Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 20

Letting The Market Work With Immigration

By
David Leyonhjelm
-
2

The Immigration Debate in Australia: Assessing Infrastructure and Policy for Sustainable Growth

Every few years, Australia has a major debate about immigration. Sometimes due to people arriving by boats and claiming refugee status, at other times by a public figure saying something about a ‘Big Australia’, it is a subject on which most people have an opinion.

The current debate is a bit different. The Covid border closures and lockdowns meant immigration ceased. With no immigrants, backpackers, foreign students or Pacific farm workers, some industries ground to a halt.

The debate now is not so much about whether immigration is needed, but whether our infrastructure can cope with the numbers.

Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices.

That debate is not helped by the fact that Australia does not have a coherent immigration policy. In the post-Covid environment, the Government is simply making short-term decisions to address immediate needs based on industry pressure. It is also deliberately boosting immigration to avoid a decline in GDP for two consecutive quarters. 

From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role. While free trade in goods and services are no-brainers, the free movement of labour is not sustainable in a welfare state. The question is, how could a market operate? 

The current approach involves the government not only deciding how many people the country should admit, but what kinds of people. This equates to central planning, with bureaucrats purporting to know what the economy requires. Needless to say, this is not remotely comparable to the employment decisions of hundreds of thousands of businesses and individuals. 

A better approach would before the government to set broad parameters, while the market does the rest. This could be achieved by charging a significant fee for residence visas (there is a fee already but it’s just $4640) and then getting out of the way.

This idea originated from the Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker, who recommended it as a solution to the problem of illegal immigration in America and the UK.  What he proposed is for the government to set a price (or prices) according to how many people it wished to admit, then allow everyone who can pay that price to come in apart from obvious exceptions like terrorists. That is, the government would not be picking and choosing who to admit.

Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker
Nobel Prize laureate Professor Gary Becker

He also suggests the program would reduce opposition to immigration by eliminating the sense that immigrants were getting ‘a free ride’. Fees would contribute to the cost of maintaining and renewing infrastructure that others had paid for.

Becker argues that as well as being a revenue raiser for governments, the policy would ensure that only the most productive and skilled immigrants would be attracted. Having paid the fee, the immigrants would be committed to their adopted country and keen to make a go of it.

Industries or employers short of workers could cover or subsidise the entry fees of those they wish to employ, while regions keen to boost their populations could do the same.

Fees could be reduced or waived for a number of bona fide refugees fleeing persecution, while those who support the entry of more refugees could raise funds to pay their entry fees.

Because governments are no better at setting prices than choosing immigrants, it could also use an auction system to set visa prices. This would allow the market to operate via the price mechanism.

From a libertarian perspective, immigration is one of the few issues in which governments have a role.

Importantly, payment of the fee should only allow for permanent residence. Access to welfare (unemployment, etc)should be reserved for citizens, with citizenship restricted to those who had established themselves over a number of years, share our values of freedom and democracy, and have demonstrated their desire to build a long-term future in Australia.

Those unable to find work may have their visa cancelled and be subject to deportation, although short term benefits might be justified on the grounds that it was covered by the fee they paid.

This system would ensure intending permanent immigrants were well aware of the need to gain employment.The most qualified and employable person in a family would be first to pay the fee and take up residence, working to save the funds for other family members. Over time, families would be reunited in Australia as they are now, except that each member would have made a valuable contribution to the economy.

Join Mailing List

Temporary immigrants (tourists, backpackers, seasonal workers, students, etc) would not be required to pay the fee unless they sought permanent residence (as many foreign students do.) This approach would apply market forces to the selection of immigrants. With markets infinitely better than governments at allocating resources, the outcome for Australia could only be positive.

Other People’s Money

By
Dimitri Burshtein
-
1

Philosophy #1: Living On Other People’s Money Is Unwise

When reading the news and opinion, I am frequently mindful of the idea of other people’s money and the perceptive words of French economist Frederic Bastiat, who wrote that “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.”

I thought of Bastiat when reading a recent opinion column by Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.  There really needs to be a better lexigraphy to reflect the differences between the economic writings of Bastiat and Gittins.  After all, we don’t call plumbers aquatic surgeons.

