Aarglefarg
Member
Is tax money not legitimately attained?
And there are still political consequences for bad public performance.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
And there are still political consequences for bad public performance.
Legitimately in the sense that it's legal, yes, obviously. Legitimately in the sense that they earned it through the same means that everyone but the government must earn it, then no. Everyone else has to offer something to trade by providing value, it's very different if you simply force people to give it to you. In my mind, it gives them the obligation to be responsible with it.
I dont think wasting shareholders investment is morally better than wasting taxpayers money. Money "legitimately earned" by promising to make the best use their money to increase the value of their share and then not doing so is not legitimate.
When companies are of sufficient market power, efficiency matters a lot less in the market. Maintaining market share is nothing compared to developing it. When market consequences do come, they're not usually the result of inefficient individuals within a bureaucracy.
The drive in public organisations to do better comes from legislative risk. Wilfully make your department bad enough to be an election issue and you're asking to have your job questioned as a department head. Obviously the political environment plays a big factor in this, so I'm not saying it naturally occurs regardless of circumstance.
Evidence to back it up?
Agree somewhat on the first point, but it doesn't bridge the divide in my opinion. Tax money is not voluntary, investing in a company is.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
1) The 1800s called, they want their governments' monetary systems back
More seriously, what about money the government receives through market based operations? What about borrowings, or returns on investment? What about overt finance/helicopter/QE/"printed" money? What about private entities receiving government funding/subsidies/tax expenditures?2) This is why there should be resources devoted to not only regularly auditing the public sector, but researching and promulgating efficient measures throughout it. The public sector is different to the private and not only needs different motivators for efficiency, but can require different measures to achieve it. Yes I'm advocating a Commission of Audit, but one that focuses on resource use at a lower (departmental) level, as opposed to the high level total government finance one that we got which in itself was a total waste of resources. Also, inb4 "but who audits the auditors?"
Which opinion? That they "can do what they want with it"? That would constitute fraud in many cases right?
1) The 1800s called, they want their governments' monetary systems back
2) This is why there should be resources devoted to not only regularly auditing the public sector, but researching and promulgating efficient measures throughout it. The public sector is different to the private and not only needs different motivators for efficiency, but can require different measures to achieve it. Yes I'm advocating a Commission of Audit, but one that focuses on resource use at a lower (departmental) level, as opposed to the high level total government finance one that we got which in itself was a total waste of resources. Also, inb4 "but who audits the auditors?"
I'm all too happy to admit that I'm too thick to understand MMT. Everything you've mentioned are things governments actually do, and I probably should address it more than, "but I don't like the fact the government does those things!!" If what you're saying is true, then why on earth does the government, and the rest of humanity still act as if that old school 1800s monetary system is still the way things work? Why do they even bother with taxes then?
I agree with you on point two, for what it's worth.
Sorry, I don't think I quite understood, if someone is acting fraudulently than that's a different matter. I just assumed you meant someone who made a bad investment in a bad company. In that scenario it's still voluntary, if it's obtained under false premises then there are remedies for that, and rightly so.
ConstructMe
Banned
The article i posted for one.
The fraud is of a scale where the remedy will never come into play. It's like how "voting in a new government" is technically the remedy to criminally inefficient public bureaucracy. While technically true, it rarely is implemented as a remedy.
My argument in a nutshell is that inefficiency and lifers are endemic to large bureaucracy. It doesn't matter that it's public or private or how it was funded. The remedy to it is to make smaller organisations.
My argument in a nutshell is that inefficiency and lifers are endemic to large bureaucracy. It doesn't matter that it's public or private or how it was funded. The remedy to it is to make smaller organisations.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I suspect we may agree more than we might suspect (yo dawg I heard you like suspicions...) on how and where the government spends, I just don't think the focus on "taxpayer" funds is useful. If you're talking about lower level expenditure like council rates or some state levies I feel it's more applicable, not just because these entities aren't currency issuers, but because their services (could) operate closer to a user pays system.
I had a better post written out but lost it, but taxes are still important from an MMT (or whatever you want to call it perspective). They ensure that people use the government's currency because they need it to avoid being thrown in jail. Obviously they can influence the society/economy and even if they aren't technically required to "fund" government spending they balance the purchasing power of the private sector in relation to the public to limit inflation. A good example for this is war bonds: obviously no government would countenance losing a war due to a shortage of intrinsically worthless tokens that it can produce at will, but at the same time it cannot effectively mobilise the majority of society's resources if it's pumping money into a bidding war with the private sector, so war bonds and higher taxes are the order of the day (along with rationing).
