 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| Squashing Welfare Fraud | |
Liberal heavyweight Amanda (starve-them-back-to-work) Vanstone has started
momentum on welfare
reform. While the goals are as confused as the approach, some of what she has
been saying makes sense.
- Simplifying the current system, by replacing 15 different payments currently, with one base rate.
- Removal of 'poverty traps' in which people get little (or in some cases
negative) extra income from moving from welfare to useful employment.
- Elimination of payments which discourage people from finding partners.
Unfortunately the proposal also contains the usual government idiocies.
- Paying people rent relief. Apparently the taxpayer will still be obliged
to pay more to someone who chooses to live on Sydney's north shore than someone
who chooses to live in the western suburbs.
- A participation payment for education. Apparently someone who studies
Philosophy or Womens
Studies is meeting their 'mutual obligation' requirements,
and is doing the taxpayer a
favor.
- A participation payment for job seeking. Apparently someone who seeks to
improve their standard of living by earning more money is meeting their 'mutual
obligation' requirements.
Much of the problem with these three is the cost of compliance enforcement.
An army of public
servants will have to be employed to check whether people are actually
paying as much rent as they say, whether people are actually studying, or
whether they are actually seriously looking for a job. There is also a move to get people into low income employment, and let them
continue to collect some welfare. Needless to say, the objection has been raised
that this will create a class of 'working poor', presumably by people who think
that creating 'working poor' is worse than perpetuating 'unworking poor'. However on balance this has to be a step in the right direction. The whole
welfare/incentive issue rests on the principle of Marginal Net Income
(sometimes expressed Effective Marginal Tax Rate). This is the amount of money
that someone gets to keep when they earn an extra dollar. Rich people pay 49.5
cents on the dollar in tax, so their Marginal Net Income is 51.5
percent. People think that Marginal Net Income goes down as people make more
money, because of the 'progressive tax rate'. But people on welfare lose
welfare as they earn more money - they lose unemployment benefits, child
allowances, rent subsidies and a plethora of other payments from the
government. In some cases their Marginal Net Income is as low as 20 percent, creating
a poverty trap, where it is just not worth someone's while to earn more, so
they stay on poverty indefinitely. Far from being 'progressive', the effective tax rates are actually
regressive, particularly when 'sin taxes' (taxes on gambling, alcohol and cigarettes) are taken into
account. At least the government is aware of the
poverty traps, and seems genuine about removing the worst of them, but they are
still determined to continually tinker with the Marginal Net Incomes for each
sector of the population. This is quite a logical thing to do - by creating a plethora of tax
brackets the Liberal
Party can effectively target sections of the population for pork-barreling in the
lead up to the next election. Changing position suddenly is something Amanda (pushing-her-weight-around)
Vanstone will find quite challenging, but she will still have an army of public
servants to help her do it.
|
|
 |
| Standard Issue for RAN? | |
An Age 2002-12-11
article presents accusations of asylum seekers against
Australian authorities
with the confusing headline "Army accused of beating asylum seekers". Most
Australians had thought the Navy was responsible for turning back SIEVs
(suspected illegal entry vehicles) - but after Kim (submarine buyer
extraordinaire) Beasley spent all the Navy's money on useless
submarines, as Defense Minister maybe the Navy was not up to the task, and the
Army had to be called in for the job? Maybe this is why Kim wanted to set up a
coast guard. The Age article is a fun document which quotes people who clearly have a
complex relationship with the truth, for instance:
- Military officers used 'electric sticks' and touched them against their
metal badges to 'show the sparks'. Anyone who thinks this is a credible claim
is invited to use an electric cattle prod (ask any truckie for one) on
a metal badge they are wearing repeatedly to demonstrate [tip - you will be
writhing in pain instantly].
- "Then they beat the sides and ribs of my husband with the electric sticks
until he was unconscious". Isn't the point of 'electric sticks' that you
don't need to beat someone? You can just touch it against them and electrify them
into submission.
These kinds of lies can make people's hair stand on end, but before any
red-blooded Australian bristles too obviously at the stories of a bitter
group of people-smuggler-employers, maybe they should think about the pragmatic
effect of the stories. Australia is being identified in Mosques everywhere as 'one of the
countries aligning against the Islamic world', (yes guys
that's what happens when you murder 80 of Autralians in a Bali nightclub) and these
people are likely to believe the worst things possible about Australians. Why
not exploit their lies? Phil (we've-tried-everything) Ruddock's little movies
about Australia being a land of snakes, crocodiles and angry park-rangers is
laughable in comparison to the documentary-style video that could be made.