Philosophy #2: Exploiting Other People’s Money Is Good

In Gittins’ latest, he again advocates for higher taxes, because “… paying tax is good and, for better government, we should pay more”.  Evidence be damned, that ever more expensive government has delivered ever worse outcomes – from education, to health, to defence.  But for some, it is axiomatic that we must tax other people’s money more. 

Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax.  But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.

As long as it is other people’s taxes. The funny thing is that those who advocate higher taxes never seem to volunteer to pay higher taxes themselves.  No doubt, the ATO would accept voluntary contributions, but that is not the game.  Higher tax advocates don’t want to pay higher taxes themselves.  They just want other people’s money so that they can “live at the expense of everyone else” as Bastiat predicted.

Call To Authority

Gittins starts his case with a call to authority saying that “former top econocrat did something no serving econocrat is allowed to do, and no politician is game to do: he set out the case for us to pay higher, not lower, taxes.”  That former econocrat is Michael Keating (unrelated to Paul Keating) and he delivered his remarks at the Australia Institute’s revenue summit at Parliament House in Canberra.  That’s the Australia Institute that has never found a tax or regulation they did not like.

Keating and Gittins are reflecting what is known as bureaucrat logic: that increasing input delivers better outcomes.

Frederic Bastiat. Frugal with other people's money
Classical liberal economist, Frederic Bastiat. He cautioned frugality with other people’s money.

Permit some definitions:

  • Inputs are resources going in – such as dollars.
  • Outputs are things that are produced with the inputs – such as patients treated or students graduated.
  • Outcomes are the results – such as healthy citizens and kids who can read.

But for some, it is axiomatic that taxes must be increased. 

No Linear Relationship Between Inputs and Outcomes

Bureaucrats, econocrats and many politicians seem to believe that, despite evidence upon evidence to the contrary, there is a linear relationship between inputs and outcomes.  Increase education spending and you get more literate kids.  Huge increases in Gonski funding delivering worse education outcomes is just a bump in the road.  Even more is required.

Messrs Gittins and Keating: you are welcome to voluntarily pay higher tax.  But until you do, please don’t demand that others are forcibly required to do so.

Join Mailing List

As American writer Harlan Ellison said: “The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.”  There seems to be a high concentration of both in Canberra.

What Housing Crisis?

By
Duncan Spender
-
3

There is no housing crisis.

Most of the recent increases in rents simply reflect that the prices of all things are going up. General prices have gone up by 5.4 per cent over the past year and rents have gone up by 7.6 per cent.  If monetary policy had been implemented properly, general prices would have risen by around 2.5 per cent and rents would have risen by around 4.6 per cent.

Over the past decade the average annual rise in rents has been a measly 1.5 per cent.

Housing in Australia is becoming less crowded, not more.  Over recent years the average number of people per residence has fallen slightly, and there has been little change in the average number of square metres per residence.

It may well be that we are in a homelessness crisis, given reports of increased demand for homelessness services throughout 2023.  But this does not mean there is a housing crisis more broadly, or that we should be attempting to lower rents for everyone.  Homelessness warrants policy tailored to those at risk.

Government should do nothing about housing.  

Stamp duties, land taxes and local government rates should be abolished.
Current negative gearing rules and CGT exemptions should remain.

Doing nothing means not adopting a pro-development policy stance.

Government’s slow release of residential land, and its restraint on urban infill, may be optimal.

Land holders do not currently own the right to build as high as they wish, or to build residential properties on land not zoned as residential.  Effectively, these rights are owned by the general citizenry. It could be that the general citizenry wants agricultural land on the outskirts of cities to remain agricultural, and low-rise suburbs to remain low-rise.  We could find out if development restrictions reflect the wishes of the general citizenry by introducing trading into our planning systems.

It is reasonable for local government to charge developers the full cost of infrastructure for a new suburb.  After all, the alternative is for local government to go into debt and recoup these costs through taxation of future residents.

Federation House

Governments should not provide public housing, as government has no inherent advantages in constructing housing or being a landlord.

