JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Topher’s new video: The Forbidden History of Terrible Taxes

A video that ought to be shown to all students in every school. A concept that I don’t remember being mentioned during my education.

I like his clean uncluttered style, the snappy irreverent wit.

Thanks Topher, and thanks to all the people who supported him to make this possible (like The Australian Taxpayers Alliance).

Note the first ever First Australian Libertarian Conference will be held in Sydney on April 6 and 7. Now that would be fun.

Send this video around :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (102 votes cast)
Topher's new video: The Forbidden History of Terrible Taxes , 9.4 out of 10 based on 102 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/accasyz

135 comments to Topher’s new video: The Forbidden History of Terrible Taxes

  • #
    Mattb

    Does the Australian Libertarian Movement represent the views of libertarians the same way that the Shooters and Fishers Party representes fisherfolk? i.e. only representative of conservative right wing liberterians?


    Report this

    231

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Mattb, if “fisherfolk” do not become members of the Shooters and Fishers Party, then they do not get to be represented. An organisation represents its active members. The Australian Libertarian Movement will represent its active members. However since liberty is the antithesis of the radical left wing, I gues that it is unlikely that you would be represented by the ALM.


      Report this

      251

    • #
      Backslider

      oh puhleeze Mattb. Please educate yourself by grabbing a dictionary and learning what the term “libertarian” means. I am not at all surprised you are not one, but instead a downright bigot.


      Report this

      221

      • #
        Mattb

        Oh I know what it means… I just hope its members do!


        Report this

        216

        • #

          Oh yes Mattb. I’m sure you think you know what libertarian means. Did you know that some pure libertarians believe in open borders – meaning anyone would be free to take citizenship in any country they wanted? Your comment that libertarians are similar to the shooters and fishers party and your belief that you know what libertarian means can’t both be right. Which is it?


          Report this

          241

          • #
            Mattb

            Bingo Jo… but you miss my point. I’m a fisherman and a libertarian. Knowing what libertarian means and wondering if the libertarian party and libertatian society area representative of libertarians or a bunch of right wing nut jobs are completely different things.


            Report this

            224

    • #
      Streetcred

      Does Mattb represent the views of all socialist bowel movements or just his own? Counting the days to the switch off of your largesse.


      Report this

      141

    • #
      wes george

      Gosh, Matt…I go away for yonks and come back to find your ignorance has aged like rancid fish sauce.

      Dude, there is no such animal as a left-wing libertarian…. The left- Labor and the Greens – are the self-proclaimed parties of collectivist serfdom, not individual liberties for all.

      True, Labor and the Greens do support one “liberty” ….the government’s liberty to dispose of your life, limb and property as it sees fit.

      But Labor and the Greens are opposed to the 2 most fundamental Civil Liberties of all.. (1) .The right not to be killed by government policy and (2) the right to freedom of expression.

      Let’s start with (1)… the right to LIFE…. Labor and the Green policies have lured over 1,000 people to die at sea trying to get to Australia to collect citizenship, a government apartment, free smokes, TV, pensions, healthcare for life…. It’s like playing lotto, but if you lose, you’re tossed overboard in the Indian Ocean to dog paddle 500km back to Sri Lanka…. It’s the Labor-Green way! They could not care less about the ~1,000 people that have drown because of policies that offer rich incentives to risk life. Nope, their blind-hatred of Howard and willfully ignorant commitment to regressive lefty dogma is more sacred than even human life itself multiplied by 1000.

      Let’s also put to rest the idea that our compassionate one-eye Aunty in the attic, the ABC, gives a rats’ bum about human life either, unless of course loss of life can somehow be used to further their swarmy policy agenda. A thousand people die at sea because of labor/Green wickedness and the ABC hasn’t even raise an eyebrow from the hate-Abbott 24/7 narrative.

      I wonder how many have to die at sea before the ABC and Labor-Greenies grow a moral conscious? 3,000? 5,000? 10,000? The left-wing of Australia is starting to rack up numbers which might look a tad genocidal in the cool retrospection of history. I think they have a court for this sort of thing in the Prague.

      Naturally Labor/Greenies want to make it illegal to compare their policy of unintentionally drowning migrants at sea with genocide. Heck, they want to make it illegal even to mention it…Or did Mattbo not get the memo about Gillard and the Greens planning to make it illegal to express anything but opinions so innocuous that not a single soul in the whole nation can possibly claim offense?

      The Greens and Labor want to silence your freedom of speech.

      Of course, the bill will exclude the government from censorship, so Labor and the Greens will be free to speak, while the public is forcible muzzled by a police state!

      Or maybe Mattbo didn’t hear that if you are accused of offending some one with your speech, you must prove that you didn’t…. How impossibly stupid is that?. After all, if someone accuses your speech of offending him or her there is no possible way for you to prove your speech didn’t since their word is rolled gold proof that you did! (Unless you claim mistaken identity.)

      I know, I know it’s mind-boggling that Labor and the Greens could be so bloody minded, so brutally totalitarian, so shamelessly pigheaded to even whisper such ridiculously anti-Aussie fantasies to themselves while sitting in the loo first thing in the morning cursing THE AUSTRALIAN opinion page….. But NOOOOO, these brazen, wannabe jackboot morons actually have proposed outlawing free speech as legislation pending before parliament. Good on em too, because we will live to see it chiseled on their tombstone…HERE LIES THE LABOR/GREEN GOVERNMENT THAT SOUGHT SILENCE AUSTRALIA. Lest the generations after us forget who the real danger to our freedoms are.