The sun rises on a group of thugs in Australian naval uniforms. Suddenly a
shout goes up - they have spotted another SIEV! Led by their commanders (naked dominant women with flesh-colored cattle prods), they board
their gunboat and quickly intercept the floundering vessel. They throw all the
women overboard, abduct the children, and then sink the
boat with the men still on board. Laughing, they go back to their camp where they get drunk and store the
children in a barbed-wire cage until they are ready to boil them alive in
pork-fat in a huge bonfire. Arguing over who gets to eat the best bits, one
yawns lazily and fires off a few rounds at a tribe of frightened Aborigines cowering nearby.
This little gem would be distributed in Mosques all around the world, as
the corrupt leaders of
the Religion of Peace saw the opportunity to increase their power over their followers by
vilifying the West. And their followers would be just a little more reluctant
about employing 'unofficial' travel agents to come here. Now that little video has to be worth an Arts grant!
|
|
 |
| Party party! | |
'Tis the silly season in Australia, and detained asylum seekers,
determined not to miss out on the festivities, have been throwing parties
again. And what more appropriate place than Christmas Island? Many of the center's
guests, after being told that their appeals for refugee status had been
denied, decided to demonstrate to the people of their host nation just how well
integrated they could become, and join in the spirit of Christmas. There seemed to be some cultural confusion though, as the the recent party
featured a big bonfire in some of center's buildings, which were totally gutted,
and will require rebuilding. They must be confused with the bonfire night on the
Queen's Birthday. There was no mass break-out this time, because Christmas Island (being a small
island) offers limited options for unauthorized arrivals - being some 1000
miles from the Australian mainland, and having a population of just several
thousand people. Other options are narrowing too, with the immigration excision policy meaning that
the detainees have no ability to appeal through the normal court system. Jumping to their defense however was maveric ALP member Dr Carmen
(being-on-the-backbenches-means-always-being-able-to-say-you-are-sorry)
Lawrence, who blamed the government for the detainee's party getting a bit out
of hand. She was quoted on your ABC as saying "If you hold people for very long
periods of time and you smash their hope then while I don't justify it, it's
expected that it would break out in this form." Apparently she feels if people ask you for something persistently enough, then
it's your fault if they don't get it. Presumably though, Carmen's parliamentary
pension is excised from that principle. Calling them detainees is a bit of misnomer of course - they can leave
whenever they choose (they just can't go to Australia). Considering
their new enthusiasm for Western culture, and the time of year,
maybe they'll adopt that prophetic Western saying - "home by Christmas!"
|
|
 |
| Political Pendulum | |
Every disaster creates opportunities to the seasoned capitalist, especially when
the capitalists are politicians and the currency is votes. Bob
(election-coming-soon) Carr has managed a bizarre twist of logic in which he
takes both the hard-line and squishy approach to bushfire relief. Many people have lost their houses as the result of the recent bushfires
around Sydney, and the usual factors - drought, heat, wind, arson,
building their houses right on the edge of the bush, and greenie back-burning
phobia - have contributed. Building your house right on the edge of the bush is a stupid thing to do,
and even more stupid with the greenies stopping the back-burning. Stupidity, of
course, is anyone's right, however it is not society's obligation to subsidize it. On the one hand Bob (-each-way) Carr is saying Residents in bushfire-prone areas should take out
comprehensive insurance, because the government is not the insurer of last
resort. But then he weakens this position with families that have lost a house in the latest fires will be
given $10,000 from the bushfire relief fund set up during the fire crisis last
Christmas. So people are responsible for taking out most of their insurance, but
the taxpayer is obliged to cough up $10,000? If the government is providing $10,000 home insurance, then why just in
bush-fires? Are people who have lost their homes through other means (electrical
fault, windstorm, flooding or other accident) somehow less deserving than those
who have chosen to build on the edge of volatile bushland? While every family who has lost their home in this tragedy is hurting
badly, this does not make it the taxpayer's responsibility. They
are no more deserving than many, but the fires make it into the paper, and Bob
(opportunity knocks) Carr sees a pork barrel just begging to be filled with the
ever-increasing available taxation revenue. Not only is the imposition on the taxpayer unfair, the government
is insuring that people will under-insure themselves for $10,000, and hence
is creating more 'victims' to be dealt with in the next disaster. Doubtless Bob is aware of the moral hazard - and knows that subsidizing
victimhood creates more victims. But he also knows it
makes for true believers - who are going to the polls very soon.
|
|
 |
| Swan Song | |
It's not over 'til the fat lady sings, but Dr Carmen (feminist academic) Lawrence was
singing today after quitting
the front-bench of the ALP over
mandatory
detention, Christmas Island excision, unclear policy over Iraq, and funding to rich
schools. Things clearly came to a head when opponents to the ALP's 'clarified' asylum seeker policies
were unable to overturn the 90-day mandatory detention policy. She described Simon (keep-em-out) Crean as 'an only average leader who may not be
around at the next election'. Simon hit back describing her as 'lacking
discipline'. Things are looking a bit bleak for Simon. Having turned his back on his
redneck union voters with the 50/50 rule, the intellectual-elite feminist
academics are now turning their backs on him. Who's going to be Left? Of course her pang of conscience wasn't actually strong enough to resign
from the party altogether - she will pad-out the back-benches so the taxpayer can pad-out her
parliamentary pension a bit more. And Carmen has had experience on the back-benches before, having served
considerable time there after her experiences with the legal fraternity on
changes of perjury. Her defense came down to repeated hand wringing and saying
'I can't remember'. She even claimed that she was writing a paper on the
peculiarities of memory loss - a paper this writer can't remember ever having seen
published. But it was a good strategy - it worked, and she was acquitted. After all,
how could anyone convict someone for lying who just says 'I don't know
anything, I don't know anything'. And what's she going to do with all the extra time she will now have?
Maybe now she'll find time to publish the paper on memory loss.
|
|
 |
| Government Policy | |
ABC-2002-12-05
reveals the latest piece of interventionist idiocy 'under consideration' from
the government is to
assist drought-stricken farmers by throwing a current unused resource at them -
people working for the dole. The plan is to move these people away from
sweeping roads or whatever they currently do, into something useful - building
infrastructure for the governments latest pet corporate welfare recipients -
farmers. Unfortunately for them, the Australian Workers Union AWU has kicked up,
pointing out that if farmers can get the workers for nothing, then current employees will lose their
jobs. A rare example of insight from a union! The whole issue points out the idiocy of a work for the dole scheme. The
'dolees' can either
- Do something useful; or
- Do something useless
If they are doing something useful (ie something which would be worth
paying money for), then someone is already being paid to do it, so you are just
creating more unemployment (less people
paying tax, and more people getting welfare). On the other hand if they are doing something useless, then what's the point? The logical conclusion of work-for-the-dole is to sack everyone, and put
everyone onto work for the dole schemes - ie run a command economy. For a
government ostensibly opposed such a system they are flirting with the
prospect to a disturbing extent. It's the old story - the government has to appear to be doing something,
and doing something which makes the situation worse is better than doing
nothing at all.
|
|
 |
| Preemptive Tantrum | |
Malaysian Prime Minister Mohammad (I-hate-westerners) Mahathir was a
bit slow off the mark reacting to John (to-hell-with-tact) Howard's 'preemptive
defense' statement, but he's making up for his slow reflexes in both volume and
shrillness. According to your (fanning-the-flames) ABC, he's now said that Howard's
comments put the 'cooperation on terrorism' between the two countries 'at
risk'. Of course Malaysia is at far greater risk of terrorism than Australia (just count the
Muslim fundamentalists here and there). Refusing Australian help in fighting
terrorism will hurt Malaysia far more than Australia. This goes for Thailand,
The Philippines and Indonesia too (without Australian mobile-phone tracking
equipment, most of the Bali bombers would not have been caught). Manila has
said they are 'considering a rethink' of signing an anti terrorism agreement
with Australia. This was actually a meaningless agreement - about on par with
John Smith and Adam Jones signing a declaration that they don't like crime -
why bother? These countries are actually facing the same dilemma as Australia - whether
to appease their Islamic
fundamentalists or to stand up to them. The difference is that Islamic
fundamentalists comprise a much larger percentage of their populations, and
hence a greater threat. And while these countries have been squealing to their
pet-media (and the lap-dog leftist Australian media has dutifully howled
along), none of them have actually called in their Australian diplomats for a
'please explain'. Not surprisingly - Howard's comments were well thought out
and quite clear to anyone who listened: 'preemptive self defense is
justified when there is no other way'. Like most of Mahathir's tantrums, this one will go away. And sooner or later
Mahathir will as well.
