New Year. Same Story. Make no mistake, government intrusion on freedom continues. The plan? Simply, it's to nationalise incomes and to as far as possible restrict freedom of movement. And what better time for central planners to take things to the next level than in an election year? It's the time when political correspondents go into overdrive...slobbering, salivating, and slathering as they get to talk about elections and policies and which party offers the most hope for change. Change? Oh brother. It's never change for the better. It's only ever change for the worse. I mean seriously, how many laws and regulations does a country need? And does anyone still believe that a new party or a different leader will make a difference? The whole business of government is purely about winning elections. How long after the election will the TV election 'tarts' start talking about 'double dissolutions' and the timing of the next election? We'll wager you can measure it in hours rather than months. (In fact, we'll run a competition after the Federal election. The winner is the first reader to spot a reference to a 'double dissolution election' in the mainstream press following the 2013 election. The prize will be nothing but bragging rights!) And for all those Liberal Party voters longing for a return to power, believing the Liberals are better than Labor, wake up. Just remember that it was the Liberal John Howard government that took Aussies' guns... It was the Liberal John Howard government that introduced a tax on superannuation contributions... And it was the Liberal John Howard government that introduced sedition clauses in anti-terrorism legislation in 2005. If you don't know what 'sedition' means, online dictionaries offer the following definition: 'Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.' I better be careful. Almost every Pursuit of Happiness article qualifies as seditious. So if you think the Liberal Party will stand up for your right to protect yourself and your property; your right to save for your own retirement; or your right to freely express yourself, you're living in a dreamland. Why Government is a Confidence Trick Why Government is a Confidence Trick Even so, many people still argue that the best way to get the kind of political change you're after is to take part in the democratic process. They'll say you can't or shouldn't criticise the government if you don't take part. Of course, it's a flawed argument. I can't think of anywhere else but in politics or at the hands of a confidence trickster where you choose one thing only to have a 50% chance of getting something completely different. Can you imagine going to a supermarket, picking the Heinz brand of baked beans from the shelf, only to find out when you reach the counter that all the other shoppers have decided you can only have the 'homebrand' baked beans or nothing? If you're happy with the 'homebrand' product, that's fine. But that's not choice...or it's not your choice anyway. Or can you imagine going to buy a Mercedes or BMW only to find out everyone has voted for Skoda, Lada, Ford or Holden? If you're happy with one of those makes of car, then fine. But if you wanted the Merc or BMW...well, it's not so fine. That's the inherent flaw in democracy. It's a bad system where hardly anyone gets what they really want. And even those who vote for the winning party are disappointed. Most of the time the party leaders have to compromise to win votes in the parliament, or to gain even more votes at the next general election. But democracy is what you've got. And despite evidence to the contrary, most people foolishly think it's the ideal form of government. How the Government Spends Now and Spends Later Yet, in reality, democracy delivers the same politics and politicians as any other form of government. Democracy results in the government of fear and bullying...even bullying other governments within the national structure. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is the latest example. The federal government promises to give one group of people a bunch of cash. Yet conveniently, it forgets to mention how it will pay for it. But that doesn't stop the spin and propaganda. The government says, 'You deserve this money, and we'll give it to you.' The government gets cheers and applause. But then comes the tricky bit...how to pay for it. When the government first proposed the NDIS most assumed the government would have a budget surplus. But now the government is running a budget deficit. The government doesn't earn its own money, so it has to bully others to pay for its NDIS plan. It bullies taxpayers, and it bullies the State governments into part paying for it...even though it wasn't their idea. But come on, only a heartless wretch would deny money to disabled people. How would that look at election time? Of course, the central planners would prefer it if everything was centralized, and that State governments didn't exist. Heck, why not just abolish them? As ex-PM Bob Hawke told the Australian: 'Of course you would be better off without the states. We have a set of governments that represent the meanderings of the British explorers over the face of the continent over 200 years ago. They drew lines on a map and then said that is how Australia is going to be governed. If you were drawing up a system of government for Australia today, in ideal terms, what we have got now is the last thing you would have.' Arguably he's right. But not in the way he thinks. The system Australia has today is faulty because it's too centralized. The people should regain power from the federal government...and competing States should be more powerful than the federal government. That doesn't mean the States should be more powerful than they are now. And it doesn't mean the current State governments are any good. It just means the size of government needs to shrink. But you can forget any hope