Is Julia gillard being targeted due to her gender?

[ninwa]

Oh I know.  I don't think my hypothetical situation is very likely at the moment - it was more to just illustrate that a question like "what if there was another GFC?" depends on specifics to be meaningfully answered.  :p

Though that said, despite the Asia-Pacific region's current economic strength, there is the very real likelihood of it all going to **** at the moment if a number of countries (eg. China/Japan...) don't pull their acts together.  Economics can be thrown wildly off-prediction by real-world disasters, man-made or otherwise.  And if this particular prediction about the Asia-Pacific being secure is thrown off, then Australia will have be facing some very real problems of its own...

That's the thing though - you and Mao are both dealing in hypotheticals - sure, "if" there were a second recession, Labor happened to be in government and we suffered, then I will most definitely criticise the Labor government. However, that hasn't happened. The fact of the matter is that Australia's economy did extremely well comparatively and that it was the Labor government that got us through it.

I can just as easily say "Tony Abbott would suck at managing our economy in the next recession" as an argument against the LNP but it wouldn't really mean anything

[Professor Polonsky]

@Polonius, correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can understand, it seems your premise is that everyone has a duty of care to everyone else. Leading on from that premise, we eventually arrive at wealth should be shared, at least to within an order of magnitude.

I completely reject that premise. Nobody has any duty of care to anyone else. People may choose to care for others, but no one should be forced to do anything for anybody.

If I was a country that wants to attract global corporations, I would lower my tax rates to attract them. It's how my country would have the competitive edge. Tax rates are not my highest priorities here, these corporations above all else bring employment. If you want to bleed business interests, go ahead.

So a wealthy businessman owns a successful factory - good for them. But the roads they use to transport their goods, everyone else pays for with their tax. The skilled workers they hire, everyone else pays for their education with taxes. Their factory is safe from thefts thanks to the police department - which guess what, we also all pay for with our taxes. They don't have to worry about a fire burning down their factory, as we have a capable fire authority. All that thanks to taxes, and people paying their share.

No one gets rich on their own. We all put a bit of our money into our society as a whole to help everyone. And there's no reason why corporations should be exempt from that.

Maximum wage laws? You have just removed incentives to everyone who wants to create their own wealth. Some people already leave Australia because of its low salary in certain sectors (e.g. a software engineer in Australia (~$80k) is paid far less than a software engineer working for one of the big guns in the US (~$250k+). If you want to bleed out talent, go ahead.

And I'm assuming you meant you want profits going to employees. If these employees own shares in the company, then sure. Otherwise, the employee's purpose in the business is no different to a computer's purpose or a filing cabinet's purpose. Employees are part of the operation of the company, not the ownership of the company.

I have nothing against a software engineer earning $250k.

So employees, human beings, are no different to computers or "filing cabinets". Jeez, what a world we live in.

Without employees, the company would fail. It is worthless without its workers.

Define "the vulnerable".

On one end of the spectrum, I have no problem giving support to disabled citizens who are trying very hard to make the best of their life.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have a huge problem with giving support to people who chose not to take education seriously, end up nowhere in life, and expect to have basic luxuries like everyone else.

IMO the welfare system at the moment gives enough for basic needs. It's not 'living', because the purpose of welfare is not to make life comfortable, but to tide people over to get themselves back on track. I don't see the justification for further wealth to be distributed from the top down. I especially cannot see the justification that anyone other than the owner of wealth can feel they are somehow entitled to a portion of that wealth.

Perhaps you want to talk about a few particular welfare benefits that need fixing, I acknowledge that the current system does have a lot of problems. But I don't think the welfare system is so flawed that it needs to be raised across the board.

How many Australians are on the dole? Unemployment figures are constant at about 5%. We pay more in corporate tax breaks and loopholes than we do for the New Start Allowance. Just sayin'.

[Russ]

tldr; laissez faire free market economy is great when you talk about morals and obligations but will break if you try and implement it

[EvangelionZeta]

That's the thing though - you and Mao are both dealing in hypotheticals - sure, "if" there were a second recession, Labor happened to be in government and we suffered, then I will most definitely criticise the Labor government. However, that hasn't happened. The fact of the matter is that Australia's economy did extremely well comparatively and that it was the Labor government that got us through it.

I can just as easily say "Tony Abbott would suck at managing our economy in the next recession" as an argument against the LNP but it wouldn't really mean anything

Yeah I'd agree here actually - I think in retrospect I was probably just nitpicking at something that wasn't really all that relevant anyway, so I apologise for veering us off in that direction!

[slothpomba]

So a wealthy businessman owns a successful factory - good for them. But the roads they use to transport their goods, everyone else pays for with their tax. The skilled workers they hire, everyone else pays for their education with taxes. Their factory is safe from thefts thanks to the police department - which guess what, we also all pay for with our taxes. They don't have to worry about a fire burning down their factory, as we have a capable fire authority. All that thanks to taxes, and people paying their share.

No one gets rich on their own. We all put a bit of our money into our society as a whole to help everyone. And there's no reason why corporations should be exempt from that.

