Comments on: Hypocrisy http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/ Blogging politics, culture, sociology and life from Brisvegas Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:56:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: observa http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5704 observa Thu, 19 May 2005 14:38:18 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5704 Try second link here http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Tax-system-costs-61b-annually-reports/2005/05/18/1116361575042.html?oneclick=true Try second link here http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Tax-system-costs-61b-annually-reports/2005/05/18/1116361575042.html?oneclick=true

]]> By: observa http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5685 observa Thu, 19 May 2005 14:07:14 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5685 The govt winds up the heat on the Beazer here http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=3414 Trust us, we're from the government and we're here to help http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=3414 The govt winds up the heat on the Beazer here
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=3414

Trust us, we’re from the government and we’re here to help
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=3414

]]> By: harry http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5668 harry Thu, 19 May 2005 13:33:13 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5668 Tony perhaps doesn't realise that when things are privatised it costs more. With the added bummer being that as the cost increases more poor people can't afford and they come and rob his house. So, what'll it be Tony? Spend $40,000 on stuff that used to cost $20,000? Or Spend $20,000 and get taxed $20,000 and get $20,000 worth of stuff and no pissed off poor people wanting to steal your stuff? Declaration of self interest - I'll be one of the people looting Tony's place. Tony perhaps doesn’t realise that when things are privatised it costs more. With the added bummer being that as the cost increases more poor people can’t afford and they come and rob his house.
So, what’ll it be Tony?

Spend $40,000 on stuff that used to cost $20,000?
Or
Spend $20,000 and get taxed $20,000 and get $20,000 worth of stuff and no pissed off poor people wanting to steal your stuff?

Declaration of self interest - I’ll be one of the people looting Tony’s place.

]]> By: Russell Allen http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5665 Russell Allen Thu, 19 May 2005 13:32:36 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5665 Kerry Packer pays two tenths of f*** all in tax. Most people bitch about it...if they were clever they would find out how he goes about doing it. I used to be all self-conscious about how much tax i paid but now i try to pay very little and am ecstatic about that. The turning point was sitting in traffic in deepest brisbane for a couple of hours wondering how a city with 1.6 million people, the size of friggin New York with 3 lane roads and a one-way system could still be f***ed for traffic. When I got home I had been burgled and had to wait for two days (two days and seven hours actually) for police to show up because they had 'traffic incidents to attend to'. When they did arrive they didn't even bother getting anyone to take prints or even the most basic of investigating (lobby videotape dickheads). F*** that sh!t - I got a bloody good accountant. Kerry Packer pays two tenths of f*** all in tax. Most people bitch about it…if they were clever they would find out how he goes about doing it. I used to be all self-conscious about how much tax i paid but now i try to pay very little and am ecstatic about that.

The turning point was sitting in traffic in deepest brisbane for a couple of hours wondering how a city with 1.6 million people, the size of friggin New York with 3 lane roads and a one-way system could still be f***ed for traffic. When I got home I had been burgled and had to wait for two days (two days and seven hours actually) for police to show up because they had ‘traffic incidents to attend to’. When they did arrive they didn’t even bother getting anyone to take prints or even the most basic of investigating (lobby videotape dickheads). F*** that sh!t - I got a bloody good accountant.

]]> By: Robert http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5661 Robert Thu, 19 May 2005 13:31:02 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5661 What? Getting very little in return? I assume you drive on a road, connect to the internet via Telstra's infrastructure, etc etc etc. You earn over $100k, so spare me your sob story. What? Getting very little in return? I assume you drive on a road, connect to the internet via Telstra’s infrastructure, etc etc etc. You earn over $100k, so spare me your sob story.

]]> By: flute http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5642 flute Thu, 19 May 2005 13:00:42 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5642 Perhaps you should get a proper job tony. Perhaps you should get a proper job tony.

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5633 Mark Thu, 19 May 2005 12:15:22 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5633 Tony, what you're ignoring is that you're part of a community. It's very clear that private provision is not an available option for most people in terms of health care, education or other services. In addition, presumably the private sector is not prepared to pay for the government provided infrastructure (transport, training, education) that facilitates its operations. If businesses stop externalising such costs, perhaps you'd have an argument. Capitalism only works because the public pays for the infrastructural (in the broad sense) needs without which private business could not function <b>profitably</b>. So what you need to think about, if you insist on treating taxation as an individual impost rather than as a contribution to a collective benefit, is the conditions of possibility for your own income earning power. Tony, what you’re ignoring is that you’re part of a community. It’s very clear that private provision is not an available option for most people in terms of health care, education or other services. In addition, presumably the private sector is not prepared to pay for the government provided infrastructure (transport, training, education) that facilitates its operations. If businesses stop externalising such costs, perhaps you’d have an argument. Capitalism only works because the public pays for the infrastructural (in the broad sense) needs without which private business could not function profitably. So what you need to think about, if you insist on treating taxation as an individual impost rather than as a contribution to a collective benefit, is the conditions of possibility for your own income earning power.

]]> By: Tony http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5632 Tony Thu, 19 May 2005 11:51:08 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5632 Firstly, declaration of self interest - I'm one of the people earning $125k. I'm also one of those working more than 49 hours/week. Mark, if by "hand out wads of money" you mean tax cuts, then I say AGAIN they are NOT handing out wads of money, they are letting me keep a little more of what I have earned. No amount of saying it differently will change the reality - that is a simple fact. The government takes it because they can. And don't waste my time with arguments about the superior morality of higher tax rates - morality & taxation/government spending ceased to have any relationship a long, long time ago. You don't want to pay for a war in Iraq? I don't want to pay for 100,000 abortions. So we pay the minimum the law allows, and keep every penny possible. And all those essential services that some snoozer maintained (in a previous comment on a previous post) I'm just paying the government for, because someone has to provide them - let the private sector provide and I'll choose if I want them. Then I pay for an efficient provison, don't pay for stuff I don't want or don't get to use, and I don't get to support umpteen public servants with the transactional costs described above by Jason. Let government get back to what they undertake to maintain under the constitution, and leave everything else to the private sector. But if "hand out wads of money" means the ever expanding web of middle class welfare, then I'm with you 100% - junk it all and give the money back to the people who earned it, to spend as they see fit (and, sorry Kate, that includes your brother UNLESS he's genuinely in need and gets picked up by a base "safety net" welfare system - my brother has a diability & my sister is a single mum - they've both made their life their own with some initial support from the taxpayer and lots of ongoing help from my family). I'm a hardarse, and I know it's not this simple - but I'm paying a shitload of tax AND I'm getting very little in return, so I've earned the right to sound off. Kerry Packer's declaration that he'd be happier about paying tax if it was spent better still rings true. Firstly, declaration of self interest - I’m one of the people earning $125k. I’m also one of those working more than 49 hours/week.

Mark, if by “hand out wads of money” you mean tax cuts, then I say AGAIN they are NOT handing out wads of money, they are letting me keep a little more of what I have earned. No amount of saying it differently will change the reality - that is a simple fact. The government takes it because they can. And don’t waste my time with arguments about the superior morality of higher tax rates - morality & taxation/government spending ceased to have any relationship a long, long time ago. You don’t want to pay for a war in Iraq? I don’t want to pay for 100,000 abortions. So we pay the minimum the law allows, and keep every penny possible.

And all those essential services that some snoozer maintained (in a previous comment on a previous post) I’m just paying the government for, because someone has to provide them - let the private sector provide and I’ll choose if I want them. Then I pay for an efficient provison, don’t pay for stuff I don’t want or don’t get to use, and I don’t get to support umpteen public servants with the transactional costs described above by Jason. Let government get back to what they undertake to maintain under the constitution, and leave everything else to the private sector.

But if “hand out wads of money” means the ever expanding web of middle class welfare, then I’m with you 100% - junk it all and give the money back to the people who earned it, to spend as they see fit (and, sorry Kate, that includes your brother UNLESS he’s genuinely in need and gets picked up by a base “safety net” welfare system - my brother has a diability & my sister is a single mum - they’ve both made their life their own with some initial support from the taxpayer and lots of ongoing help from my family).

I’m a hardarse, and I know it’s not this simple - but I’m paying a shitload of tax AND I’m getting very little in return, so I’ve earned the right to sound off. Kerry Packer’s declaration that he’d be happier about paying tax if it was spent better still rings true.

]]> By: farthington http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5625 farthington Thu, 19 May 2005 10:29:20 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5625 If Alex Robson thinks that there is any relation between his rigorous academic training and the skills so acquired (sic) and the present Coalition Government then he needs another degree in human nature and a third in politics. If Alex Robson thinks that there is any relation between his rigorous academic training and the skills so acquired (sic) and the present Coalition Government then he needs another degree in human nature and a third in politics.

]]> By: Kate http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5605 Kate Thu, 19 May 2005 07:50:00 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5605 Here's something I don't get. If our economy is so great, and our employment rate is so high, and we're more prosperous than ever before as a nation, why the obsession with "lazy dole bludgers" or "shirking single mums" or "disabled diddling the system" (bad alliteration). Can't we afford a bit of generosity and support for those less fortunate than us? And, what Mark said. Here’s something I don’t get. If our economy is so great, and our employment rate is so high, and we’re more prosperous than ever before as a nation, why the obsession with “lazy dole bludgers” or “shirking single mums” or “disabled diddling the system” (bad alliteration). Can’t we afford a bit of generosity and support for those less fortunate than us?