Government should not subsidise housing, either through public housing or subsidies to private operators providing ‘affordable’ housing.  Such subsidy arrangements inevitably deliver different degrees of assistance to people who are equally deserving, depending on the vagaries of waiting lists and where the public or affordable housing is offered.

Government welfare should not be delivered as rent assistance. Under current arrangements, if an individual moves from one rental property to a cheaper rental property, or to a property where no rent is charged, the individual receives less from government. Government should not discourage such economising.

When determining its policy on migration, government should not account for the impact of migrants on rents and house prices.  These are impacts on private, voluntary transactions.  We should remember that, when a migrant bids up a rent or a house price, more often than not this involves a benefit to an Australian landlord or home-owner.  What migration policy should take into account is its impacts in the public realm, like the congestion on public assets like roads.

Housing in Australia is becoming less crowded, not more.

Finally, tax policy should be blind as to whether an asset is a housing asset or not.

Stamp duties on housing should be abolished, as should all stamp duties, because any taxation of transactions discourages the mutual benefits of voluntary trade.

Land taxes and local government rates should be abolished. Such taxes discourage improvements to the land itself, such as efforts to improve soil quality. These taxes also discourage housing improvements, as they inevitably stray into taxing what lies on the land.  And like all wealth and income taxes, these taxes discourage working and saving more than broad-based consumption taxation.

Deductions should continue to be available when losses are made, whether these losses are from investing in rental property or from other investments. In other words, current negative gearing rules should be maintained.

Capital gains tax is a bad tax, so anything that reduces its application, including the capital gains tax exemption for owner-occupied housing and the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount for individuals, should remain.

Join Mailing List

The rise and fall of prices goes hand in hand with the allocation of scarce resources to those most willing to pay for them.  This phenomenon is something to be appreciated rather than lamented.  

In essence, the rents we see are the right rents. If governments were to adopt a ‘do nothing’ attitude to housing, we would be better off.

Citizen Journalist Videos Police Collusion With A Violent Mob

By
Simon Anderson
-
1

I was flattered to receive an invitation from Liberty Itch to join the team of writers.

They asked that my début article be something of an introduction: explaining how I came to notoriety, so here it is.

On 25th March I filmed trans activists rioting in Auckland’s Albert Park, preventing British women’s rights campaigner Posie Parker from speaking. I used a 360° camera attached to a three-metre-long selfie-stick so the footage is overhead, from the middle of the crowd. These cameras film in all directions concurrently and from it, flat clips can be exported.

That evening on the nightly news and over the next two days the ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful. They used sound bites such as “peaceful protest,” “pure trans joy” and “an outpouring of aroha [love.]”

I knew the footage I had directly contradicted this false narrative so I started publishing it.

The following day my life changed.

Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”

I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it!

I used Twitter to post infrequently about my interests, stuff people weren’t particularly interested in. But oh boy, were they interested in this. On the morning of the 28th I woke to twenty notifications per second, requests from major news organisations for syndication (accepted) and for interview (declined.)  By the end of the week millions of people around the world had viewed the material.

Then I started receiving requests. Primarily from assault victims, some of whom remain traumatised. With a 360° camera I’m seldom looking in the direction of pertinent material. People came to me with requests for flat exports at a certain time in a certain direction so the footage could be evidential in police complaints and subsequently prosecutions. 

Of course, I agreed. And kept publishing, clip after clip, each more damning of the official narrative than the last. This didn’t endear me much to the authorities or the rainbow community, nor their left-wing supporters and the domestic mainstream media. In a small country I’m no longer a private citizen.

People came to trust in my integrity. And I’ve become something of a clearing house for information: witness statements, responses to Official Information Act requests, footage from other photographers wishing to remain anonymous and so on. Publishing this material helps to keep the pressure on the authorities (who very much want all of this to go away) to do the right thing.

Which brings me to the New Zealand Police.

On the day of the riot the police withdrew to the outskirts of Albert Park, allowing the rainbow community to get stuck into the women who were there to speak or listen. In a frenzy the rioters broke through metal barriers to get to them. Whilst this was occurring the police were in constant contact with the rainbow organisers. Numerous women fleeing the attack were told by multiple officers words to the effect of “we are not here to protect you.”