They should be exempt from that.

Really, the easiest way is to abolish this farce of a socialised policeforce and only have private security companies. Anyway, if we give anyone assault rifles, we hardly need to worry about thiefs anymore, personally i have four machine guns and a howitzer for self-defence purposes. People shouldn't have a "free" commie fire authority either, its not my fault if SOMEONE ELSES house burns down just because they were too stupid to not pay the fire department.

I am a free-market conservative

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads build by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issed by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the Internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.

[Mao]

People shouldn't have a "free" commie fire authority either, its not my fault if SOMEONE ELSES house burns down just because they were too stupid to not pay the fire department.

Humor and hyperbole aside, I actually agree with this. In the same way that I think ambulance membership, health insurance, private education and private security should operate, these are things that I would pay for myself. If certain people would otherwise not care for these services, why should my tax dollars pay for it? What difference does it make if the people or the government makes the purchase?

[Mao]

So a wealthy businessman owns a successful factory - good for them. But the roads they use to transport their goods, everyone else pays for with their tax. The skilled workers they hire, everyone else pays for their education with taxes. Their factory is safe from thefts thanks to the police department - which guess what, we also all pay for with our taxes. They don't have to worry about a fire burning down their factory, as we have a capable fire authority. All that thanks to taxes, and people paying their share.

Roads should be paid for by tariffs on car registration. Education can be operated as a FEE-HELP scheme (I don't actually advocate this, but it's here for argument's sake). Most large organizations have private security, fire authority should be a subscription service.

It's not about people paying their share, it's about people not paying for things that aren't relevant.

So employees, human beings, are no different to computers or "filing cabinets". Jeez, what a world we live in.

Precisely. Life is harsh, so what.

[slothpomba]

Humor and hyperbole aside, I actually agree with this. In the same way that I think ambulance membership, health insurance, private education and private security should operate, these are things that I would pay for myself. If certain people would otherwise not care for these services, why should my tax dollars pay for it? What difference does it make if the people or the government makes the purchase?

Not sure if you're going for an anarcho-capitalist kind of bent here or not. I'm perfectly fine with private counterparts, as long as public counterparts exist. I think the cost spread over the public also makes it economically cheaper. I remember reading how a bunch of economists worked out the USA healthcare system would actually save a shitload of money if it was public, due to the various inefficiencies and breaking up the market.

[Mao]

Not sure if you're going for an anarcho-capitalist kind of bent here or not. I'm perfectly fine with private counterparts, as long as public counterparts exist. I think the cost spread over the public also makes it economically cheaper. I remember reading how a bunch of economists worked out the USA healthcare system would actually save a shitload of money if it was public, due to the various inefficiencies and breaking up the market.

I was exaggerating a lot.

The Australian system at the moment is a very good one. The public healthcare works very well, and for people that care a bit more, there is private health care that exempts you from medicare levy. Similar for Ambulances, you maintain a membership subscription, but those who choose not to get the bill. I am not arguing for the public systems to be scrapped.

What I am arguing against is the necessity and reliance on the public systems. The toughest one is perhaps police. I know anecdotally that policing in South Africa is virtually non-existent, and almost everyone who is able to hires private security. In areas where there are private security patrols, crimes are virtually non-existent. I am providing this as an example only, but my point is that these types of social services (or community benefits or whatever you want to call it) does not necessarily have to come from public systems. Private counterparts (private schools, private health insurance, etc) can also achieve these goals. This is the reason I reject that the wider community should feel 'entitled' to someone else's wealth.

I acknowledge that publicly funded systems help people create wealth. However, since these are publicly funded systems, everyone has the same access, and as such the only logical conclusion I can reach from here is that everyone should contribute an equal share. I cannot understand how anyone can feel entitled to someone else's wealth, especially if their net tax payable is higher than the average of population.

Also, to respond to this (which is somewhat related)

No one gets rich on their own. We all put a bit of our money into our society as a whole to help everyone. And there's no reason why corporations should be exempt from that.

...

How many Australians are on the dole? Unemployment figures are constant at about 5%. We pay more in corporate tax breaks and loopholes than we do for the New Start Allowance. Just sayin'.

Benefits to society should not be measured by how much tax a corporation pays. There are other benefits beyond tax revenues, such as employment and opportunities.

Corporate tax breaks exist for the purpose to promote corporations to expand their operations (incentivised by higher profits). If you want to take that away, I'm not sure how you can fill the employment void with private corporations. You can probably create public corporations to this purpose, but you must acknowledge that also has its own set of flaws.

[lala1911]

Yes.
Sexism has been around since long before the stone ages and I believe sexism will exist until the extinction of the human race (who knows, even animals could be sexist?).

[enwiabe]

Precisely. Life is harsh, so what.

So, people who don't conform to a Randian view of the world create societies which complete that sentence with "life is harsh, so let's all help each other out so that suffering is minimised".

It's called empathy.

[Russ]

Who is John Galt?

[slothpomba]

Will the real John Galt please stand up?