|
>> Speaking of compliance, I have always wondered whether the loss from self
>> assessment with the GST was compared to the Government doing it for
>> you. Perhaps there was a range of time/money opportunity costs and they didn't
>> want two or more systems. Yes - I supported the 'non-distorting' GST right up until I had to fill out the
BAS. However I don't believe helps the Government's Laffer Curve limit.
If the GST compliance has a negative net utility, this actually just lowers the
maximum possible tax revenue. In fact it may even lower it more because of the
increased 'emotional' cost of compliance, making people more determined not to
pay it. >> Interestingly enough, we are becoming more generous, at least according to one
>> Sydney tabloid. Is it because? >> We are "top blokes" >> the continuing growth rate has made us richer >> we are genuinely compassionate after the Bushfires and drought >> if rising real incomes or wealth has something to do with it, cutting taxes all
>> round may help the poor, notwithstanding other benefits such as job creation
>> (which I prefer to call job liberation) .. I like that term. >> the problem with charities is that there are some idiotic charities, and some
>> get fleeced. I suppose it is up to the charitable party to decide whether the
>> cause is worthwhile or not, after all, you don't get a chance with Government. Yes - if charity were solely private, most people would only give to a few
charities, but they could take the time to be specialists in them, and make
an informed choice. The voter cannot make an informed choice now about
which charities are (and are not) worthwhile - there are too many of them. >> Another point is lefty archetypes call NIT industry welfare. You can tell them
>> that if the MW was removed and we would be paid subsistence wages, then we
>> would all be paid the MW now, and poor workers would still have employers
>> competing for their labour(not to mention it's better than the current
>> apprenticeship/traineeship industry welfare) but they do not listen. Or that
>> given you spend most of your money now (yes, C+I+G, unless we bury money that
>> will inflate and depreciate in value),it too could be considered subsistence,
>> albeit a better and wealth creating version. You lost me a bit there. I think Negative Income Tax (NIT) actually decreases
the supply of labor (in comparison to a zero-welfare state). This is hardly a
subsidy for industry - quite the opposite. A lefty could make the argument that
a poll tax is industry welfare, but they would still be on shaky ground. As for lowering the Minimim Wage (MW), you can make a case for saying that
the people currently on the MW will go down, but
- This is small section of the population, who would also benefit from a NIT.
- The trickle-down over the long term would outweigh the benefits many times over.
You lost me completely on the C+I+G. My Eco-A01 notes must have been eaten
by the rabid feminist.
| 