After WWII when the US abandoned domestic convertibility into gold reserve banker Beardsley Ruml, who invented/popularised PAYG, advocated that since taxes weren't needed to fund the government any-more they should get rid of business taxes, because they were a drain/disincentive on private sector production and investment. Unfortunately economics is a messy discipline and the full implications of non-convertible (as in not pegged to a commodity or forex standard) fiat currency haven't fully percolated through. It's much easier to tell the simple "government = household" story and it doesn't help that such a belief supports certain ideologies. It's worth noting that the more Post-Keynesian monetary ideas (endogenous money, MMT, functional finance etc...) are seemingly much more prominent "behind the scenes" as it were than they are in mainstream economics: the BoE released a primer on endogenous money (which invalidates Say's Law and the money multiplier), Alan Greenspan famously declared that the US government has zero chance of default (he probably should have said unwilling default, because a Tea Party shutdown could force the issue), even the IMF has released papers suggesting governments with their own floating fiat currencies simply deficit spend without issuing debt. However, as I said, it's messy and that can lead to blind spots. During the GFC, Saul Eslake was in a story on the 7:30 report and said that "the one advantage that the US has that no other country does" was that even though it's government debt was large it was all denominated in US dollars which can only come from the US, so it could theoretically print money without the consequences that a different country might face (he didn't specify whether he meant for QE or fiscal policy). Of course, that is an advantage Australia also has, but apparently one of Australia's most prominent economists was unaware of it.
Yeah, the only way to make sure that budget cuts target bureaucratic nonsense is by having outside observers on the ground enforcing that instead of leaving it up to said bureaucrats.
QLD election too close to call: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-27/queensland-election-too-close-to-call/5921042
Anyone think this seems like a preview of the next federal election? Implement a bunch of extremist policies and become really unpopular, but then shut up for the next couple of years and look like having a good shot at stumbling over the line?
Anyone think this seems like a preview of the next federal election? Implement a bunch of extremist policies and become really unpopular, but then shut up for the next couple of years and look like having a good shot at stumbling over the line?
Elaugaufein
Member
Possibly but Queensland has a number of oddities that may make us less reflective than many states. We have no upper house but use standard single candidate preferential voting in the lower house, so when a party sweeps to victory there's pretty much no opposing side of politics to keep attention on things, which is further amplified by the dominance of the Murdoch press (pretty much all our state papers and most of the local ones in the southeast particular in rural and regional areas). The only thing preventing utter media dominance is that the ABC is held in pretty high esteem by traditionally conservative voters (rural, elderly and even rural small business owners).
GP Payment maybe on the block
Was hearing reports they actually axed it, but seems to still be in flux
Was hearing reports they actually axed it, but seems to still be in flux
Nothing mentioned there (at least in the quoted) really rebuts anything she said at all..
ConstructMe
Banned
Is the payment actually a bad idea? Go to an emergency room on a sunday morning and see the amount of people there just because they drank too much and feel a bit sick, i was there with a actual issue (burst appendix) but all these people getting served first with a bit of a upset tummy is maddening and an absolute waste of resources when the solution is sleep it off (or dont drink so much). So maybe a measly $7 payment would make some consider if its really worth running off for any little thing.
Also is this like an additional government fee on top of what the doctor charges already? because normally when i go medicare covers like 90% of it but normally i have to pay 5-6$ or so anyway.
Also is this like an additional government fee on top of what the doctor charges already? because normally when i go medicare covers like 90% of it but normally i have to pay 5-6$ or so anyway.
ConstructMe
Banned
Very very true. Probably why she didnt like it.
Or the other way around, where a $7 payment might make some - especially those living on or near the poverty line - consider whether they need to be able to pay for gas, feed their kids for the week etc or go get medical care for some measly little thing that might not even be a real issue. And then the medical condition gets worse because it wasn't detected early, ultimately costing more to the system (not to mention the person with the condition).
Price signalling cuts both ways. And when it comes to healthcare, where no-one has any real good ideas about whether or not their issues are serious or not, it's kinda hazardous.
People using the ER for redundant crap is a problem, but the co-payment didn't apply to ER..so you'd get more people heading to the ER to treat minor afflictions instead of going to a GP for the price of $7 or whatever the gap may be. The co-payment would make the issue worse, not better. I don't think I have much of a problem with a small co-payment, but excluding ER from it is kind of silly...especially when there are already huge problems in ER.