And, what Mark said.

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5604 Mark Thu, 19 May 2005 07:30:12 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5604 The irony of course is that we are reinforcing not alleviating the existence of an underclass. All you aspirational high earners could save money in the long run on health, law enforcement and prisons if we even made a serious effort to sort out the social problems that are bubbling along beneath the notice of people in their 4wds and MacMansions. The irony of course is that we are reinforcing not alleviating the existence of an underclass. All you aspirational high earners could save money in the long run on health, law enforcement and prisons if we even made a serious effort to sort out the social problems that are bubbling along beneath the notice of people in their 4wds and MacMansions.

]]> By: Robert http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5602 Robert Thu, 19 May 2005 07:26:34 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5602 And what about those lazy but well-connected/bred bastards who do? Why should they be rewarded? And what about those lazy but well-connected/bred bastards who do? Why should they be rewarded?

]]> By: observa http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5592 observa Thu, 19 May 2005 05:58:54 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5592 "I don‚Äôt see anything wrong with being emotive about this issue - the fact that the Government can blithely hand out wads of money to those already advantaged while taking it from the most disadvantaged makes me angry." Perhaps you might understand why some get angry at being overlooked again and again for tax relief when you read this http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15340171-31037,00.html Perhaps you might like to take a stab at guessing why certain people earn high incomes and why some lazy bastards don't? “I don‚Äôt see anything wrong with being emotive about this issue - the fact that the Government can blithely hand out wads of money to those already advantaged while taking it from the most disadvantaged makes me angry.”

Perhaps you might understand why some get angry at being overlooked again and again for tax relief when you read this
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15340171-31037,00.html

Perhaps you might like to take a stab at guessing why certain people earn high incomes and why some lazy bastards don’t?

]]> By: Michael S. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5588 Michael S. Thu, 19 May 2005 03:51:04 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5588 As in when you click on my name..... As in when you click on my name…..

]]> By: Michael S. http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5587 Michael S. Thu, 19 May 2005 03:49:44 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5587 Mutual obligation always makes me think of that wonderful Crikey article from last year that I've put in the link box Mutual obligation always makes me think of that wonderful Crikey article from last year that I’ve put in the link box

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5571 Mark Thu, 19 May 2005 00:58:19 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5571 The Government, Jason. Peter Sutton, if you want to personalise it - follow the first link. The Government, Jason. Peter Sutton, if you want to personalise it - follow the first link.

]]> By: Jason Soon http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5570 Jason Soon Thu, 19 May 2005 00:56:59 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5570 Mark If Alex isn't speaking for the government then who is the hypocrite referred to in your post? Mark
If Alex isn’t speaking for the government then who is the hypocrite referred to in your post?

]]> By: Mark http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5569 Mark Thu, 19 May 2005 00:53:23 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5569 Jason, I didn't say that he spoke for the Government - my point is that the tax cuts at the top end are defended in terms of skills formation (and it's a pretty thin argument I think) and this provides a contrast with the government's hypocrisy on its justification for welfare cuts. I don't see anything wrong with being emotive about this issue - the fact that the Government can blithely hand out wads of money to those already advantaged while taking it from the most disadvantaged makes me angry. Jason, I didn’t say that he spoke for the Government - my point is that the tax cuts at the top end are defended in terms of skills formation (and it’s a pretty thin argument I think) and this provides a contrast with the government’s hypocrisy on its justification for welfare cuts.

I don’t see anything wrong with being emotive about this issue - the fact that the Government can blithely hand out wads of money to those already advantaged while taking it from the most disadvantaged makes me angry.

]]> By: Jason Soon http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5566 Jason Soon Thu, 19 May 2005 00:49:13 +0000 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/05/19/hypocrisy/#comment-5566 Hypocrisy? I didn't realise Alex Robson spoke for the Government. My, has he moved up in the world! Seriously though Alex's argument is broader than that. It is about the deadweight losses of taxation which also include administrative costs, costs from evasion and furthermore as far as I'm aware Alex has not come out in favour of increasing effective marginal tax rates on welfare recipients. In fact I'd speculate that he probably would favour something like the Five Economists plan to introduce a negative income tax system of some sort for the working poor. So where is the hypocrisy? You are getting emotive, Mark. Hypocrisy? I didn’t realise Alex Robson spoke for the Government. My, has he moved up in the world!

Seriously though Alex’s argument is broader than that. It is about the deadweight losses of taxation which also include administrative costs, costs from evasion and furthermore as far as I’m aware Alex has not come out in favour of increasing effective marginal tax rates on welfare recipients. In fact I’d speculate that he probably would favour something like the Five Economists plan to introduce a negative income tax system of some sort for the working poor. So where is the hypocrisy? You are getting emotive, Mark.

]]>