Already a member?
Sign in
Welcome! Wikis are websites that everyone can build together. It's easy!
Location: Taxes
Discussion: Abolish income tax
Watch
|
Anonymous |
Abolish income tax
Feb 25 2008, 7:19 PM EST Here is a simple but brilliant idea for the economy. Abolish the income tax. Its not needed, we never had one before the 20th century. Without the income tax, the federal government would still have as much money to spend as it did in 1996 when John Howard took office. Employment would increase, people would be better equipped to save and have more money to spend on their own priorities (health, education) instead of getting bureaucrats to administer and spend it for them. Why should we punish success by taxing income ? It makes no sense whatsoever, and it forces people to work 40 or 50 years before they have a chance at retirement. 45 out of 59 found this valuable. Do you? |
 trgh |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 25 2008, 10:46 PM EST Excellent idea! It may not be able to be done without a little groundwork though. For instance, our Government uses over half of our income taxes to pay the interest bill on overseas debt - debt to the big banks. The Australian Government abandoned their privilege (and constitutional and moral responsibility) of regulating the issue and value of money many years ago - handing over the monopoly of credit to the private banks. (refer: Federal Reserve - don't be fooled by the name into thinking it is a government department) If we can first get the government to actually DO what it is supposed to in this area then YES, this strategy can be implemented quite easily. Then, and only then, can money be issued as credit, reflecting the REAL wealth of the nation and therefore doing the job its supposed to do ie. enabling the potential distribution of all goods to all consumers (without the overhead of interest bills, devaluation of currency through inflation, or borrowing out of the future to pay for today's expenses). Unfortunately, the RBA protects its position of power, and dictates to the government what it can and cannot do. This subject is taboo. The government are allowed (by the RBA & IMF) to compensate only WITHIN the current system. Call the system itself into question and you will incurr the wrath of the entire economic/political/financial system. This is exactly what Rudd and his predecessors, so far, have been afraid to do, yet it is the one fundamental change required to start to.. 1) make poverty history' 2) negate the need for exports (both trade & military), and 3) liberate the public of Australia from the burden of the continuous shortage of purchasing power (50 years in the workforce). Your simple and brilliant idea is one of the most significant things that can be done - not only for the "Economy", but to make a real positive impact in all the other categories listed on this site. 0 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
 Randall_Berger |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 26 2008, 2:18 AM EST OK, where do the billions of dollars come from? Maintain the GST? Tax the movement of money? Even in 1996, the government needed 600 billions dollars to function. You live in la la land, not Australia. 3 out of 5 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 26 2008, 5:39 PM EST Where, you ask, do the billions of dollars come from? Lets step back a moment and look at the nature of money. All money comes into circulation as a loan by the stroke of the banker's pen (under the authorization of the RBA & the IMF). The banks give us permission to function - at almost no cost to themselves. It doesn't cost them $500 to release $500 into circulation - they created it by the stroke of a pen (or the enter key). But they DO demand it all back (or the wealth it represents) PLUS a bit more! No wonder Josiah Stamp, the Director of the Bank of England said "the bankers own the earth" Of course we need money to function, but ironically the government gets permission to function by those that hold the monopoly of credit. The distribution of wealth should be the right and responsibility of the owner of that wealth should it not? If I have grown potatoes to sell, can I not make vouchers for the market? Who else can regulate those vouchers than I? Should these vouchers be printed and sold AT THE VALUE OF THE VOUCHER to ME - the owner? "But I OWN the potatoes!" Not any more - the printer now owns the potatoes (or the value therof) Does a shortage of vouchers change the wealth that is available? NO. It merely restricts their sale. The printer demands more vouchers back than he LENT out? Is that possible (or moral)? Money is falsely treated these days as a finite commodity when in actual fact it is a distribution system or "ticket system". If a railway authority sent trains off half empty and left people stranded at the station - all because there were not enough tickets - you would think them to be stupid or incompetent. This is a picture of the hold that the banks have over our wealth, our country and our lives. For a great analogy exposing the myth behind the nature & creation of money, see http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm 0 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Andy38 Andy38 |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 27 2008, 1:30 AM EST "OK, where do the billions of dollars come from? Maintain the GST? Tax the movement of money? Even in 1996, the government needed 600 billions dollars to function.The total size of the economy today is just over a trillion dollars. You're way off. (and if you were accurate there would be even more reason to examine some of these government 'functions' more closely) 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 27 2008, 4:28 AM EST $600 billion, Randall? The Aussie economy is work 1 trill.... 