of that happening soon. The style of government (democracy) along with the growth of the Welfare State and an ageing population makes it almost impossible for the size of government to shrink. This is Slavery Democratic governments rely on winning the most votes. In order to win votes the political party has to promise favours to various groups and individuals. But voters are fickle. They soon forget past favours. They want more. And for the most part they don't care which party gives it to them. This creates resentment among those who don't get the favours. So the government has to increase the number of people it favours. Until before you know it, almost everyone gets a government handout. But who will pay for these favours? It's mostly the group of people the government knows will never vote for them...or who won't fall for the government's bribes. The government taxes them as much as it can. And if it can't raise enough money from taxes, it borrows so it can raise taxes from future taxpayers. But eventually, the whole grand plan falls apart. Those left with the bill to pay for the government's spending spree decide they've had enough...they withhold their labour or just withdraw from the system. Australia still hasn't quite reached that point. But it's not that far off. Income tax rates are high, and governments are looking at new ways to nationalise private wealth...to pay for more vote-buying projects. Governments are so keen to raid private income and savings that we're fast approaching the point where the government will force companies to pay 100% of your salary to the government and the government will give you an allowance. To say that Western democracies have their citizens in forced slavery isn't an exaggeration, and it isn't an insult to those who died during the Slave Trade. Any situation where someone forces you to work for them without pay is slavery. If you pay 40% of your income in taxes, then you're working for 40% of your time for someone else without pay. Statists will argue that it's not slavery because you get something in return: education, health, roads, defence, and so on. But black slaves got something in return too. The slave master gave his slaves food and shelter...he gave them tools to work the land...he gave them clothing. Would anyone say that those people weren't slaves because they got something in return for their labour? Of course not. That would be an insult. Today, you could argue that most people in Western democracies are worse off than 18th and 19th century slaves...or at least more ignorant. Black slaves knew they were slaves. Most Aussie taxpayers haven't figured that out yet. They let the government take 40%, 50% or 60% of their income in taxes, levies, and forced purchases and accept it. They think it's a price worth paying for democracy and...freedom. Little do they realise that as long as the government has the power to take private wealth on demand, there is no freedom, only slavery. Cheers, Kris
Kris said "Governments are so keen to raid private income and savings that we're fast approaching the point where the government will force companies to pay 100% of your salary to the government and the government will give you an allowance." Oh give me a break He dribbles some excrement sometimes
What do you call our current system of income tax then? Is it not already a system where the employer pays over a large chunk of the slave's employee's salary directly to government without him seeing a cent of that money? Now as the welfare state becomes more and more unsustainable, and fewer and fewer working people are expected to carry more and more parasites (which appears to be the system you laud) - tax rates will invariably go UP. In other words a higher and higher percentage of one's salary would be going directly to government - as is the CURRENT SYSTEM. so not sure what part of that you supposedly disagree with??? Just face it mate - the current tax system is a f.. disgrace and a joke.
Paraphrasing Frank Chowdry (1954): There are taxes and there are taxes. Indirect taxes are so called because the government does not get them directly from the payer; they are collected for the government by manufacturers and merchants, who recoup their outlay from their customers in the price of goods and services. All indirect taxes are added to price. Indirect taxes are mere money raisers; there is nothing in the character of these taxes that involves any other purpose. With indirect taxes, the government does not question the right of the citizen to his property. The citizen need not pay these taxes; he can go without. This alternative does not apply to direct taxes. Income and inheritance taxes imply the denial of private property, and in that are different in principle from all other taxes. The government says to the citizen: "Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide." The percentage of the appropriation may be (and has been) raised from year to year, and the exemptions may be (and have been) lowered from year to year. The amount of your earnings that you may retain for yourself is determined by the needs of government, and you have nothing to say about it. That, of course, is the essence of socialism. Whatever else socialism is, or is claimed to be, its first tenet is the denial of private property. It is for that reason that all socialists, beginning with Karl Marx, have advocated income taxation, the heavier the better.
alternatively you could just stop working and take all the free money from the government so you effectively arent a slave anymore ? If me and my wife stopped working our centrelink would be 1933.14 per fortnight with bonus tax time payments once a year of 2364.05 this is without the free dental / health care cards etc etc
are you f..n kidding me??? how do you work that out?? is that for if you have 10 kids or what?? If this is the case then i may as well give up my job! :lol:
