (again)

 

[zombie omie jay]

idk 60bn isnt that much they could just print some more money to make up for the shortfall

 

[Lentern]

hahahahahah in the real world it kinda does. if filling your car with piss doesn't make it run well then you don't fucking fill it up with piss every time you run out of petrol. doing the same thing over and over again when past experience had repeatedly shown that it would not lead to the desired effect is the definition of stupidity.

To put it another way for the self gratifying wankers out there who deliberately missinterprated it: There are greater forces in play here that prohibit any economic approach delivering a perfect outcome. That doesn't mean said theory didn't make the best out of a bad situation.

 

[Garygaz]

tbh mining super tax was a much better idea than the ets. at least there's a logical train of thought that profits from naturally occurring resources should be used to create a national fund for public expenditure on hospitals, schools etc etc.

 

[Haemolymph]

idk 60bn isnt that much they could just print some more money to make up for the shortfall

I know right? That's what I said before!

 

[Garygaz]

there are repercussions of printing money, the more money there is in an economy the more you devalue it. though you could argue that may not even be a problem at this point in time looking at where our dollar is.

 

[zombie omie jay]

lol

 

[Lentern]

tbh mining super tax was a much better idea than the ets. at least there's a logical train of thought that profits from naturally occurring resources should be used to create a national fund for public expenditure on hospitals, schools etc etc.

Well if you believe the accounts put forward by Cassidy, Richardson etc: That was sort of the rationale for the dumping of the CPRS in the first place. They saw the Henry review and Swan, Gillard, Arbib and Shorten all believed that they wouldn't be able to sell two new taxes at an election and so they should shelve the less good of the pair. Swan and Combet wanted them to run with both, Garrett prefered the CPRS whilst Tanner wanted to go an early election on the CPRS then announce the plans for the Super Profits tax after they had snatched a CPRS mandate.

 

[Garygaz]

lol

seriously, looking @ the world situation with america having sustained all the way through qe2 and may even go onto qe3 and half of europe in technical default, aus printing money wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

[Garygaz]

ahaha i had this rio 81 put august expiry when the stock was 83, bought @ $1 sold @ $1.20. today it's $15.

derp

 

[abbeyroad]

Are you all hardcore capitalists? You can't just take $60b out of our gov's coffers (and no this isn't a labor v liberal thing) you will fuck so many vital elements in public expenditure. sure you might have some deep seeded philosophical view that taxing privately owned/publicly owned corporations is wrong, though a reasonable course of action can't involve just 'not' taxing them anymore.

yeah $60 billion that did not belong to the government in the first place. you won't justify robbery with the argument that the robber needs the money to feed himself, why the hell would you justify taxation with the argument that the state needs it in order to fund public services? at any rate, the argument is a false dichotomy. instead of taxing people, why can't the government charge them for the services that they actually use? why can't the government charge corporations for patent/trademark enforcement? and since the government is not driven by the profit motive, why can't it subsidise healthcare and education for the poor using the profits it earns? if businesses can survive on voluntary exchange alone, why can't the government?

also, your standard of reasonableness is entirely arbitrary: once upon a time burning someone alive at the stake was considered by most to be a reasonable course of action, yet look at where we are.

To put it another way for the self gratifying wankers out there who deliberately missinterprated it: There are greater forces in play here that prohibit any economic approach delivering a perfect outcome. That doesn't mean said theory didn't make the best out of a bad situation.

special pleading. how do you prove that it "made the best out of a bad situation" when it was the only solution tried genius? how do you know that another solution would not had led to an even better outcome? yes whenever keynesianism fails to bring about its purported effect we can always say that there are greater forces in play!!11! what those greater forces are we do not know but at least keynesianism will never be disproved because there are always greater forces in play!11!!

 

[Lentern]

special pleading. how do you prove that it "made the best out of a bad situation" when it was the only solution tried genius? how do you know that another solution would not had led to an even better outcome? yes whenever keynesianism fails to bring about its purported effect we can always say that there are greater forces in play!!11! what those greater forces are we do not know but at least keynesianism will never be disproved because there are always greater forces in play!11!!