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Randall_Berger |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 27 2008, 6:35 AM EST "$600 billion, Randall? The Aussie economy is work 1 trill.... Not 12 years ago ... do the maths ... 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 27 2008, 4:37 PM EST We're talking about the size of the economy, you dolt... you're claiming that the government needed $600b to function. In '96, the budget was about $130b. In the last budget, it was $240b. If we'd kept the increase in tax receipts in line with inflation AND population growth, and kept putting the savings into income tax cutes (instead of baby bonuses, home-buyer grants and other wasteful spending), then there would have been enough to eliminate income tax entirely. This is a fact - you can calculate it yourself. 2 out of 3 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 27 2008, 5:42 PM EST So how will we pay the interest bill on the 700B our government owes to Internation Finance? 0 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 28 2008, 10:10 PM EST TRGH you seem to just make stuff up. You have done it on several discussions threads now. The Australian federal government has no net debt, foreign or otherwise. 1 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 28 2008, 11:27 PM EST "The Australian federal government has no net debt, foreign or otherwise."What brings you to that conclusion Mr Anonymous? Just because we have a budget surplus? That just means we can make our planned payments at the moment! Australia runs on borrowed money - just like most other industrialized nations. Have a look at the international accounts at the Australian Bureau of Statistics web site. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: Abolish income tax
Feb 29 2008, 12:53 AM EST Yes the federal government has a surplus. However it also has no significant net debt. Debt details are outlined here:- http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp1/html/bp1_bst12-04.htm#TopOfPage The cost of servicing the debt is outlined here:- http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp1/html/bp1_bst12-06.htm#TopOfPage Perhaps you are concerned about some other variable such as national debt. However if that is the case and if you don't know the difference between government debt and national debt then you are not really qualified to discern whether it is a problem or not. Your monetary understanding is just as flacky as your fiscal understanding. You should not be formulating or suggesting policy initiatives. However good on you for at least trying to get your head around it. Even if currently you are doing a rather dismal job of it. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
RE: Abolish income tax
Mar 2 2008, 4:20 PM EST Mr Anonymous. You are quite right - I am not an economic expert and my education in these matters is far from complete. My attention in this arena is not so much in the detail, but much more in the philosophical and ethical. (its possible to be going down the wrong road with the maximum of precision and compassion) The quotes you cited here confuse me, and I will look further into them (& into the source of my own info.) However, what I DO know is that the Real wealth of this country is not accurately reflected in the Financial wealth of the country, which means that the monetary & fiscal policies of this country are not accurate, or entirely suitable - they don't represent reality. Surely you would agree with me that that which is Physically possible, should be Financially possible? This margin between physical and financial reality, is the region in which the financial system exploits us by 'charging' for the right to move goods and services. Or do you believe that money is a commodity - with an actual inherent value? Do you find this valuable? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: Abolish income tax