|
|
 |
| Can you resist? | |
In case anyone noticed, today was 'buy nothing' day. Leftists urged people
to buy nothing for the entire day, but Christmas consumerism seemed to be in
full swing. Buy nothing day? Does that mean that it's OK to sell but not to
buy? No? So presumably all of the supporters of that day prevented
their employers from buying their labor? OK, so it was an ordinary old
strike (an earn nothing day), where people don't
work, and don't get paid (sounds straight forward), but as a result the
spending they would have done with the money they would have have earned had they
worked, doesn't get spent (because they don't have it). So why is a buy nothing day any different from a earn
nothing or a sell nothing day? Perhaps they think that by
selling something that day (their labor), but not buying anything, they will
be able to become wealthy, and join the filthy rich capitalists they despise so
much? Confused? It's actually quite simple. If no-one can buy anything, then
no-one can sell anything (for every buyer there is a seller). Further
if someone sells product A and uses the money to buy product B, they are
effectively trading A for B with the market, so presumably these leftists are
opposed to trade. So if one person grows wheat and another keeps cows they can't trade
milk for bread? Everyone has to be totally self sufficient? A subsidence
existence which predates even the stone-age? Sounds like a good system for distributing poverty. And of course as
history shows, under Leftists systems there's enough poverty for everybody.
|
|
 |
| You still here? | |
Simon (compassion-incarnate) Crean was quick to point out that John (preemptive
defense) Howard timed his remarks to overshadow the overwhelming ALP win in
Victoria. But Simon is pretty quick to criticize others for doing the same
thing he is. The ALP chose to leak some of their asylum seeker policy when
they knew it would be squeezed onto page 10. Their new policy? The details
have yet to be given, but 'no detainee shall be in detention for longer that
three months'. It's hard enough to check out a story from someone claiming to be persecuted by
a belligerent country, but preventing people from entering mainstream Australia
is one way to encourage them to tell the truth. But under an ALP government?
Presumably any asylum seeker who does a Baktiari (ie keeps 'refining' his story),
cannot have his application processed within three months, and will just be let
them out into the community. Who would bother telling the truth with this system? This is clearly the only compromise that the ALP could agree on. The ALP are
totally split on the asylum-seeker issue and can't find a solution which will
satisfy both their redneck unionists and the feminist academics. The prickly
truce between these parties which carried the ALP to victory through the 1980s
and early 1990s is over. The feminists are voting Green, and the rednecks are
voting Liberal. They could paper over the cracks for a while, but now the
gloves are off, and the ugly schism is there for all to see. As are the
ridiculous wishy-washy, half baked and unworkable policies it is producing. Simon doesn't want this policy examined in detail, so he is leaking the worst
bits at times when people are distracted by other matters. He is walking a thin
line, and risks getting thrown overboard in protest. And who could he blame for
that?
|
|
 |
| Friend or Foe? | |
The Left has had a
field day protesting at Johnny (did-I-say-that) Howard's statement that it was
acceptable for Australia to undertake preemptive military strikes in other
countries if there was a direct and specific threat to Australia, and if there
was 'no other way'. Indonesian officials
have said that military action in another country is 'unacceptable' - but
presumably regard Indonesia's invasion of East Timor was an exception
to the rule. The terrorist-friendly
south-east Asian countries - The Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand, have
jumped onto the bandwagon too, squealing about Australian aggression. Even the ALP has tried to
lay in the boot, though Simon (how-can-I-look-important) Crean did say the
whole thing was a put-up to draw attention away from Liberal's crushing defeat
in the Victorian election. Yes Simon - you've been out-maneuvered again. But this raises fundamental questions about defense. Apparently the Left
think that preemptive defense is always unjustified - that if
Australia could only take action after she were
attacked. Recall that Johnny (I-chose-my-words-carefully) Howard said it would
apply if there was no other way. Would they take the same position if an Australian criminal was threatening them
or their families? Isn't it interesting that the Left consider that preemptive
defense is unacceptable against corrupt Asian nations, but that it is perfectly
reasonable against law-abiding Australian citizens who want to own guns. The
double standard is alive and well in the Left. In fairness though, hypocrisy is also alive and well in the right - who are
outraged at the prospect of their government taking away
their hand-guns, but yet are all out for attacking Iraq - just in case Saddam has a
cache of WMDs in his presidential palace. At least Johnny (wanting-to-control) Howard's position is consistent - he
believes he is the responsible one, and he will decide who can have weapons,
and he will take action - at least in his role as as the US's deputy sheriff.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
