But just WHO is the 'central' that is doing the planning? Not our respective governments, they are only the faces/puppets of those who are doing the real planning.
Read in an article about today's ALP conference that shorten doesn't support raising (or altering presumably) the GST and with Abbott saying he wouldn't change anything without the unanimous support of the states (which Daniel Andrews has flat out refused to give) I'm of the idea that the GST issue is probably dead in the water. Bar Tony really going full dictator and doing it anyway or him miraculously winning a second term and using that as some kind of mandate to enforce his will.
It's my feeling that we will see a GST rise. At the end of the day the government is going broke regardless of what team your on. Both the major parties know it and realise at some point they will have to come up with an equally unpalatable tax of their own. The cost of running most western economies is getting out of hand, more taxes are an absolute certainty in my view... As Maggie Thatcher said " The trouble with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money"
Hey I have an Idea !! Slash government spending, cut the government employees, Cut the number of elected polies, cut the defense budget, cut social security, Centrelink and all other idiotic handouts. If you don't want to work easy.... starve. Most Australians have bodily stores for several months if not years. Its amazing how strong hunger is as a force to prompt you to find work. Stop building entertainment centers (circus maximus). Heard any of these plans ? No No No we will rather raise taxes and kill any economy that is left. We can only dream of the past days of feudalism where the peasants paid taxes to the nobleman - a mere 10%. That was all he demanded. Ultimately 100% will not be enough...
The main problem to such a simple plan is that those who won't work will turn to crime before they turn to work. We need options that come before this to ensure that these same people are 'directed'. The other issue is that everyone seems to have the right to breed and have the nation support their offspring - no job, no vote, no breeding!! P.S. I am socialist. But no social support without social responsibility.
What work? Anyone working in 'the system' knows how accurate this is. The alternative in this current paradigm is some dickensian nightmare of gangstas, capacity private prisons, and working poor that the US seems to have perfected.
Doesn't this apply to any form of government supported by a central bank which is repaid through taxes?
This is all too true as well. I used to work providing programs for the long-term unemployed. Honestly, most of these individuals I would not inflict upon anyone's business. They all seemed to have some level of intellectual/social disability. A small few had become simply 'displaced' from the workforce and could reintegrate with training, but mostly not. These are people who would have been garbage collectors, street sweepers, etc. etc. etc., all of those jobs that no longer exist. Many are simply not capable of doing a 35 hour week, or even of being reliable. As individuals, we tend to assume everyone else is just like us - trainable, with at least some ambition. Not so .... If these people aren't to become a body of petty (and not so petty) criminals, you need a plan beyond simply not supporting them, and this takes money as well.
So you want to inflict them upon someone's business anyway? Menial jobs suited for those people would exist, but the government won't allow the market to arrive at an appropriate price for their labour. It would rather price them out of the market in the hope they die off - a sentiment echoed by FDR's policy advisers early last century. Ironic isn't it? :/
Warning I am not a socialist. Who exactly has the burden placed on them with social responsibility? I agree with you, foremost it is with the people, and next, below that line is Government, as our Government is a creation of the people. Therefore it follows they are subordinate too, funded by and have sworn an oath to serve the People else they would not be there in the first place. Cutting Govt expenditure is the most logical solution to balancing the books. Ronnie 666 is on to it. Deflecting the issue back to the people as if they are the problem here, the idea that they need to be supported and behave non-responsibly, that they need Government and as such are a financial burden is a distraction pointing not at the truth. Who is by far the largest recipient of welfare, who survives exclusively and feeds off welfare 100% and has developed a welfare expectation like its a normal way of life and who has a great time with it running around spinning a whole lot of nonsense? Well, that would be Govt of course, living off the People sweat equity! Should then Govt, by there own self governance of the nations account, as trustees, fiduciary's, find themselves in difficulty servicing there obligations to the People, who they serve, then they would (if one was honest) need to look exclusively at themselves to find the solution. The problem lies within there Policy. Most expenditure is based on policy directives. Those policy's can change by placing ink on paper provided it is operating within the Constitutional framework (something that often gets completely forgotten). The situation of carrying public debt, knowingly, without decisive action to correct that matter, let alone allow the situation to arise in the first place is not operating in good faith, perhaps deceitfully. War for example, for which the Govt has by policy embarked on by its own self inspired positioning, is one of the most expensive outgoings that is bleeding the people. Can be justified should there be a Bona Fide threat but in conjunction with hundreds of other poorly developed socialist policy's find us in a bit of a predicament that will not go away over night. It would be useful to place a metric on the number of average taxpayers required to support one average paid Public servant (many of which are paid very well with inflation indexing built in that have probably overtaken the private sector with benefits baked in). I would imagine that it would be around 5 taxpayers at least for one Public Servant. Just imagine if one Public Servant took themselves out of the Public sector and started to fend for themselves. That would be now 6 peoples earning, saving and investing in there future, un encumbering the rest of us supporting the administrative functions that for most of us have no beneficial purpose. Good capital redistributed out of the productive sector and directed to largely non-productive pursuits of policy is a drain on the real economy. Just look at the amount of time spent on totally useless and meaningleness areas that have absolutely nothing to do with managing the books as a self-indulgent exercise of staggering proportions that the people on a day to day basis are fed through the airwaves. Gender equality, Gay marriage, Intergenerational Inequity, redefinition of the meaning Marriage - Socialist Crap Trap anti-family, society breakdown nonsense that is proven to be as history is our witness, as replicating guaranteed failure. A Marxist operation to socially engineer the public without establishing consent first as representing the peoples will beforehand. Operating outside of there Oath of Office (perjury and sedition) as they are REQUIRED to be impartial, not impose there personal views in any shape or form while on duty. By indulging there privileged position of Public Office, to use it as a vehicle to express there private personal views on the people through policy change that is costing us, and will continue to cost our society to insolently. God help our children who are also being targeted by corrupting our education system with socialist operations on there young minds. High school fundraiser's for the Gay community for example happening today like this is to be celebrated? The welfare entitlement programme has been operating now for a long time that has enticed people to be dependant on Govt. Welfare should be there, but is used in a way that breaks a society down by creating overdependence. Welfare is not therefore inherently beneficial for a society if welfare is developed around it rather than for special circumstances that require it. Entitlements now left right and centre. These entitlements however have malicious strings attached. Obligations arranged punitively that makes you (one of the people they serve) answerable in receiving your own money back at a time that you may need some real assistance. Originally this was not the case. The community assisting the needy came from the actions of the People responding to assist the People directly, nothing to do with government, who take there cut on the administration thereof thank you very much like as if they have the moral upper hand. Just like we created government for our purpose, it is the People who have the moral obligations to keep Government in check and balance and are the moral beacons of society, not the other way around. The results of this social engineering by welfare has developed poor behaviour of some people, so by pointing the problem at the People is in my view an incorrect position. They are in fact the victims of poor policy in the first instance. Government must look at themselves and the social engineering experiments they have embarked on.
How can you tax money? In Canada we have only Capital gains, you show the receipt to the bank when you hand it in and they tax the profit. I can tell you I as sure as SH!T will not be cashing my stash at the bank... haaa.
Why would people sell their silver for FIAT if its not the price of silver going up but the value and spending power of the currency going down?