      And yet Mattb is so deep in denial he can actually hallucinate that such an unlikely beast as a left-wing Libertarian could possibly exist?

      LOL…Maybe Mattb should join the Unicorn & Drop Bear Liberty Party while he’s at it.


      Report this

      391

      • #
        Mattb

        Lol Wes I guess you’re a card carrying member then!


        Report this

        120

        • #
          wes george

          Matt, you are being dishonest with us and with your electorate and probably even with yourself. After all, if you can’t successfully lie to yourself, who is going to believe you?

          One thing I’ve never understood, though…help me out here…How do trolls wake up every morning pretending that we’re all so stupid we don’t remember their comments from yesterday? How can you live with knowing that we know, but pretend that we don’t? One thing you have proved over and over again is that psychological denial is a real clinical condition, not a slag, but a serious mental health issue.

          Maybe you really can’t remember your political position from day to day?

          Well we do, because you told us.

          You were (are still?) an elected “independent” (Ha Ha!) council member somewhere in Perth… who is so deceitful and unethical that you won’t even use your real name while making public policy statements online because you’re afraid if your electorate knew your real deep Green jackboot faith in UN Agenda 21, one world totalitarian Green government, they’d kick your green bum into the Indian Ocean and make you dog paddle to Sri Lanka.

          Mattb, in your many hundreds of posts we have come to know you as a supporter of unlimited government regulation and intrusion into even the most private individual business…You have constantly advocated for the coercive and confiscatory powers of the state to be expanded and for the freedom of individuals to act and innovate on their own volition without interference to be curtailed. Moreover you have spruiked for centralised government control of the economy and collectivist values including the Lysenkoist practice of “scientific research” by compulsory consensus.

          If you’re a Libertarian, then so was Chairman Mao.

          We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

          We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

          Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

          We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life — accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action — accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property — accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

          Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

          http://www.lp.org/platform

          So, Matt-Mao just what part of the above Libertarian “statement of principles” can you agree with…you know, like for the next couple of comments before you come back tomorrow as the usual Greenie Matt as if today never happened.


          Report this

          171

          • #
            Mattb

            “You were (are still?) an elected “independent” (Ha Ha!) council member somewhere in Perth… who is so deceitful and unethical that you won’t even use your real name while making public policy statements online because you’re afraid if your electorate knew your real deep Green jackboot faith in UN Agenda 21, one world totalitarian Green government, they’d kick your green bum into the Indian Ocean and make you dog paddle to Sri Lanka.”

            Oh dear. Nice rant. WTF?


            Report this

            217

          • #
            John Brookes

            Try not to be a [Snip crass] Wes.

            25

      • #
        Mattb

        on the contrary I, being a libertarian at heart, completely oppose this bill to “make it illegal to express anything but opinions so innocuous that not a single soul in the whole nation can possibly claim offense?” although I see that did get watered down. Likewise I oppose the internet filtering. Noting of course that I am an open minded soul with no political affiliations or obligations who on March 9 will be voting conservative for the 1st time since I voted for John Hewson!


        Report this

        76

      • #
        Mattb

        But you are right Wes maybe they are just a nice bunce of representative free thinkers…

        uh-oh “The ALS was a co-sponsor of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC), hosted by the Heartland Institute.”

        I mean seriously the idea that libertarians would all be climate skeptics is an absurdity. They may not like carbon taxes… I note they do support market based solutions to climate change… but Heartland??? crikey.


        Report this

        116

        • #
          Mike

          “I mean seriously the idea that libertarians would all be climate sceptics is an absurdity. ”

          That’s funny because I move in libertarian circles, and consider myself one, and I find far more libertarian climate sceptics than believers. Generally because libertarians are able to think for themselves and look at facts.

          Libertarianism has a place for both the left and the right. I come from the left myself. The reason why is because it is based on facts without any of the rhetoric that both the left and the right engage in.

          As for libertarian political organisations, well colour me sceptical. Collectivism of any kind is generally against the principles of libertarianism as we are all individuals. We may voluntarily form groups but it should not be in order to coerce other people to do what we want.


          Report this

          131

        • #
          Tristan

          A good friend of mine runs in libertarian circles, and you have the group who disbelieve in global warming because taxes and greenies are evil and the group who understand that when a transaction between two parties imparts a cost on a third party (such as any sort of damage to the environment, it doesn’t have to be climate change related), then the third party must be offered compensation, as to do otherwise amounts to infringing on the rights of said third party.

          Libertarians who acknowledge the science of climate change usually do not want direct action plans ala the LNP but a market based mechanism such as a carbon tax (the implementation being open to debate). They also don’t support subsidies, of which the fossil fuel industry gets billions annually, because that equates to an artificial distortion of the market. Not that we hear much mention of that here. I feel that too many libertarians are libertarians of convenience rather than libertarians of conscience.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Backslider

            A good friend of mine runs in libertarian circles

            Yeah, right………

            SO what are you Tristan?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            Well, I’m not a libertarian – I think their economic model is too simplistic.
            I’m pretty happy with the idea of capitalism with compromise. A society needs rewards for people to strive for and care for those in need.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I think they have a court for this sort of thing in the Prague.