You raise some good points, I've always been fond of the idea that at the end of the day, the government takes its power from the people so they have a duty to act in their best interests. The line of reasoning that goes along the lines of "we need to take money out of the economy and burn it to limit inflation" is something I never really understood...why do we care? If inflation happens we can keep printing out worthless tokens until inflation hits a certain value and you can just reset the currency (like they did in Turkey or Brazil (I think))..and make 1 million lira = 1 lira. I'm asking this as someone who's never even done anything other than basic economics. It seems like economists put in a lot of effort to control inflation which to me only seems to make sense when you've got a limited supply of money.....which is when people go into panic mode and hoard everything valuable.
Well, personally I think economic thrift is valuable, but it seems like most economic doctrines these days seem to pray to the church of Keynes and the holy writ of spending and low interest rates.
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir? - John Maynard Keynes
Keynesian theory changes depending on the economic cycle. It is not holy writ that he emphasises spending. During Howard's era Keynesians criticised the government for over spending and believe they almost drove us into an inflationary recession. Keynesians believe in government spending in recession to counter the lost productivity in the private sphere and are pro smaller government in boom times so as not to crowd out the private sphere or even worse contribute to a bubble and crash. Cue the Howard criticism above.
You can, it's just that conservative governments always give them to the people that are least likely to actually spend the extra money (ie rich people).
ConstructMe
Banned
Election tommorow and i dont know who the fuck to vote for.
I'm voting Labor.
I don't think there will be enough money left after they build the expensive road to do anything else.
These fuckers have to go.
Given the strange and terrible options that appear on the Legislative Council ballot I would advise against this.
Also DO NOT VOTE ABOVE THE LINE IN THE UPPER HOUSE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL JESUS. The preferences are all fucked up this year and luckily we have optional preferential voting in the Legislative Council, so you don't have to number all boxes. Just number at least 5. It would also be a good idea to put Labor in your preference list somewhere and not the Liberals.
I assume the ballot's going to be as huge as it always is; without something like belowtheline.org.au how on earth do you figure out how to vote below the line?
Just pick the parties you want.
You don't have to number all boxes in a Victorian election.
If you don't know who the party is don't put a number in their box.
bobnowhere
Member
Remember vote early and vote often!
With the below the line preference just put 1 to 5 all in the Greens section.
I don't get how anyone who calls themselves "Labor Left" could preference Labor highly. The only way to put pressure on Labor to go left is put your primary vote towards the green.
Especially since fucking Daniel Andrews said he has no interest in forming a government with the Greens along with preference the libs over greens. What a bunch of hacks.
I don't get how anyone who calls themselves "Labor Left" could preference Labor highly. The only way to put pressure on Labor to go left is put your primary vote towards the green.
Especially since fucking Daniel Andrews said he has no interest in forming a government with the Greens along with preference the libs over greens. What a bunch of hacks.
D.Lo
Member
Um unless there's something weird about the Vic ballot that won't achieve anything different than greens above the line. ..
i'm a Labor party member and this is how I vote. A green vote at state (and lower house federal) is ultimately a Labor vote, but sends a message to Labor to move left.
I actually like the Greens candidates less than Labor in NSW and federally (apart from Sharten who I like less than most Libs), so I truly am voting for policy, not people.
ConstructMe
Banned
Thing is that its not as clear cut as federal where its clear abbott sucks, i think dennis has done a pretty good job compared to say brumby.
Where has Labor preferenced the Liberals over the greens?
That didn't happen in any LC district.
Edit: Just remembered "put the Liberals last" has been a campaign slogan for Labor during this election.
It must be shitty being a moderate left leaning person in NSW considering Labor is too right wing and the Greens are too left wing.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
I think the choice is pretty clear for Victorians: do you want a thuggish Labor-CFMEU government (alleged corruption!) hell-bent on making Victoria a cage-fighting state? Or do you want the lovely new road?
You can laugh but those ads have had far more effect then they should have.
Labor will still probably win tho.
Yeah, latest Morgan 2pp was 50/50.
Newspoll is 52-48 as is the Fairfax poll.
i think its going to be real tight....in the last week and i have seen so much negative commercials by the Libs plus Abbot blackmailing us over the federal contribution to the E-W link
the worst has been Napthine crowing about the $1b kill fee for the tunnel if Labour wins....WTF, you idiots signed the stupid contract 1 month before the election knowing how divisive the project was but people feel now that they have to vote for Libs
the worst has been Napthine crowing about the $1b kill fee for the tunnel if Labour wins....WTF, you idiots signed the stupid contract 1 month before the election knowing how divisive the project was but people feel now that they have to vote for Libs
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked