Except that one is a recommendation for how a sporting competition should be run, and the other is a recommendation for how an economic system catering to the whole of society should be run. Not really analogous examples methinks.

In reference to the Karl Marx thing, one thing I have always thought interesting is comparing American sports with European ones:

USA - home of free market economics.
Sports are franchise based "socialist" models with no P/R, salary caps, collective bargaining, collective profit sharing between owners, drafts to equalise teams etc.

Europe - home of "social democracy".
Football at least is completely free market, P/R, no collective bargaining, salary caps, draft etc.

Interestingly, it has been suggested that the above has evolved due to the different mindsets, eg-

With the US's capitalist mentality, the NFL and clubs have quite deliberately acted as a cartel to exploit monopolistic market powers. They are acting from a capitalist mindset to "game the system" and maximise their power, and profit.

Whereas the custodians of football in Europe structured their sport on a "noble amateur" ideal, and this has been exploited by clubs acting in a capitalist mindset.

Some food for thought!

One thing I think is interesting is that by the time world population peaks at around 10 billion, Africa will have something like 1.6 billion people!

They will provide the next era of worldwide economic growth as China 'normalises' as a medium to high income country.

The other thing is their ability to skip development steps due to technology eg much of Africa has poor phone services and poor availability of cash from banks etc. With the explosion of mobile phones and the ability to transfer money via smartphones, they now do not need the landline infrastructure. Similar stuff is predicted to happen with renewables. I am actually optimistic for their long-term prospects. It is inevitable.

Fair points as always. I guess we only get the extremes of media from Africa. The good news is drowned out by the 'new terror group does X' or 'Y government has been accused of Z'.

Africa has resources and cheap labour. If they could stabilise the continent to the point where risk is tolerable, they could get up to speed with world infrastructure by having resource companies build infrastructure for everyone (which would also support their operations).

I disagree with you because it is incredibly fucking stupid to view politics as a comparison between full blown laissez-faire capitalism and orthodox Marxism.

If you're going to have a strong opinion on something, make sure you know what you're talking about before you start typing.

how ironic if you could visit Adam Smiths grave for free

Got to laugh at the morons in this thread who are bitching and moaning about capitalism and the rich but in every other fucking thread lament about the A-league not having P&R and having a salary cap...

Ponder this...for a leftard to visit the grave of Karl Marx they have to pay a 4 pound entrance fee to a private cemetery

Edited by GDeathe: 20/1/2016 09:23:42 PM

The argument there is that people have moved into different work where machines aren't capable instead and it's improved productive capacity and GDP as a result.

There will come a time though that machines will be able to do virtually everything efficiently enough that these things working 24/7 will be more productive than a human. What that means for humanity could be very interesting...

Its a really hard issue because the march of technology has been predicted to lead to mass unemployment since the start of the industrial revolution, but it has never come to pass.

There will be jobs created in the future that don't exist yet, so how do you gauge whether the new jobs will replace the old ones?

What I think will happen into the medium/long term future is that the means of production will become so cheap (the internet of things, 3D printing etc) that the standard of living provided for the poorest (in rich societies at least) will not have much of a meaningful difference to the richest.

Govts will provide a universal basic income in future which will satisfy the requirements of life I believe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

This will apply to most things except property - property is immovable so will always be a scarce resource.

It is always hard to capture the economic benefit of things adequately in GDP growth only.

For example - smart phones. You can say X amount of mobile phones were sold in 2000 worth $X, and that Y amount of mobile phones were sold for $Y in 2015. But that doesn't capture the HUGE difference in quality and capability.

We are all carrying around supercomputers in our pockets now!

First point I would say is that extreme poverty has indeed been reducing, and reducing at a phenomenal rate - mostly due to the rise of China.

But Africa is also growing a lot faster than it was previously.

The stat itself is really just a nice headline figure for Oxfam to raise the issue of poverty. But it isn't necessarily a relevant piece of information. EG - if the incomes of the poorest countries are growing at good rate (which they are) is it relevant that the super-rich incomes are growing faster?

For the purposes of poverty alleviation in poor countries, I would say no. There may be other problems related to such extreme wealth in the hands of a few, but they aren't linked with this issue in my opinion. Economic growth is not a zero sum game, in that economic growth for some people does not prevent growth for others.

There have been big changes (for the better) in foreign aid funding over the last decade or 2.