        I think you’ll find it’s the Hague, Wes.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      wes george

      “Does the Australian Libertarian Movement represent the views of libertarians the same way that the Shooters and Fishers Party representes fisherfolk?”

      FISHERFOLK???

      wtf?

      You forgot to mention the Beavertrappers, Furriers and Lumberjacks, you metrosexual greenie whanker who has probably never been more than 20km from the CBD in your 4-wheel drive Subaru.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL7n5mEmXJo


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Mark D.

    Government big enough to give you everything you want is government big enough to take everything you have.


    Report this

    411

  • #
    benpal

    MattB: The ALM represents the views of its members and of those non-members who share the same visions. What’s wrong with that?
    Unlike members of the “tax payer community” (i.e. everybody), ALM members can freely choose to be members and to pay member fees. If they are not happy with ALM, they can leave and join another movement.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      FarmerDoug2

      “tax payer community” (i.e. everybody)

      Wrong I suspect. There just might be enough “non payers” to get %)$..


      Sorry, I can’t write it


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”
      Ayn Rand


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Tim

    The big corporations and the ultra-wealthy have mastered the art of moving money offshore and using loopholes to make their tax burdens as low as possible.

    So our politicians just keep finding more ways to squeeze more money out of the middle class and small businesses in order to make up the difference.


    Report this

    101

    • #
      benpal

      These “loopholes” are legit and legal, they are due to the fact that different nations have different tax systems, tax rates, financial requirements and resources. A slim government, a government that spends money wisely needs less money. Why shouldn’t potential taxpayers take advantage, they same way people tend to try to buy the cheapest product when they have a choice. Governments use low tax rates expressly to attract business to get more income for infrastructure development (e.g. Ireland).
      It’s a give-and-take game, also called “free market”.


      Report this

      61

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Good point benpal

        I understand that within Switzerland the Cantons can vary local taxes and such to either attract or repel business.

        As you say; other countries do the same.

        The biggest problem for the average tax payer is that governments use our tax money, illegally, to buy votes.

        Look at the Desal Plants nationwide, and public roads construction in Victoria as examples of spreading the moolah.

        KK


        Report this

        60

      • #
        Tim

        “Free market”, or “Free taxpayer subsidies?” ’*Honeywell * Profits: $4.9 billion-Taxes: -$34 million / *Fed Ex* Profits: $3 billion – Taxes: -$23 million / *Wells Fargo* Profits: $49.37 billion-Taxes: -$681 million / *Boeing* Profits: $9.7 billion Taxes: -$178 million *Verizon* Profits: $32.5 billion-Taxes: -$951 million/ *Dupont* Profits: $2.1 billion-Taxes -$72 million / *American Electric Power* Profits: $5.89 billion-Taxes -$545 million


        Report this

        31

        • #
          Mark D.

          Tim, I don’t necessarily doubt what you have here but do you have a reference? Also, taxes are assessed and paid for the previous year. Was that considered?

          I’m against government subsidies unless for security or defense reasons. This includes farm subsidies, (not crop insurance) as well.


          Report this

          20

          • #
          • #
            Mark D.

            Hi Tim, Thanks for the link.

            I should have typed more there in my reply. I’m against direct subsidies (cash payment) and tax breaks that benefit select companies or groups.

            That said, I am not all that excited about corporate taxes either. Here’s why; Corporations & businesses are owned by people. People are the only entities that have an income (whether shareholder, owner or employee). Taxing a company is a double tax. It is my opinion that business and corporations should not be taxed and taxes should only be due when a dividend, royalty, wage or benefit is received by a person (whether shareholder, owner or employee). Corporations and businesses use profits for new product development and growth. The double tax merely stifles that. Nearly everything a business spends money on is a legitimate business expense and need not be taxed until the recipient of that spending takes it home as income. Taxing corporations is fallacious because they simply pass that expense on in some fashion until a human pays it anyway.


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Mark D.

            I forgot a bit more detail. Corporations and businesses SHOULD be taxed on any asset other than goods, materials or products for resale that are permanently moved out of the country. I know this would be too simple in practice but I’m hoping people get my point.


            Report this

            20

    • #
      Dennis

      If you can arrange an offshore tax haven account or accounts you then have one of them obtain a company credit card for you, all of your spending goes to company and is paid directly to the bank or card provider. It is as if your are a tourist passing through.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Delory

      So what you are (inadvertently?) saying is….. People who pay the normal tax rates remain poor, while those who find ways of reducing their tax burden end up wealthy? I guess that means we should ALL try paying less tax…


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Tim,
      Is your complaint that they never buy anything from you? They have money and you do not?
      Is it that they have Scrooge McDuck swimming pools filled with money for frolic? They do not.
      It matters not WHO makes the money. It matters more HOW the money is made. In commerce one company will usually perform better than another and seem richer. That’s not a reason to vilify it. It does not sit on its money. It is still moved through the economy.
      Some people get terribly upset because when the money moves to the community, it does not go via a government that takes its handful to do things, usually inefficiently, and usually less useful than would have been done by those who made the profit.
      Try adjusting your thoughts so you come to dislike bloatocracy and come to like the honest sweat on the brow after a hard day of work.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      John Brookes

      We are just too stupid to stop the corporations and super rich from getting a free ride. They scream blue murder when we try and tax them appropriately, and a whole lot of mugs spring out of the woodwork to bat for people who earn in a day what they earn in a year.


      Report this

      02

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      Businesses do not pay tax. It is the shareholders who are liable for the tax. Businesses remit money to the government. When they pay a dividend to their shareholders, the money paid to the shareholder in net of the tax paid. The Shareholder then can cliam a credit for the tax they have notionally paid as an owner of the business.

      Ultimately the only tax payers are individual salary and wage earners and private business owners. Public servants do not pay tax. Their income is paid out of the tax revenue received by Government – it’d be more honest is public servants were exempt from having a grossed up “salary” and were just told here’s what you get to take home.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    J Cuttance

    The global warming theory and its tax imposition on us all via government is one of the clearest illustrations of the state delegitimising itself. No truly independent arbiter of justice would disagree.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Dennis

    Socialist Justice, up the workers.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Streetcred

      They’re sticking that “Socialist Justice” up the Workers alright ! Funny, I’d wager that there are more socialists on welfare payments than any other group ;)


      Report this

      130

  • #
    Dave

    Standing up for Australian Taxpayers.

    Yup! That’s all it is, whether you’re a labourer, truckdriver, CEO, accountant, geologist or even a councillor. The ever increasing taxes by local, state and federal bodies of government are out of control. The elected federal ALP representatives are now the worst quality and the biggest self serving bunch that ever governed. Gough, Paul and Bob would have been much better than Gillard, Rudd and Swan.

    The video is great – the government spending, red tape, controls and the big noting pollies have to be stopped.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Streetcred

    It puts the courage of Campbell Newman (Qld Premier) into perspective … laying off 14,000 teat suckers. Sorry for them, maybe, but from my experience having been in among them, they were the cause of their own demise … I even once entertained a deputation of these miserable types trying to convince me that the goals set for their performance were too optimistic and that I should just adopt their status quo and everybody would be much happier. True story.


    Report this

    131

    • #
      Winston

      The alternative for Newman is to be a southern hemisphere version of Greece, a country so corrupt with rent seekers from top to toe that nobody has the gumption or honesty to take such unfortunate but necessary decisions. Such decisions would not be necessary but for the incompetence of successive Labor governments, and an ideological nonsensical bent by the left to have everybody employed by the government, thereby cutting the effective tax base from the general public toward zero.


      Report this

      91

  • #
    Dave

    .
    MattyB

    Do you wish to identify as Queer?

    This is a question on one of the political parties websites? Which one?

    Clue “Queer department UMSU” provides a link.

    Yes – there is a Queer Department – taxpayers again fork out.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Michael

    Mattb,I would like to ask,if you approve of the proposed changes that reverse the onus of proof as well,as “it’s worth noting is that no changes have been proposed regarding the reverse burden of proof under the draft Bill. In practical terms, a complainant need only make out the barest case – a prima facie case. This is the test courts usually employ to determine whether a claim should be dismissed before it is even heard. But under the draft Bill, the prima facie test is all the complainant needs to prove. The burden is then placed on the defendant to show that he is innocent of wrongdoing…

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/roxons_backdown_not_good_enough_does_she_hate_me_so_much/


    Report this

    20

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Perhaps Mattb prefers the unidirectional brand of liberty – I.e. I have liberty, liberty is great – the rest of you can go pound sand. I remember Mattb completely failing to defend free speech in the past – and nothing he has written since has suggested that anything has changed.

      Feel free to defend yourself Mattb.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Mattb

    I do so hope that tomorrow’s entry will be that hillarious meme where on Jan 18 greg hunt “guarantees” that china will not be taxing carbon… then Jan 21 China announces a tax on carbon!!! You couldn’t make this stuff up!


    Report this

    26

    • #

      China announcing anything green is a hoot. They announce and they announce. They been telling the gueilo for years about planned environmental initiatives, carbon taxes etc. Anything Malcolm Turnbull and the doctors’ wives want to hear…

      This time they’re deadly serious. At some remote date there will definitely be a minuscule carbon tax…allowing for delays, transitions, special concessions, compassionate exceptions, phase-ins…

      When you think about it, they do what Gillard does…only they’re good at it.


      Report this

      31

    • #
      Streetcred

      That “tax” is everything but a “Carbon Dioxide Tax” … they need to clean up their air quality.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Evgueni

    Yes, level of taxation is completely out of hand and ridiculous.

    Jo is right, that if the society does not push back, the bureaucracy will consume all.


    Report this

    30

    • #
      John Brookes

      Funny though, but the bureaucracy was bigger in the old days. The rules were stricter. I was in the public service when (if you had the staying power) you stayed until 65, and got to retire on some really good fraction of your final wage, indexed for life.

      To Australia’s great credit, we would all that stuff back under Hawke and Keating, thus saving ourselves from a Greek tragedy.

      I’m as fond of fantasy as the next guy, but sometimes reality is more interesting.


