The idea of the states levying income taxes really wasn't a good idea :lol:

-PB

Clever language from Labor Senator Sam Dastyari

It was a pretty good idea. Labor's solution to everything is to jack up taxes. Competitive federalism would force states to allocate resources more efficiently to reduce costs rather than simply jacking up taxes. It would also give people more freedom about where they want to live, states which reward hard work and entrepreneurship with low taxation or oppressive socialist regimes where taxes are continually jacked up to fund doctors and teachers salaries and unions. Of course Labor would never support such a reform as it would mean their productive citizens would relocate to other states leaving them shortchanged to achieve their Utopian ideals

Pot calling the kettle black :lol:

Yep, it was a shocking idea which increases gross operational costs
Not surprising for a government that is happy to waste a whopping $500M on a gay marriage vote

Murdoch Rags - the federal govt would still collect the state income tax. In reality, the only actual change would be that the states would be guaranteed a percentage of the income tax take. So there would not be 7 state regimes to collect it. But the proposal is dead now anyway.

The real issue is not the policy in and of itself. There are reasonable arguments for and against. The real problem is that it was an 'Abbott-esque" brain fart that had no work done by the PM to lay the groundwork. He just produced it out of nowhere at COAG. It was a half-baked, half-thought out idea that was rightly rejected due to the lack of any prep work.

Did you cut-and-paste this from an American tea-party or libertarian party manifesto?

"oppressive socialist regimes"... really? Do you even know what socialism is?

I'm generally against more state autonomy as I think it goes against the point of federalism but I do agree something has to change in the responsibilities between state and federal.

I sure do!

Labor's constitution states: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange

I don't understand the fear of democratic socialism. Is it a remnant from the cold war in which socialism is a code word for the soviets? Democratic socialism is the political basis of the countries with some of the highest living indexes in the world. Look at Scandinavia, god knows i would like to live there over the US or UK

Those countries are social democracies, it is the private capitalist based sector which drives economic output and growth. The wealth is then redistributed to meet the needs of the citizens, but countries like Sweden for example are more efficient, competitive and have a low corporate tax rate than Australia and the US. Democratic socialism on the other hand (the left of the Labor party) thumbs its nose at any capitalist enterprise and wants to move society towards a model whereby the means of production are controlled entirely by the state. If you watched Q and A last night you would have noticed of all the worlds education systems to compare they kept zeroing in on Finland, because it has high literay and numeracy rates and is 100% state owned. No mention of Korea or Singapore which have strong private education sectors and are more successful than Finland, there is an ideological drive to socialise Australia first by taking over schools, hospitals, and eventually all industries where there is wage inequality and worker exploitation, in other words ALL industries.

What specific policies do you regard as socialist in VIC.

Lets be honest here, like most of the world Australia is a mixed economy. In fact, tax take as a % of GDP is lower here than in the USA. Does that make them more socialist than us?

If you want to argue that the centre right is better than the centre left, go for your life. You wanna complain that Andrews is too chummy with the CFMEU? Go for your life. I think there is merit in that.

But just throwing around labels like socialist in the Australian context is ridiculous, and exposes the superficiality of how you look at things.

Please tell me how you define socialism, and please tell me what specifically the Andrews govt (or any other state govt) is doing to "slide down the path of socialism".

Can you give an example of any policies proposed by either major party which does this?

ALP and Libs both support HELP for uni
The independent primary and secondary school sector receive more govt money here than in many similar countries.
Our govt subsidises people to take out private health insurance

You can argue there is some 'back and forth' between govts tending more towards govt spending, then away from govt spending. But this is the standard cycle within a mixed economy.

To argue we are seriously "heading towards socialism" is laughably ridiculous.

I think we can all agree that some degree of socialisation for the public good is generally a good thing.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fuck me, think before you post. At the very least google a word before you starting throwing it around.

Did you copy and paste that ?? You sound like one of those people calling up 3aw.

:lol: different opinion :lol: nah you two are just trolls who think everything the "left" do is wrong. Cant hack it when people question your opinions. Please tell me did you know that the labour party was socialist when it was formed ?? It hasnt been socialist for a long long time

Redistribution of wealth to pay for things like schools, hospitals etc isn't socialism though. Successful welfare states really only happen where there's a strong capitalist private sector to drive growth and collect income tax, such as in Nordic countries. As a capitalist and libertarian doesn't mean I'm anti welfare state.

Still waiting for any actual policies which indicate that we are "heading towards socialism"....

I note 11.mvfc.11's comment that "I hold grave fears over Andrews' ability to make Victoria prosperous, and his stance on policies regarding immigration, infrastructure and education frightens me".

Given that state govts can't legislate immigration policy, I hardly see how that is relevant.