Foreign aid can be skewed by donor governments putting requirements on the funds for political purposes. This happens as much as receiver countries wasting it on corruption.

But there has been a trend of a lot more empirical research as to what is effective, what gets most "bang for your buck" etc. A lot of this was actually pioneered by Bill Gates Foundation - they would do pilot projects, gauge effectiveness, then decide what has worked best, and expand the project.

This may seem obvious but wasn't the case for a long time.

So I believe evidence-based funding is crucial. As is reducing as much as possible govt-to-govt aid as this provides incentives at both ends for inefficient spending, if not corruption.

The good news is that the above is what is increasingly happening.

Youre a software engineer arent u?:lol:
youre torn

High income earners are those who earn more than $180,000 per year. Whether its 30-45% or 35-50% is not really important. The point is the high income earners pay most of the tax. They also pay a higher medicare levy despite using fewer public health resources.

It is absolutely the wealthy people who provide for the country. That is proven in the link I provided. The top 10% pay more than 50% of the total income tax. It'd be nice if the population respected this contribution rather than putting shit on the wealthy and assuming they are greedy.

As for the worker bees working for the high income earners this is only true in business owners. Business owners pay a different tax rate.

Working professionals on high incomes don't have minions working for them unless they run their own business. They do the work themselves. This is a myth created by the left. The working professionals are working in fields that are generally really important for society, work longer hours, work harder, take on more responsibility, have studied more and are better educated. Thats why their income is higher.

They are also less likely to use government services.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/no-the-rich-dont-pay-a-fair-share-of-tax-they-pay-all-of-it/story-e6frgd0x-1226841174461

"Marge you can stand there finding faults, Or you can knit me some seatbelts!"

You're not wrong. Look at what happened to Detroit. Look at our own auto industry.

Think about the old weavers who used to hand sew textiles!!!

That morrissey song: 'What Difference Does It Make?'

I kinda dread the day that artificial intelligence and automation gets to the point that we don't need a significant portion of the workforce. You may think that the current trend of people moving into different areas of the workforce as old industries fold/automate will continue and that will certainly be the case for a quite a long while but eventually pretty much every job a human can do will be automated.

It's a bit scifi and "tin foil hat" but it will happen eventually. We really should be looking at schemes to provide people a living wage.

Do provide links.

Actually, relevant research suggests at it



You are referring to entire governmental systems. I am referring to individuals & their thinking


I used the word 'typifies'


And the research suggests that non-evidenced based, critical free thinking is more typical of the right wing, rather than the left

No problem with what you're saying there but I see it as "they're rich so they must be doing something wrong". It's a sweeping and irrational generalisation. It's like people who don't trust big pharma simply because it is hugely profitable.

Edit: I don't doubt that a lot are rigging the game. Apple, Google, take your pick. However, why wouldn't they avoid tax if they can find loopholes? Call it immoral or whatever but if you can avoid paying more tax than you have to why not? It's an issue with our government not closing these loopholes.

Regarding the OP, how do we make meaningful differences to the extreme poverty across the world which Oxfam is trying to stop? Seems to me that petty squabbles and tribal warfare as well as greed and corruption destroys any contribution charities can make in the worlds poorest countries. What are your thoughts?

Edited by bethfc: 20/1/2016 11:49:38 AM

I warned you:lol:

Yep - fair point. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is a symbiotic relationship. The rich don't live in a vacuum making money that the rest of society leech from. They make it through the effort of a lot of people. Likewise, worker bees take stability over the huge gains an entrepreneur can make.

I guess this is my hippy point - we are all in this together. I don't really buy the "lifters vs leaners" rhetoric that gets thrown around a lot (not by you, just generally).

Edited by AzzaMarch: 20/1/2016 11:36:07 AM

Our tax rates are relatively low compared to all rich countries though, not just comparing against European countries. And I'd also say that European countries are not all the same (eg not all Scandinavian social democracies).

For example, the "tax as a % of GDP" for various countries is as follows:
UK - 39%
Germany - 40.6%
EU average - 35.7%
OECD (rich country average) - 34.8%
NZ - 34.5%
Canada - 32.2%
Japan - 28.3%
USA - 26.9%
South Korea - 26.8%
Australia 25.8%
China - 22%
India - 17.7%

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

I question your statement that "I guess I have a problem with people on the low end of the scale who whinge and moan about wealthy people for no other reason other than they feel like no one should be allowed to be rich because they're personally not rich".

I don't really find that is very representative of people. I think what people complain about is that they feel that the rich are able to "play the system" and "rig the system" to their advantage, whereas they can't due to their poverty. Whether that is true or not is another issue. But I do think that it is a qualitatively different complaint. Not "hating the rich", as much as "the system isn't fair".

I definitely agree that we shouldn't remove the incentive to profit. However - it is an open question as to what level of taxation removes that incentive.

Marginal tax rates in the 50s & 60s (period of greatest growth post-war) were up to 80-90% at the top level. I'm not advocating a return to that, however I don't think that being taxed at 30% up to $180,000 and 45% per dollar earned above that is anywhere near removing incentive to profit.

Us bees get paid whether the company does well or not. We carry no risk (to the point where the company is insolvent).

I get paid whether I invoice $1000/month or $100,000 it doesn't matter.

The mrs' company just introduced an incentive scheme. She gets paid more the more money she makes the company. I like the idea of these schemes from a retail perspective.

Edited by bethfc: 20/1/2016 11:24:28 AM

Apologies this is what I meant to say.



This is true but comparing European tax rates to ours is hard given our place in the global market and our relative isolation.



Oh I know full well how it works and I accept that it is necessary.

I guess I have a problem with people on the low end of the scale who whinge and moan about wealthy people for no other reason other than they feel like no one should be allowed to be rich because they're personally not rich.



If you take away the incentive of profit, what is the point in taking risk right?



This is why I think (among many many other reasons) why Africa has so much trouble. No infrastructure. We are very fortunate to have networks which enable us to move our stuff around with ease.

I understand where you're coming from. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you sit on your hands, it can come tumbling down in months. Look at what the GFC did to the wealthy.



In many ways I agree with you. However there are a lot of riches to rags stories out there.

C'mon man - that is a silly generalisation. I wouldn't say Venezuala and Cuba have 'spectrum thinking'.

Authoritarianism and dichotomous thinking exists at both ends of the spectrum.

The relevant split is not "left vs right" - it is rational vs irrational.

And irrational thinking can exist on both sides of the political spectrum also.

If you want examples on the left I would point to the growth of 'shutting down' debate through the use of terms like 'microaggression/triggering/cultural appropriation" etc etc.

There is a strain of thinking within some people on the left which will not engage in debate, and appeals to authorities to treat them like victims and shut debate down.

This isn't mainstream left/progressive thinking, but it does exist.

You can make the same arguments against the right.

Dichotomous thinking typifies right wing ideology.
Spectrum thinking typifies left wing.

mate you just like jumping on the bandwagon when someone has a sensible debate with me.
and when i do give you time of day to debate over something you get mad because you want to talk until the cows come home or until i agree with your point of view...:lol:
i noticed you always agree with someone elses point of view that opposes mine without even giving a solid reasoning behind why you agree with their view other than for the fact that they disagree witb me and its by virtue not your own point of view.

Edited by Socawho: 20/1/2016 10:22:55 AM

EDIT: wrong thread

Edited by Murdoch Rags Ltd: 20/1/2016 10:22:47 AM

I don't know how you get high income earners at 35-50% income tax.

If you earn $180,000 a year you are paying 30%. Every dollar above that has a marginal rate of 45%.

What do you classify as high income?

The tax free threshold applies to all income earners, not just the poor. It just represents a greater % of income for the poor.

I also disagree with the idea that "the only people who are capable of providing Australia with the wealth it needs are the wealthy".

Who provides the wealthy with their wealth? The worker bees who work for them.

I am not bagging the rich - just making the point that there are plenty of poorer people who work just as hard, but through circumstances beyond their control haven't made it rich.

I think there is a lot of simplification going on in this discussion - the reality is far more complex.

That is not right - 50% of all Income Tax is paid by the wealthiest 10%. Taxes on consumption (eg GST) disproportionately effect those on the lowest incomes because they have to spend the largest proportion of their income to survive.

I am not anti-GST, just pointing out other considerations.

Australia is a relatively low tax country - our total tax take is only around 24-26% of GDP.

I think there is a lack of understanding on here about how a progressive tax system works, and how heavily (or lightly in Australia's case) we are taxed compared to other rich countries.

And again I would reiterate - rich people who take business risks and generate income deserve to profit from their endeavours.

But they are only able to do what they do because the structure of our society creates the conditions they need to thrive - rule of law, stability, roads etc etc.