      Report this

      03

      • #
        John Brookes

        “wound” not “would”


        Report this

        02

      • #
        Grant (NZ)

        NZ experience (but I suspect just as relevant in Au). When I started work the top tax rate was 48% and going from memory I tripped into that bracket about 3 years after I started work. I was in a private super scheme and I used to get some rebates in my annual tax return.

        I have been in the top tax bracket ever since. But the rate has reduced to now being 30%.

        Now my net salary after tax and my deductions for superannuation (still in a private scheme that does not get me any rebates) and ACC Earner Premiums et al is %wise more than it was in the early 1980s. But the subterfuge of the Governemnt is such that as Topher points out my “spending power” is much reduced.

        Income tax rates have come down. But at the same time as that happend GST was introduced at 10%, raised to 12.5% and now 15%.

        For example I open my power bill and I see a Government levy which attracts GST (in NZ at 15%). When I pay my vehicle registration, there is an ACC levy (for my motorbike it is about $300/yr out of a total cost of $525).

        Fuel prices at the pump are made up of about 50% product cost, refining and distribution and the rest being excise, LAPT and GST (GST is a tax on top of the other taxes). (I used to work for Big Oil and the administration of this tax collection was quite complex – accountants in oil companies must wonder if they are working for the company or Inland Revenue).

        And finally John, when you were paid by the public service, what was the source of your salary? How did your empployer earn the revenue form which you were paid? did you really pay tax, or did you receive an income net of tax?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    ExWarmist

    My apologies for being quite OT – but some visitors may wish to read this insightful essay. Global elitism the character traits of truly evil people.

    But then again, wrt the tax laws & elites… perhaps not so off topic.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Peter Miller

    There is a simple solution to saving the country the damage caused by populist politicians, like Julia and her cronies, and that is to give more say to those (the taxpayers) who fund the government, as opposed to those who are dependent, and/or leech, on it.

    Everyone gets to have two votes – but you lose one vote if you are in net receipt of government cash funds. The sole exception being those who actually protect the nation, like the police, the armed voices, doctors and nurses but not their hangers on (the ‘support’ bureaucracies).

    Any chance of this sensible approach ever happening? Absolutely none, so incompetent, wasteful and corrupt politicians can breath a sigh of relief.


    Report this

    31

    • #
      Ace

      Why not go the whole way and have the Heinlein system: Votes are only obtained by national service.

      In the original democracy, ancient Greece, any state affected by a decision were excluded from the vote on that decision.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Another off-topic.

    John Brignell writes about the statistical bludgeon. Extract:

    Science has come under total political control and so has lost much of its raison d’être, which is human curiosity. In common parlance the very word “science” has changed its meaning. A repeated observation is that the existence of a consensus (a concept alien to science) in any field results in the suppression of research into alternative hypotheses. Politicians and bureaucrats nurture research that confirms their prejudices. That promotes a consensus, which inevitably becomes self-reinforcing by the exclusion of alternatives, so alleged scientific progress becomes merely the expression of Government policy.

    The EU, USA, Britain and Australia all have left-leaning, authoritarian governments and bureaucracies, who believe it is their right and duty to exercise control over every detail of their victims’ lives. Powerful monolithic media organisations, such as the BBC and ABC, ruthlessly exercise rigorous censorship and selectivity to magnify the apparent weight of zealot causes favoured by the contemporary establishment. Scientific matters are discussed in terms of political ideology rather than the natural language of science, which is predominantly mathematics.

    Read all of it at the link.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bernal

    Can a leftist be a libertarian? Yes, if what you are talking about the libertarian position on drug use.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    john robertson

    Taxation is punishment.
    Governments tax behaviour they wish to see reduced.
    Pretty obvious our governments are opposed to property ownership, hard work and creation of new wealth.
    What could go wrong?

    What is the value of government?
    What is civil society and civilization?

    My definition is civilization is a shared illusion that you and I can cooperate and both share the reward of doing so.
    That the energy we would devote to basic survival, self preservation and paranoia can be redirected.
    That we can create wealth, infrastructure that would not exist without civilization, so all benefit.

    This requires trust, laws that apply equally and justly.
    Civil society is an illusion we pay a bunch of actors to maintain, government is a morality play, which the actors beg and volunteer for the privilege of playing the roles.
    There is a reason they are all such drama queens, clamouring to play on the national stage.
    Therefore punishment of transgressions against our codes by these actors must be melodramatic overt reactions.

    Today government, in all its forms, cripples the makers ability to create wealth and steal more from us than civilization is worth.
    People have recognized the negative benefits of playing by the rules and working hard. Productivity falls every year now.
    If govt steals a greater share of the return on my labour, so that the harder I work the less I keep, I reduce my effort.
    This is the logical consequence of progressive taxation.
    When lying, cheating and thievery are the standard behaviour of government and rewarded by the voters, civil society is dead.
    Knowing that I will be robbed of the return on my labour and investments, I am financially better off returning to tribal conditions.
    Barter between trustworthy people still works.
    If I do not know you its not worth trusting you.

    This cheerful thought was brought on by my consideration of the CAGW scam and the culpability of our bureaucracies and politicians there in.
    Your opinion of your government, will never be higher than it is today.


    Report this

    51

  • #
    Jonathan Frodsham

    September 15 is my birthday. I will wake knowing that Gillard and her mob will be gone, gone gone for 20 years. The above Topher video is just the plain truth. Yes it should be shown in schools. Thank you for posting it Joanne.

