Back in pre-industrial England, there was a job description of a similar nature to that. People would collect dog shit from the roads and sell them. Read it somewhere in "The fatal Shore".
ahh, the circle turns..... Here's my current stack, I pick up a load along the way each time i go to Dandeeland....
And that's if you live in "Big City" or "Close to town centers". I highly doubt you would get a road in the first place if it was a private venture and you were say out at Lightning Ridge.
Tax is now collected to fund the expansion of government so they can have an even wider influence. How much tax money goes into funding the entities which have been created to gather and distribute the taxes? How much tax money goes to fund departments or facilities which are not needed or wanted? I am sorry for all the Opera lovers out there but if opera is not popular enough to support itself why is the Arts Council giving it public money to keep going? If the public wants it they can pay for it, if it is popular it will thrive, if it is not popular let it die or find private sponsorship, the cigarette industry is always looking for something to sponsor. If a company mismanages its finances why should public money be used to bail it out? To save jobs? Is it the Government's role to provide jobs for people? Isn't that what unemployment benefit is already for, to help people transition between jobs?
Do we need roads to places like Lightning Ridge? Surely we only need roads that lead to places I want to go, especially if I am paying for them.
Presumably you are asking "how do you privatise roads from the point we are at now?" Russia had the same situation when they moved from communism. How do you privatise any asset currently held by the Government? The answer is "imperfectly, but the longer term outcomes will warrant the transition". Essentially what you want are a bunch of competing companies (including threat of competition) with a bunch of shareholders. One way to get there is to start by setting up companies which own major transport routes and do a mixture of selling shares and gifting shares to all existing taxpayers (or adults). Local roads in your suburbs may purely go into companies owned by the local residents (but perhaps not). A whole bunch may simply go out to open tender (which could be used to help pay for the transition costs) and innovative companies could determine the asset bundles that will be best suitable. Of course there will no doubt be a whole bunch that are essentially worthless (i.e. the maintenance costs far outweigh any potential revenues). Mostly likely these will be initially bundled with the good assets to force them out of the Government's hands and then nature will take its course. The key is to embrace the change and think of the significant efficiency gains that can be made by significantly better management of the road infrastructure without all the shite that currently happens. There will be a raft of added benefits in relation to noise and air pollution as impacted people could much more easily take the company's to court for infringement of their property rights (which you currently can't do to the Government). Tolls on every corner like reno said, is simply stupid. What company would want to go through such horrendous expense when there are far, far simpler and cheaper ways?
I got audited by the tax department recently and now owe them money I dont see it as unfair though, it was actually my mistake. And the people I spoke to at the ATO were patient while explaining the situation and helpful in coming to a resolution. While I do believe in Australia we pay too much tax for often pointless programs, I dont see tax itself as inherently bad. Even as someone who has libertarian leanings I can see the value in some essential services being publically funded. This financial year I will be a non resident for tax purposes, and in Thailand I am completely tax exempt for the next two years... so I get to trial the no taxes (but also no free services). Lets see how it goes
By moving into industries and taking them over government virtually guarantees they will begin to fail. By not allowing people to start new monetary systems they are threatening the entire financial system. Why? To maintain their monopoly control. Same with education. They took it over, monopolised the curriculum and as such it hasn't moved with the times and you have a very poor education system that doesn't suit the needs of large numbers of people. Same with health. I mean really, shortages, rationing in a modern economy? It's ridiculous. Look at the rise of medical tourism where the system isn't so controlled and can provide cheaper alternatives. But to take the road example. There were private roads in most countries before there were government roads and people managed to go places and trade with each other. Who builds the roads in shopping complexes. Who builds the road and maintains the roads in unit complexes? There's no reason why the people on a street couldn't manage the road in their street in the same way that units do now. It's just a slightly bigger scale. Highways will be built if there is demand for them, but as well, there are different modes of travel. There are places you can't realistically get to by road that you need to fly in or catch a train for example. Or sometimes even more exotic modes. To say that govt needs to manage the roads just shows a lack of imagination.
Tax does seem a bit like insurance... You pay tax incase one day you need to go to hospital, or travel to Lightening Ridge or send a kid to school. You hope you never have to but if you do, at least it is there for you and you have already paid for it and you don't have to pay the full price.
Have you driven through Brisbane recently? I have a little box on my windscreen that beeps all the time. I am glad I got the box because before that I just had random bills turning up in my mail, took me a year to work out which bit of road I had to avoid.
Thats how i feel its better to have the service than not . There needs to be an excess of taxes to have progress & fund things for others not just yourself . This is why i find people who would like to have a user pays system a bit selfish . Admittedly taxes are a bit high but i feel without them the majority would be far worse off
It's worth pointing out for those who haven't considered this topic before that Public-Private Partnerships (PPP's) are NOT anywhere near the same as a truly privatised asset. Don't confuse a PPP-funded toll road with a truly privately owned road. The PPP model is a way the Government can shift blame of any problems onto the private sector by stealth (principally because the word "private" is in the phrase). The PPP asset typically comes with a book full of rules and regulations about how much can be charged under what conditions and does not encourage ongoing innovation once it has been set up because the private "owner" has to navigate a bureaucratic morass to gain permission to do simple changes to test whether an idea will work.
Well thats it, I am completely responsible for myself. I have insurance for accidents and health, but if they decide not to pay or dont cover it all, I am up shit creek without a paddle... On one hand it is good that Australian society cares for those that cant afford to care for themselves, but on the other hand it (imo) goes too far in fostering a culture of dependence. Being dependent on the government for your basic needs should be the last resort, not the default.
What are you on about Willis? That is nonsensical. We need to tax you more than the cost of the inefficient services we provide but you don't want so that we have excess taxes to fund a further bunch of inefficient services that you don't want either because it generates "progress". How does this generate progress? Buying a product from Apple instead of Samsung or Nokia funds the best product for the best price and encourages Samsung and Nokia to progress their products to better levels of service for a better price.
