"Your position seems a bit contradictory to me. You don't care if a government service is overpriced because it's paid for by your taxes?" Yeah didnt come out right from brain to typing . It should have read more like i dont care as its a reasonable price "But you want greater financial accountability, less waste and a more limited role for government in our lives?" Correct "You do realise that it is absolutely impossible for a any government to be fiscally responsible with your money" Nope news to me . Maybe with the idiots we keep electing but not impossible .It is just a business with a ledger " There are too many competing interests clamouring for a share of the public pie, so what happens is that some are favoured at the expense of others" Of course just like most businesses its a matter of priorities "and that eventually, there is not enough money and taxes have to increase". Not if you have surplus to your needs as i mentioned in my previous post & run the books properly "This is why a privately funded model of service provision is the only sustainable model that would best meet the needs of consumers." Hows that working for us now ? " Governments don't care about the electorate, they care about retaining power, every decision made is made with reatining power as the primary motive. " As i mentioned before if they were accountable & would lose office if they didnt capitulate it would be the end for them so i believe they would bend under public pressure & reduce prices " If basic services were provided by private business, then because profit is the primary motive" I believe that is the problem profit pushes the prices higher . Some things only need to break even or can run at a loss & be picked up by another branch where there is profit . Supplying essential services shouldnt be a profit making entity. Its obvious we cant agree on the topic but its good to get different perspectives ...even if you are wrong ..... or am i wrong ?
It's not a business Reno. No business has the right to forcibly take money from their customers. No business has the right to prevent competition (although many use the govt to limit theirs) in the services they provide. When you have a system like the above there's no incentive to provide good service. You get paid anyway and all you have to do is provide a minimum so that people don't get angry enough in massive enough numbers to affect the politicians. Don't forget, the politicians aren't actually running any of the government's "businesses" (departments). Unelected bureaucrats do. I would venture to say that most politicians barely have a clue about how the departments in the portfolios they run work. They don't generally get portfolios because of their expertise. Nor voted in because of it for that matter. The public looks at the services provided and says they are not worth it and doesn't want to pay any more. After all, they get increases in funding with no visible improvement. Why? Because of the afore-mentioned motivation problem. You could throw money at this system endlessly and it's just like throwing money into a black hole. The only reason it wasn't so bad in the past was because government wasn't so intrusive in everyone's lives. But honestly, how exactly are you going to make this work? How are you going to deal with the problem that people don't have much of any motivation to provide good service? Give them more money? For being mediocre? I'm looking at this from a business standpoint and it says to me, "virtually no chance of success, don't invest".
Renovator what you fail to appreciate is the Laffer effect. Just look at super and compare similar taxation rates in Hong Kong in the 1990's and Singapore. If Australia had a truly flat tax system with no fiddling the economy would explode. At a 15% rate the amount of tax revenue collected would in a few short years astound everyone. So why wouldn't it be favoured by our governments, economists and financial institutions? Because it would take the power away from those institutions and give it to the people. There would be so much money made and such an efficient economy it would set the majority free. Kind Regards non recourse
Well aware of the planned changes. It will only be enough to appease the EU, certainly won't be at similar levels.
Well it seems im outvoted on this one just call me Paul Keating because i tax too much :lol: Maybe im just greedy . I like to have enough money in reserve for progress & ANY situation that might come up without having to borrow money .
That is.............................until the day you really need them for self preservation and then I guarantee you will eat your words. Do you feel the same about insurance? but you still pay out of your own free will right?
At least with insurance I have a choice of whether I wish to be covered and I have the freedom to choose another supplier if I find the product on offer overpriced or not meeting my requirements. We don't have that choice with the police force, particularly as their function is to serve as an arm of government - not to serve the people.
Compulsory Third Party "Green slip"? No choice of coverage, and not too much competition. Flood Levy - Not much choice there either. And NO competition.
lol ...i think you still suffering from sour grapes over the solar thread where you didnt know what you were talking about so i corrected you . 2 replies to my posts & insults both posts ....your a class act you remind me of a couple of others who are no longer here. Its ok not to know its a shame to have a dummy spit when someone doesnt agree with you though . Its fine keep throwing insults if thats the only tool u have .It tells us a lot about you