    Great to see so many Libertarian’s here. If not for the internet we would be screwed for ever by the scumbag, warmist, consensus loving useful idiots. Keep up the good work, we are slowly winning, I take my hat off to you all. Thank you!


    Report this

    112

    • #
      Bite Back

      I hope you are right about waking on September 15. But don’t ever stop working to achieve that end. And remember, another Gillard may be just around the corner. Never let up the fight.

      May your birthday be a happy one. :-P

      BB


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Manfred

      useful idiots

      Oxymoron springs to mind.

      surely, ‘useless’?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        I think that Piers Ackerman of the Telegraph (Sydney) says it best …

        The Greens and Labor could never be amicable during an election campaign as both compete for votes at the idiot end of the political spectrum.

        Pure gold I say …


        Report this

        70

  • #
    MadJak

    Everyone here should acknowledge and respect the fact that Kiwis who work over here who arrive after february 2001 and pay just as much tax as everyone else, but also get Iced out of the welfare lifestyle or safety net.

    So in order to practice what is being preached, join your new zealand cousins and collectively ask the question – why are we being taxed so much when we’re being discriminated against?

    Personally, I think every taxpayer should be able to refuse to pay for a certain expenditure of their taxes – i.e. if the Govt want’s to spend 5% of my tax take on something I completely disagree with, I should have the option to opt out of paying it (and also ensure I opt out of any outcomes from the said expenditure). I know too difficult to do properly, right?


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Change the accent and some words and it could have been produced here in the U.S. about the U.S. But how do you change the rules from $5 – $10 = $15 to $5 – $10 = -$5? You’re in a hole any way you look at it and will have to climb out under your own power one way or another.

    I wonder if inventing money wasn’t a bad idea in the end. Money allows the mistaken idea that money is the wealth to take hold and grow until all sorts of fantasies are possible. If we had to exchange value for value — you give me a tank full of your gas and I’ll fix your plumbing problem — then delivering the goods would be a requirement you couldn’t dodge with a printing press, an IOU or any amount of political huffing and puffing.

    Because confidence in our currency is dropping, some places are turning to barter. I read that some have actually begun to use silver and other things of value as a medium of exchange rather than the dollar.

    A turnip has only turnip juice in it and only so much of that. Ain’t no blood there to squeeze out!


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Great video. This shoulde be in schools. This should also be viewed by every POLITICIAN – repeatedly.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      john robertson

      Won’t do any good, they only see the movie thats playing in their head.
      If they could comprehend reality they would not be politicians.
      Desperate actors, that is.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Dennis

    Here is how the Australian federal government wastes our money, borrowed and wasted;

    http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/labor-waste-booklet.pdf


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Bulldust

    All tuckered out from a long tree-hugging session (see photo in story) Rajendra Pachauri sits down and explains how a 17-year “pause” in warming would need to last another 13 to 23 years before he considers it a break of the warming trend:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134

    Usual paywall thing … just Google the title and follow link to circumnavigate. He defends scepticism in the piece, and even mentions natural factors affecting climate:

    “If you look at temperatures going back 150 years, there are clearly fluctuations which have occurred largely as a result of natural factors: solar activity, volcanic activity and so on.

    But then he goes on to say:

    Dr Pachauri said the record accumulation of Arctic ice this northern summer – following a record melt last winter – was consistent with the current understanding of climate change.

    I didn’t follow the ice melt this year, but know that in years gone past the Arctic currents and winds had a lot to do with the previous melts … surely this one was caused only by AGW …


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Mattb

      surely he means record ice melt last summer, and an accumulation in winter? Or does he mean antarctic? Or is he nuts? Or is the journalist nuts?

      There is certainly no record accumulation right now though: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


      Report this

      28

      • #
        Mattb

        lol 2 thumbs down for pointing out the arctic ice does not accumulate in summer and melt in winter!


        Report this

        14

        • #
          Streetcred

          It is the Artic winter right now and the accumulation of ice is indeed a record. Maybe that’s why you got the thumbs down ?


          Report this

          31

          • #
            Mattb

            Streetcred… read the quote “Dr Pachauri said the record accumulation of Arctic ice this northern summer” .. northern summer = arctic summer.

            Where is that record accumulation of ice in the north this arctic winter anyway? There isn’t one.


            Report this

            13

          • #
            John Brookes

            Besides, the record accumulation is pretty obvious. Crouch down low. Now stand up. Now crouch down lower, and then stand up. The lower you crouch, the greater the rise when you stand up. Bad analogy finished.


            Report this

            01

        • #

          Maybe “accumulation” is a reference to the fast catch-up after the big melt then dispersion by storm of 2012. Perhaps it’s the most substantial gain on “record”, which means post-’79. Which means nothing.

          Antarctic ice has been mostly at “record” high levels lately. Which means nothing. And that Arctic ice goes up and down like Berlusconi’s trousers (with melt alarms in early 20s and late 50s, and even in the 19th century.)

          It all means nothing except that climate changes, and nobody knows much about how or why. Here on the mid-coast the nineties did a rough impersonation of the thirties. Now we’re back to the fifties. How come climate change boosters never notice climate change when it actually happens?