This is absolutely extraordinary, someone who purportedly believes in the market as something immensely powerful and difficult to control is now wheeling around and poo pooing this same assertion. For heaven sake.

 

[Garygaz]

yeah $60 billion that did not belong to the government in the first place. you won't justify robbery with the argument that the robber needs the money to feed himself, why the hell would you justify taxation with the argument that the state needs it in order to fund public services? at any rate, the argument is a false dichotomy. instead of taxing people, why can't the government charge them for the services that they actually use? why can't the government charge corporations for patent/trademark enforcement? and since the government is not driven by the profit motive, why can't it subsidise healthcare and education for the poor using the profits it earns? if businesses can survive on voluntary exchange alone, why can't the government?

also, your standard of reasonableness is entirely arbitrary: once upon a time burning someone alive at the stake was considered by most to be a reasonable course of action, yet look at where we are.

your ideals are interesting. you don't really have to think hard to see all the services that would disappear, the military existing with no tax? i think not. gov reports showing ferries would have to cost up to $15 per ride to make them viable if they weren't supported? goodbye sydney ferries. public schools? bad luck, you're born into a bad demographic, you aren't getting an education. fallen ill? well unluckily for you, no money, no treatment. RTA? charging motorists for using every single road they drive on?

i can't believe you actually have this grandiose idea that tax is theft. you assume gov. run corporations will run efficiently~ turning profits? you need only look at telstra and cbas profitability since they were sold off as a government asset, it's a generally agreed upon fact that gov. owned companies run at high levels of inefficiency.

 

[abbeyroad]

This is absolutely extraordinary, someone who purportedly believes in the market as something immensely powerful and difficult to control is now wheeling around and poo pooing this same assertion. For heaven sake.

cool story bro, one of the main premises of keynesianism is that you can easily control the market. suppose that you acquiesce that the market can't be easily controlled, well then not much would be left of your precious little theory either.

 

[abbeyroad]

your ideals are interesting. you don't really have to think hard to see all the services that would disappear, the military existing with no tax? i think not.

this is fucking retarded. without the army do you seriously think that other countries would just go" geez you don't have a standing military so I guess we won't invade you for your resources??!11!"? the threat of a foreign invasion would always be there with or without a defense force. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't enjoy having my property forcibly taken and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. individuals and businesses have a vested interest in protecting themselves from arbitrary property seizures and when there's a demand, there's a supply.

gov reports showing ferries would have to cost up to $15 per ride to make them viable if they weren't supported? goodbye sydney ferries. public schools? bad luck, you're born into a bad demographic, you aren't getting an education. fallen ill? well unluckily for you, no money, no treatment.

nice straw man bro. which part of the "not driven by the profit motive" don't you understand? the state has a monopoly on violence so defense is where it'd make a killing. and since those profits aren't going to any shareholders they can be used to finance services to the poor blah blah. nonprofit organisations work, charities work, why won't a nonprofit government organisation?

RTA? charging motorists for using every single road they drive on?

when you enter a multi-level car park does the car park operator really care about which level you park in? no, they only care that you pay your parking fee, which would likely be equal to the marginal cost of providing you with parking. similarly, the government need not charge motorists for every single road that they use, it only needs to charge enough to cover its expenditure on roads.

in 2005–06, federal government road expenditure was $8706.2 million[1]. in 2006 there were 14358684 registered vehicles in Australia.[2]
8706200000 divided by 14358684 gives you about $606 per car per annum. geez what an exorbitant sum!

i can't believe you actually have this grandiose idea that tax is theft.

yes please enlighten us on how it isn't.

you assume gov. run corporations will run efficiently~ turning profits? you need only look at telstra and cbas profitability since they were sold off as a government asset

I don't assume that government owned corporations will run efficiently, I assume that government owned corporations subjected to competition will run more or less efficiently. telstra was inefficient not because it was state owned but because it was a state sanctioned monopoly.

it's a generally agreed upon fact that gov. owned companies run at high levels of inefficiency.

if the government can't even run a company efficiently, then how can we trust it to run the state efficiently???!!? if you truly advocate the maximisation of efficiency then surely you would see the merits in the privatisation of the state? gg bro welcome to anarcho-capitalism.

 

[zombie omie jay]

this is an interesting statistic

in 2005–06, federal government road expenditure was $8706.2 million[1]. in 2006 there were 14358684 registered vehicles in Australia.[2]
8706200000 divided by 14358684 gives you about $606 per car per annum. geez what an exorbitant sum!

car rego is like $400 bux

taxes on fuel, gst on tires etc, stamp duty etc, speeding fines would all make up the $206 shortfall easily

govt taxes related to roads far exceed road expenditure

 

[Garygaz]

this is fucking retarded. without the army do you seriously think that other countries would just go" geez you don't have a standing military so I guess we won't invade you for your resources??!11!"? the threat of a foreign invasion would always be there with or without a defense force. I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't enjoy having my property forcibly taken and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way. individuals and businesses have a vested interest in protecting themselves from arbitrary property seizures and when there's a demand, there's a supply.

Tbh if I had to say, I'd say no. i guess that's just a point of difference, i believe there is a valid place for our military in society. i'm not advocating the wars of current, for example, but as a keeper of public order and just generally as a safe guard for things that could go wrong, they have a place.

nice straw man bro. which part of the "not driven by the profit motive" don't you understand? the state has a monopoly on violence so defense is where it'd make a killing. and since those profits aren't going to any shareholders they can be used to finance services to the poor blah blah. nonprofit organisations work, charities work, why won't a nonprofit government organisation?

i don't see how that relates to the point you just quoted, but regardless, i don't necessarily agree that taxes as they currently are are ideal, though they are necessary as a form of income redistribution. do we redistribute too much or too little? i'm not sure, if i had to say, i'd say slightly too much. but i do believe that everyone should have the opportunity of education, the security of knowing they can get into a hospital to be treated if they are sick and to know that in their old age, even if it is a small amount, the gov. will assist them with the cost of living.

now i realize you would say 'well durr gov. will charge for other services to compensate for these things' but i'm quite sure gov. run services wouldn't turn a high enough profit, run efficiently enough (apart from the fact that large amounts of state run enterprises such as the RTA would require massive reinvestment of profit on expansion of new roads) to fund all these things. what about the ageing population? i can't remember the exact figure in the smh this morning, but there is NO WAY we could afford to finance this spike in pensioners without tax (albeit the carbon tax, although i disagree with it, as previously mentioned the super-profits tax was more sound).

yes please enlighten us on how it isn't.

as a technicality? maybe. guess it's kind of like the argument of circumcision being child mutilation. yes i realize you aren't satisfied with the argument of 'well it's been happening forever, so deal with it', but it's essentially a fundamental financial tool of governments for the better part of a hundred years. i can at least say i appreciate your position and understand your point that the government shouldn't be able to put their hands into our paycheques or even more so take more of a companies money simply because of the fact that they are being run well, 'oh hey there, you're doing well, mind us taking 40% of your profit?'

at this point in time i see no other way in which society could efficiently work as it is without tax.

I don't assume that government owned corporations will run efficiently, I assume that government owned corporations subjected to competition will run more or less efficiently. telstra was inefficient not because it was state owned but because it was a state sanctioned monopoly.


if the government can't even run a company efficiently, then how can we trust it to run the state efficiently???!!? if you truly advocate the maximisation of efficiency then surely you would see the merits in the privatisation of the state? gg bro welcome to anarcho-capitalism.

i don't know. do you know any examples of gov run agencies or corporations that directly run against private sector competition and do 'well'?

 

[zombie omie jay]

but why can we all get along!?

 

[Lentern]

cool story bro, one of the main premises of keynesianism is that you can easily control the market. suppose that you acquiesce that the market can't be easily controlled, well then not much would be left of your precious little theory either.

Where? Tell me where Keynes said it was easy?

 

[Garygaz]

cause u a moslem zombie