What specifically about his education and infrastructure policies "frighten" you?

Regardless of your thoughts over the East/West link vs Public Transport, both are govt infrastructure projects. It is hardly a capitalist v socialist issue.

My point is this:

Obviously its valid to criticise any and all policies a govt has. But throwing around buzzwords like "socialist" in the Australian context is absolutely laughable.

Regarding the ALP constitution, that was written in the 1800s wasn't it? And what relevance does that have anyway? Isn't it the policies themselves that actually matter?

I mean, the ALP introduced HECS, mandatory detention of asylum seekers, started to dismantle our protectionist tariff regime, floated the dollar, introduced enterprise bargaining, sold off govt assets including the Commonwealth Bank, airports, etc etc.

You can spout off about the wording of the party's constitution, but the above actions are not the actions of a socialist party.

And once again, as a % of GDP, Australia's tax take is LESS THAN THE USA. What kind of socialism is that????

Redistribution of wealth is the very basis of socialism.

What you fail to understand is that all advanced economies have incorporated a level of socialism into their economies. That is why we call them "mixed economies".

The fact that you have arbitrarily decided that if it is schools and hospitals getting funded that this isn't socialism, just shows your own biases, and I suspect lack of a basic understanding of what socialism is.

Lastly, your comment that "As a capitalist and libertarian doesn't mean I'm anti welfare state" is bizarre. The welfare state is PRECISELY what libertarians are against!

I suspect that you just like having the label of being "a capitalist and libertarian" without actually thinking through what that belief system actually entails.

Considering he in the past has positioned himself as:
* pro government surveillance (re: metadata retention laws)
* anti-choice in regards to abortions
* anti-gay marriage

The fact that he thinks he's in anyway libertarian is hilarious :lol:

In this country it's art's students thinking up ways to spend other people's money :lol:

I agree with distribution for basic government things like tax collection. Following a discussion with you I've softened my view on tax so I guess thanks for putting the time into your responses.

I have a problem with people who assume rich people are evil/sadistic/corrupt simply based on their bank balance which seems to be a small but vocal group (warning: anecdotal evidence).

This lol.

-PB

If Milton Friedman self identifies as a libertarian in believes in some welfare provision to assist the poor, why can't I?

I never supported any of those things. I don't believe I've stated anything on 442 on other than that abortion is a social ill, I have certainly not advocated the position that there should be no choice in the matter.

In regards to gay marriage I have simply advocated support for a plebiscite, how I would vote in that situation I have not publicly stated.

Moron.:lol:

Interesting twist, I can't be bothered going back through pages of posts but gay marriage has been discussed for years before a plebiscite was even on the table and you've supported jurisdictions where abortions are illegal in the past. If your position on these things have changed and you honestly now believe in personal choice and freedom on these topics then that's ok too. You're allowed to change your mind. Greg Sheridan is far too conservative for my tastes, but on Q&A I really respected the methodical way he comes to his positions on things and his explanation on his stance on gay marriage.

However even if you've changed your mind on the other two, no libertarian would accept you as one of them with that stance on metadata retention.

The very basis of socialism is the state ownership and control over the means of production. Redistribution of income tax to fund schools and hospitals is social democracy, socialism is the abolition of the private schools and hospitals.

A mixed economy is primarily driven by free markets underpinned by the profit motive, self interest, property rights and disparity in income and wealth, the redistribution of profits and income taxes to fund the welfare state provisions is social democracy which might have some Marxist tendencies but values the importance of the capitalist economic structure, the rights of individuals to make their own economic decisions and control their destiny at the expense of others.

Democratic socialism, on the other is not merely the welfare state, food stamps, dole etc, it is the state control and management over hospitals, schools initially, and eventually over the entire means of production for the sole purpose of ending capitalism and private property, which they argue is the cause of poverty, worker exploitation, greed and all the social ills.

Most people who regard themselves as democratic socialists are in fact social democrats.

I haven't changed my mind.:lol: Find a post in the past where I've argued abortion should be illegal? Saying "I can't be bothered looking back" is just a cop out because you might not find the information you're looking for and that would result in having egg on your face.

Likewise in regards to gay marriage, even before the plebiscite, I have not expressly taken a position one way or the other. IMO it's not a black and white issue, it needs considered debate and proper public consultation. I've always thought a national vote would be a good way to decide the issue because it would foster informed rational debate rather than the status quo which is the demonisation anyone opposed to it as "homophobic" and every second celebrity trying to boost their popularity ranking by proclaiming support for it.

In regards to metadata I like the idea of trained government personnel monitoring terrorist activity in order to prevent terrorist acts, I don't believe they would be interested in my meta data and therefore I don't believe this infringes on my personal liberty nor does it negate my right to self identify as libertarian.