          Report this

          20

      • #
        Mark D.

        Very skeptical of you Matty. I didn’t give you the thumbs down.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Streetcred

        Pachauri is indeed a man with no credibility and it would be no surprise that the ‘journalist’ is unhinged … journalism ? What’s that ? Just look at the ‘colour’ of the universities that spits these fools out.


        Report this

        11

      • #

        Gee wiz MattB, maybe the Arctic ice is just going through a normal cycle? If they would have used a starting point of five years prior they would have started from a time when the ice was thinner. The planet has not warmed in 17 years. Rajendra Pachauri has confirmed the findings of the UK Met Office. Since the planet is not warming, the current condition of Arctic ice cannot be blamed on global warming, can it Matt? Perhaps wind directions and the Arctic Oscillation play a part?

        Besides,many of the “scientists” said in 2007 that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013!

        https://fp.auburn.edu/sfws/sfnmc/web/bet5.html

        Professor Wieslaw Maslowski was quoted as saying…
        “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”

        On June 23, 2008, James Hansen (I offered this $1,000 bet with Dr. Hansen in April) said….”We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes,” Hansen told the AP before a luncheon at the National Press Club. “The Arctic is the first tipping point and it’s occurring exactly the way we said it would.” Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.

        Then again, New Scientist made a prediction, in 2008, of a possible ice free Arctic in 2008!
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13779

        To be fair, there were some scientists who gave a wider time frame.

        Yep, just keep on moving those goalposts, dude!

        I would ask you to bet, Matt, as to whether or not the Arctic will be ice free and when but when it comes to betting with someone on this site you have a track record of welching!


        Report this

        42

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        In view of historical evidence of a usable northwest passage during the latter 19th century, actual photographs of submarines surfaced at the North Pole in open water in 1967 (or might have been 1961) and other things of that nature I’m wondering why I should even worry about the state of the polar icecap. It certainly is a scientific curiosity. But is it a crisis? No!

        I give anything to do with the IPCC a failing grade. Matt, so should you.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Bulldust, you’re smarter than me, has it occurred to you that the arbitrary 30 year = climate meme is because that is about the career time span for someone in science? In other words there won’t be anyone left with half a brain after 30 years go by..

      Just sayin.


      Report this

      41

  • #
    Ace

    A lot of discussion on liberty and finance.

    As far as finance goes, in the real world, Western states are all so totally adrift on a sea of debt so vast that their eventual collapse is pretty much inevitable. Its like you are all arguing over the method by which you are going to be executed whilst work on the gallows proceeds quietly in the background.

    As for liberty, it is pretty much a certainty that all European states and I dont know, maybe Australia, will be Muslim majority societies well inside this century. This is just a demographic fact on current trends. For example, in the UK the percentage of the population that is Muslim doebles every ten years. It is now between 5 and 10 %. By mid century the majority will be Muslim. No civil liberties exist in any such society apart from Turkey, where they are working hard on removing such freedoms as still exist.

    I would find the first of these scenrios scary but for two things, firstly that all parties have a vested interest in staving off disaster as long as they can and secondly, I am having great difficulty seeing how I am going to be able to survive financially to the end of this year anyway.

    As for the second scenario, why should I give a monkeys I’ll be gone by then.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Ace,

      If you’re trying to scare me you’re doing a good job of it. The U.S. won’t be very far behind the UK and Europe.

      I do have a reason to give a monkey’s because I have family that won’t be gone by then.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Great video by Topher because of the question it prompts people to ask.
    “Heyyyy, do things really have be the way they are now?”
     

    Found an appropriate quote from an old video from the Von Mises Institute, it’s in the 25 seconds from 11:03 to 11:28, transcribed here:

    I always say there’s a three word lexicon that explains the Tax Economy; Need, Greed, and Compassion. Need now means wanting someone else’s money, Greed means wanting to keep your own, and Compassion is the sentiment of the politician who wants to arrange the transfer. ;)
    These good old words have been completely perverted by the Tax Economy.
    – Joseph Sobran, Senior Editor of the National Review.

    But tax is merely the yearly tip of the corrosive interventionist iceberg. The other way they impoverish us is through credit expansion via low interest rates. Every time the interest rate is cut and GDP rises the Treasurers swan about gleefully as though an escalation in inflationary theft is some kind of gift. Suddenly every low margin project and hare-brained idea can get Easy Money.

    4.XX.102
    The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion.

    One thing von Mises did not explain well is what “frightens” the banks [4.XX.68] into ceasing further loans. However…

    4.XX.69
    Neither could the boom last endlessly if the banks were to cling stubbornly to their expansionist policies. Any attempt to substitute additional fiduciary media for nonexisting capital goods is doomed to failure. If the credit expansion is not stopped in time, the boom turns into the crack-up boom; the flight into real values begins, and the whole monetary system founders.

    The chairman of the RBA is appointed by the Treasurer and is theoretically answerable to Government. Do successive governments think this artificially boosted inflation is fine as long it doesn’t collapse on their watch?
    We the people are always here, it’s going to collapse on our watch regardless of who sits in Canberra.
    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
       In Ludwig We Trust.


    Report this

    30

  • #

    [...] The downward spiral succinctly identified here is why no one supports either party, but many citizens feel too afraid to vote out the liberals and the Rube Goldberg Perpetual Economic Machine. H/T JoNova from down under. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Truthseeker

    A very good article on the intolerance of “tolerant”.