Mar 4 2008, 9:03 AM EST I am a different mr. anonymous btw.. Money does have an inherent value so long as people believe that other people will accept it in kind. In some times and places all or some money in the economy was backed by gold at the central bank. This encouraged the public to feel confident that the government wouldn't print money indefinitely. In developed countries, this is no longer necessary as the public trusts that the government will support its spending with taxation, and borrow to finance any deficit. Further the idea that printing money is a plot among central bankers to make money and take over the world is ridiculous and quite offensive to those who study or practice economics. The idea has been spreading around the internet for a while and has been egged on by Ron Paul. Usually it is clear that the person has no training in economics, they simply see the creation of money (causing inflation) as theft. However, if inflation is stable ie 2-3%, than people can account for that and put their money in the bank and earn 6% interest. The costs of inflation are very low if it is anticipated. Moreover, zero inflation is potentially very costly. If prices don't increase then there is no scope for real wages to fall, which is necessary for full equilibrium in some economic models. A target of zero inflation runs the risk of deflation, which creates great uncertainty and most likely a fall in real income. Do you find this valuable? |
|
trgh |
RE: Abolish income tax
Mar 4 2008, 6:20 PM EST Mr Different Anonymous. (thanks for the distinction) Inherent value (commodity) is different than 'confidence in tokens of trade' Perhaps I could better use the word intrinsic. If I take a cool One Million Dollars to the desert and there are no goods to purchase there, then my $100 bill is worth about the same as a single sheet of toilet paper. The value of money is not intrinsic, its value is derived from the goods and services which it represents and has the power to exchange for. Working at its best therefore, will accurately represent the real wealth of the community both in relative value and in total amount in circulation. Those who study or practice economics almost invariably study within the current system - and marginal adjustments. Plus, maybe, a scoffing sojourn in the camps of unorthodoxy. But how many economic students get to study fundamentals? Where is the work of the genius C.H. Douglas to be found in the textbooks of our universities? Yet his economic principles and policies are so profoundly ethical compared to the main body of modern theory in the discipline. An example of 'blindness' in modern economics: One of the 3 major points in the RBA's charter is the policy for Full Employment. It sounds great, but this is not the purpose and end of society! If everbody works in misery until the grave - what have we achieved? Employment is a means to an end - that end which is the distribution of resources to the satisfaction of ALL people - without prejudice. Even the great economic authority of the RBA has got that so fundamentally wrong. By the way, on full employment ... The opposing policies of full employment on the one side, and efficency & automation on the other, are both pursued with passion. We can't have both! This is evidence of the fact that they are policies instituted as MEANS toward a particular END, not ends in themselves. Well done RBA ;-) Do you find this valuable? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: Abolish income tax
Mar 4 2008, 11:02 PM EST Well I apologise if you live on a desert island and have found that your money has no use. Perhaps you should have invested in interest-bearing securities before you left, or purchased a decent sat-nav? Firstly, I disagree that monetary policy can promote full employment. Theories on that matter were confused in the 1950s but noone really believes that the rba can help the economy reach full employment. Google scholar the neutrality of money or something. Let's say that the rba could help achieve full employment. You say employment is a means to an end. Then what is wrong with promoting this means (they can't)?. Should the rba be promoting the end, that is the distribution of resources to satisfy everyone? How exactly do you propose the rba (or any institution) promote this goal? Socialism? Besides, prosperity is derived from productivity and production, not employment. 0 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
trgh |
RE: Abolish income tax
Mar 5 2008, 8:17 PM EST LOL! So we are getting close to being on the same page. I see you understand that money has no intinsic value - good. I never said that monetary policy can promote full employment I just said that the RBA think so. I agree with you on that point. I also agree that there is nothing wrong with promoting a means, as long as it remains that, and means and ends are not confused (which, I propose, is what the RBA is doing, or attempting to portray). I'm of the opinion that Economics and Politics are very closely related to eachother, and the policies of both are driven by their underlying philosophy of the real ENDS desired by the social community. (I use the term 'social' here in its pure form ie. the association of individuals comprising a society, not Socialism). And BTW, prosperity is derived NOT ONLY from productivity and production, but from inherited knowledge, the increment of association, and from the vast resources supplied to us on this planet. Do you find this valuable? |
|
Anonymous |
RE: Abolish income tax
Mar 7 2008, 6:38 AM EST We are not on the same page. You are in a different book. Possibly a little red one which hasn't been translated to english, I'm not sure. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |