New Political Party - Expression of interest

bordsilver said:
Bad policies (or need much more refinement to be workable):
Treasury prints money to a maximum percentage of GDP to cover loss of individual tax revenue.
A new Federal Corruption agency, holding politicians, judges, public servants, directors of corporations, corporate financial officers etc. criminally responsible with mandatory jail sentences, and seizure of assets 'behind the veil'. - No mandatory jail sentences EVER. Don't particularly see a need for a new corruption agency, particularly as many of the other policies are removing the incentives for corruption in the first place.
Click to expand...

I believe that a certain bank has placed their own staff (or through bribery) within corporations/govt for the sole purpose of swallowing the riches of the target company/municipality etc, by way of derivative contracts. Derivatives aren't known as weapons of mass financial destruction for nothing. There are many examples of such pillaging behaviour literally stealing the company from under shareholders. In the old days the director of a bank was personally liable for the banks debts - Today it is the taxpayer through socialising losses, and privatising profits.

If banks print money for loans, that can find its way to govt bonds that taxpayers then have to pay interest on plus principle, printing money directly to fund govt expenditure with preset limits, is entirely feasible cutting out the middleman bank that prints 'assets'. RETURN THE POWER OF MONEY CREATION TO THE PEOPLE, FOR THEIR BENEFIT - NOT BANKS. There is absolutely NO reason for govt to pay interest on debt on money created out of thin air!
 
mmm....shiney! said:
fiatphoney said:
$15,000 / 52 weeks / 38 hour week = $7.59 per hour paid by govt.
Not too shabby to encourage sole traders to offer full time employment.
Click to expand...

What you are really doing is inflating the price of labour by $7.59/hour, or if you want to look at it another way, discounting the price of labour by subsidising the cost of employing someone. You're really creating an artificial environment that doesn't reflect the cost of employing someone or their real value in the market.
Click to expand...

I am transferring the paid welfare system that is presently creating an artificial price of labour, into the labour market itself for better and more productive outcomes. Sole traders will be able to compete with corporations in the resurgence of small business and increased labour participation. Opportunities for small business will be incredible. Ie a return to locally sourced soft drinks from a market that demands its health concerns be met. Costs of packaging equipment has fallen through the floor. Decentralising our food economy back to the people by way of producers in our communities is the best plan to bring about healthy food sources as opposed to GM and food produced in China bought by the masses as it is all the working poor can afford.

BTW Someone is paying for the removal of penalty rates - it is the labourer - to subsidise your ideals. My way welfare payments are used to give you the sole trader access to already paid for idle labour. Corporations have no access to such terms.
 
Can you abolish all international trade.
No shipping out minerals, goods, food basically nothing is to be allowed to be sold overseas.
I'm sick of paying high prices for beef, mangoes and cherries because it's sold overseas. I want scotch fillet at $1 per kilo, mangos $1 per kilo, keep it all in Australia.
But make sure the new government subsidise the goods we need from overseas, like my iPad.
 
No Centrelink = no aged pension or disability support pension, which is by far the majority of social security payments. Newstart is only like 8% of the social security budget (which doesn't include health/medicare). Age+DSP is about 60%
 
Revils said:
No Centrelink = no aged pension or disability support pension, which is by far the majority of social security payments. Newstart is only like 8% of the social security budget (which doesn't include health/medicare). Age+DSP is about 60%
Click to expand...

Ofcourse the infirm are fully supported regardless.

Think of govt payments as a modified form of the basic income idea, except participation is required from the able bodied. "Supporters of the basic income idea say... They argue it would streamline government bureaucracies, as a basic income would replace many other benefits, potentially including welfare, unemployment insurance, Old Age Security and others." Corporations employees do not participate from what essentially is a sole trader subsidy, or community participation income.

As we make a transition from entitlement taking from community, towards contribution to my community the idea of welfare is abandoned. Policy ideal - Fostering a sense of community enrichment and participation, not welfare. Certainly full pensions continue, paid through participation at already established community organisations. The able bodied and sound mind, part-take in some form of community support, regardless of age or disability. It might be as easy as conversational English lessons over Skype, or homework assistance tutoring over internet, or part-taking in a buddy system at nursing homes. It disturbs me that many nursing homes smell of week old urine. If we fail to have individuals contributing towards a better standard of living for our people, we have failed as a nation.

It is important that Aboriginal peoples (and everyone else) participate in ways that they support and have an enjoyment and personal satisfaction. We are lifting standards of living, this is NOT a gestapo work for the dole scheme. This is about enriching people's lives, not punishing people for not having a job. From paying no income tax, nor reducing welfare payments for doing something, everyone is encouraged to participate. If that means going to pottery class, so be it. However to continue in said class requires successful completion to a standard. Which might be to gain the skills to teach others in time, even if only in a supporting role, ie teacher aide.
 
Ipv6Ready said:
Can you abolish all international trade.
No shipping out minerals, goods, food basically nothing is to be allowed to be sold overseas.
I'm sick of paying high prices for beef, mangoes and cherries because it's sold overseas. I want scotch fillet at $1 per kilo, mangos $1 per kilo, keep it all in Australia.
But make sure the new government subsidise the goods we need from overseas, like my iPad.
Click to expand...

Abolish international trade? - that's crazy talk. However applying the 'citizens first test' supermarkets substituting inferior produce from overseas sources, and selling it at first grade local prices is dishonest.

The govt is not in the business of subsidising goods. I believe that our food chains will become decentralised by our productive nation policies, and the quality of local produce will rise dramatically with supermarket obscene gouging instead going into the pockets of local market gardeners and vertically integrated restaurants and cafes, or community empowered farm to crate/plate co-ops.

Also we need to ensure technical advances that are deflationary flow to the benefit of the people, not skimmed off by a corrupt banking system and associated corporate interests. For example, when the new technology of train transport arrived in NY in the 1800's, prices of city bought farm produce declined dramatically - it was deflationary. Today the banking system and corporations operate in such a way to ensure ALL deflationary benefits are diverted away from the people, and into corporate coffers.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. Sun Tzu
 
Iceland Plans To Create Its Own Money

http://investmentwatchblog.com/iceland-plans-to-create-its-own-money/


Why not take it all the way to the treasury?



Icelands-president.jpg

Sauce: penguin pesto
 
Some similar ideas/policies put forward by - John Passant is a former Assistant Commissioner of Taxation, former tax academic and is currently a PhD candidate in the School of Politics and International Relations at the ANU.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/04/has-the-time-come-to-consider-criminalising-tax-avoidance/


The top 10% of wealth holders in Australia own 45% of all the wealth, or about $3 trillion. A one percent annual wealth tax on them would raise by my back of the envelope calculations about $30 billion annually from them. (Would be a good idea if govt prints money to offset loss in personal income tax revenue ie no tax on workers and sole traders)

More prosaically, it might be time to consider a minimum company tax, based not on actual taxable income but gross revenue. A tax of three percent on the $454 billion gross untaxed revenue of big public businesses alone would yield more than $13 billion. That is before we tax those companies whose effective tax rates are well below the company tax rate of 30%.

There are many other taxes we could consider that could reintroduce equity to the tax debates. Levying rent taxes on the monopolists and oligopolists making super profits, taxing the big greenhouse gas emitters, (while denying them the ability to pass on the costs to consumers,) investigating financial transaction taxes, considering land taxes, and urging the A.C.T. Labor/Greens government to do a Colorado and legalise the personal use of marijuana and tax the cultivation and sale, are but a few other options we could debate.
 
fiatphoney said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Passant is perpetutaing a myth, see the Bernie Sanders thread.
Click to expand...

That's like telling me to read, 'join the Hillary Clinton appreciation society' - not interested.
Click to expand...

Then you may as well chuck out your plans to start a new political party, the established ones are already dealing the inequality card in spades - you're late on the scene with that one brother, Picketty was there decades earlier.

Your party is shaping up as just another mob of thieves isn't it? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
mmm....shiney! said:
established ones are already dealing the inequality card in spades
Click to expand...

'it might be time to consider a minimum company tax, based not on actual taxable income but gross revenue. A tax of three percent on the $454 billion gross untaxed revenue of big public businesses alone would yield more than $13 billion.'

I am proposing to remove all taxes against citizens and sole traders, funded in part by stopping multinationals moving money out of Australia Panama style. Keep on singing the goldman sachs glee club song mmm...
 
fiatphoney said:
mmm....shiney! said:
established ones are already dealing the inequality card in spades
Click to expand...

'it might be time to consider a minimum company tax, based not on actual taxable income but gross revenue. A tax of three percent on the $454 billion gross untaxed revenue of big public businesses alone would yield more than $13 billion.'
Click to expand...

That's a sure fire way to incentivise doing business in Australia. Not!!!!!!!!

More myths, fables and fairy tales here than a pre-school end of year concert. :lol:
 
mmm....shiney! said:
That's a sure fire way to incentivise doing business in Australia.
Click to expand...


Business is not just corporations. You ignore sole traders that are community based, like the local soft drink maker being crushed in recent decades.

You can't criticise the 'free stuff brigade' and yet have your own hand in the back pocket of Australians by getting your 'free stuff' at their expense - through open borders turning labour costs into slave labour.

No taxes for individuals and sole traders would cause a huge business boom.
 
fiatphoney said:
mmm....shiney! said:
That's a sure fire way to incentivise doing business in Australia.
Click to expand...


Business is not just corporations. You ignore sole traders that are community based, like the local soft drink maker being crushed in recent decades.
Click to expand...

If they got crushed because of economies of scale, increases in productivity or efficiency improvements by competitors then that's the nature of a free market and capitalism. If they sold to one of the majors, which is the case for many then they've had a win there too. If they got crushed because of government favouritism then of course that's a problem.

Do you know what % of small businesses are sole traders and what % are companies?

Edit to add: I don't think you should be favouring sole traders over companies, or small businesses over corporations.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
I don't think you should be favouring sole traders over companies, or small businesses over corporations.
Click to expand...

Yet our "free" economy favours corporations over employees. And the presstitutes are corporate spokesmen garnishing support for big business through manipulating the public opinion to their own demise. The media favours corporations, that then in turn creates political outcomes that favour corporations.

The Australian market is not the Asian labour market, though Corporatist globalisation is trying its best to make it so.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/no-wonder-were-poorer-wages-share-gdp-has-fallen-46-years


The stupidity of your position is that with open boarders you might be able to get some cheap labour for a time in your shop, but at the cost of destroying Australian's employment future. BUT your gain will be short lived as 'food vans', 'food bikes' or 'food tents' surround your shop without a 'libertarian' thing you can do in this free market.


balbon7nxujny3gujyjf.jpg

Sauce: libertarian entrails
 
^ so how does that rant justify your position in favouring small business over big business?
 
mmm....shiney! said:
^ your position in favouring small business over big business?
Click to expand...

You have got it backwards, we should ask how have we ALLOWED big business (largely foreign owned and controlled) to destroy opportunity for Australians! A corporations definition of national interest is very different from a community's definition of national interest. It is sad that people of the community have been brainwashed by a corporate media into being sheeple to actually think that the corporate national interest is their community's interest! You are a corporate sheep, with a libertarian coloured coat, willing to serve up your neighbours for dinner in a no border labour mkt. But the very people you train as you rejoice in slave wages, will put you out of business as they set up business on your doorstep in your libertarian fantasy utopia.

It's about balancing the scales back in favour of communities to atleast an equilibrium.

It's about not propping up the centralised at the expense of the individual. Ie privatising profits and socialising losses.

It's about decentralising and making a better community, NOT a better corporate world.

Communism is about centralising govt, statism (fascism et al) is about centralising corporate & govt together.
Definition of statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry, or more accurately today corporate interests owning government (and the media) in an oligopoly.

Saying our markets should be "free" when it is just a pretence within an adulterated system, and declaring it good because some outcomes are personally beneficial is farcical. For example, like saying that negGearing should stay because we should leave the market "free". Is the mkt really free in the first instance, or is the fantasy just too good to let go!

Such is the way arrogant hypocrisy blinds those who should be seeing their nation other than for their own profit at the expense of all else, or worse, media brainwashed spokespeople of the corporate system!

The study concluded that the US political system is an oligarchy, where the "wishes of corporations and business and professional associations" are the driving forces behind policy decisions within the government.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-economic-corporate-oligarchy-of-the-world/5386794
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top