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Gubberment ministers need a performance based pay, something they can’t increase at their whim. Cut their retirement benefits down to our level. Let them live off their super.


    Report this

    31

    • #
      Truthseeker

      I have had this idea to stop the “professional politician” from dominating the landscape. My idea is that a constitutional amendment is made that would prevent any person from standing for re-election for local, state or federal parliament once they have served 10 years as an elected member at any level of government.

      The 10 years would not have to be contiguous and is calculated over their entire life. That means a max of 2 terms for Senators and four terms (usually) for the House of Representatives, and it does mean that people cannot go from local government to state government and then to federal government over a 15 or 20 year period.

      Also only standard industry super for this service. That will at least force most of them to get a real job for the bulk of their working life, either before or after they enter politics.


      Report this

      60

  • #
    Neville

    This is O/T but still very important.

    Marc Morano interviews some of the crazy loons at the Washington rally.

    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/2174209184001

    James Hansen endores the Una bomber’s message of blowing up power stations and dams and the Robert Kennedy Jnr idiot isn’t much better.

    Hansen is the top scientist at GISS NASA and Kennedy is a member of Congress. How do these delusional, dangerous numbskulls keep their jobs?
    Also why doesn’t the left MSM pusue their extremist ideas and call for Hansen to be sacked?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Jonathan Frodsham

      I wonder what would happen if the likes of James Hansen advocated blowing up jumbo jets? After all do not these spew CO2 and cause global warming? Lol, he would be arrested for saying “Blow them up” yet it is ok to blow up dams and power stations. The weird thinking of the warmist’s holds no bounds.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        wes george

        Jonathan,

        I’m sure you are aware that the Greenies harbour fantasies of mass murder, although it is considered impolite to point out the similarity between the Greens and Nazis or Pol Pot.

        So let’s just let their million dollar plus advertising campaign (which they had to pull due to protests) speak for itself…..

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfnddMpzPsM&feature=player_embedded

        In the Green fantasy utopia, those who are not murdered in first wave of Green genocides will have to apply for licenses for life…

        Green Eugenics.

        “Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
        society, unless the parents hold a government license.
        All potential parents should be required to use
        contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
        antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

        - David Brower,
        first Executive Director of the Sierra Club


        Report this

        10

    • #
      John Brookes

      I think its important to keep up the unabomber references…


      Report this

      04

    • #
      Ace

      In the UK a girl was imprisined for writing POEMS praising terrorists.
      OK, she did also work at Heathrow, though only in a shop.

      The point is the existence of a crass selectivity in how laws are applied. Many people are in US prisons for saying less than what you report Hansen stated. If that is indeed something he said, its disgusting. I oppose Jihad, but talk of blowing up damns is as bad as many of those Muslim guys have done. And they were “done” for it.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    What a coincidence that 2 days ago I wrote on a uni rag blog “The Conversation”

    .In reply to Felix MacNeill

    Felix MacNeill
    In logic, a tax on profits from mining the minerals that belong to the people is not different to a tax on the dirt on unwashed potatoes that belongs to the people, or the minerals that the people own, taken from the ground by animals we kill then eat, or on the very air we breathe, that belongs to all people.
    You cannot make a logical, definitive case for selective taxation of whomever might be making a profit at a given time.
    Try making a case. You’ll not be able.

    You main fault is to assume that taxing bodies know better how to spend profits than the people who make them. I’d contest that with utmost vigour.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Beth cooper

    But … but … we have ter have a carbon tax et al
    else our army of public servants’ll end up w/out
    productive employment!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    OK, so I listened to the video. He’s pretty slick. But he says that 50% of people say that money from the government is a substantial part of their income. I’m a pretty low income earner, but its been quite a few years since I got any form of direct monetary assistance from the government (apart from my wages and medicare refunds). What am I doing wrong?


    Report this

    01

    • #

      Let me get this straight:

      No monetary assistance from the government “except” your wages and medicare refunds?

      What about e.g. your employer’s compulsory superannuation contributions?

      You are at least 109% taxpayer-funded. You expect more assistance?

      Did you miss your $900 taxpayer “bonus”?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mark Hladik

    I can only quote others who have been much more eloquent that I ever could.

    First is Alexander Tyler; this is only part, and the whole should be read aloud multiple times per day on every TV and radio station across the globe:

    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasure. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship.”

    In the Federalist Papers, number five, Alexander Hamilton observed:

    ” … and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found to be a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

    While I cannot address the situation in Australia directly, I can tell you that it seems to be the politicians in both Australia and the United States have undergone the conversion from ‘servents of the people’, to masters of the people. The ‘rule of law’ has been replaced with the rule of men. A persons “rights” are what the government decides they are (and subject to change without notice)on any given day.

    Tyler listed the cycle in his complete article; it is worth your while to search it out. We are approaching his ’250-year’ time frame, almost as if by magic!

    My best to all,

    Mark Hladik
    Casper, Wyoming
    United States


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Thanks, Topher, for the clarity of your message on taxes.

    Here’s my attempt to do the same for government science:

    http://tinyurl.com/aynmbpv


    Report this

    01

  • #