I know these things to be true because the footage I have depicts it, and I’m in possession of the OIA responses and independent witness accounts that corroborate it.

This was -at best- a significant operational failure on the part of the police. Some might go so far as to say collusion with a violent mob. It is contentious enough for the Independent Police Conduct Authority to launch an investigation. At the insistence of several victims the IPCA interviewed me two weeks ago, which of course I published, and you can listen to the testimony at my YouTube channel.

To coincide with a court hearing concerning one of her alleged assailants, Posie Parker was due to attend another speaking event in Auckland on 20th September. She cancelled because the New Zealand authorities refused to guarantee her safety. It offends me greatly that anyone is prevented from speaking in public and I am ashamed that my country is not a safe place for her to visit. The event went ahead in her absence.

Which brings me to the power of photography.

The ruling Labour/Greens regime and their media allies began to concoct a narrative that the protest had been peaceful.

The police and the rainbow community are deeply cognizant of the damage the Albert Park footage has done respectively to their reputation and their cause. To discourage violence, hold police accountable and above all keep women safe I formed a team of volunteers to film the event. We achieved these objectives.

Join Mailing List

Other photographers regularly hit me up to back them up in tricky situations, typically demonstrations. Pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, anti-co-governance, whatever. I do so because I want to prevent harm coming to anyone and for the truth to be told.

Now I’m notorious, these are increasingly dangerous situations. Demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, media, police. People I’ve never met address me by name.

Some are not fans.

The Death of Li Keqiang

By
Warren Wang
-
1

Li Keqiang, China’s former Prime Minister, passed away on 27th October 2023, at the age of 68. His death has plunged many in China and around the world into mourning, particularly those who supported his vision of greater economic freedom rather than increased state control in China, and towards more political diversity instead of ever-increasing centralised power.

Li Keqiang was widely regarded as a successor to Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening-up policy, favouring reform-oriented policies and continued economic liberalisation within the framework of the Chinese socialist market economy. Throughout his tenure he was a steadfast advocate for economic liberalisation, transparency, and international cooperation. His economic philosophy, often summarised as “Likonomics,” was characterised by avoiding large-scale government stimulus measures, focusing on reducing debt levels within the economy, especially in the shadow banking system and amongst local governments, and pushing for structural reforms to let market forces play a decisive role in the economy.

For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability.

Despite his concerted efforts, Li Keqiang faced an ongoing struggle with the more dominant state-centric approach favoured by Supreme Leader Xi Jinping. Li’s push for economic reforms often met with a level of centralised power not seen since the death of Chairman Mao. Xi aggressively consolidated power, even amending the Constitution of China to grant himself the potential for a lifelong presidency. Although Li sometimes seemed sidelined, his commitment to his reformist principles never wavered as he continued to advocate for economic modernisation and the growth of private enterprise within the confines of the prevailing political climate.

The passing of Li Keqiang carries weight that goes beyond the loss of a political figure; it symbolises the dimming of a progressive era in China’s storied journey toward modernisation. As a top-tier leader with a solid background in economics, he championed a new direction in Chinese policy – a route lined with broader economic and political freedoms. For the many Chinese who share his dream, his death sharply underscores the complex and often difficult political realities that shape the nation’s progression towards liberalisation.

During Li Keqiang’s time as Prime Minister, clashes between two opposing ideologies were occasionally evident – Xi Jinping’s assertive centralisation of power on one side and Li’s advocacy for economic decentralisation on the other. The 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, held in October 2022, signalled a decisive shift, affirming the dominance of Xi’s vision. It was a defining moment that resulted in the thorough marginalisation of Li and his fellow reform-minded colleagues, signalling the end of the reformist era they had supported.

Li Keqiang’s legacy will be recorded in the annals of China’s contemporary history as a testament to ‘what might have been’ in an era of tightened control. His consistent efforts to liberalise the economy—where private enterprise could operate with greater autonomy and where market forces were allowed a more decisive role — resonated with many who envisioned a China more integrated with the global economic system. As China’s second-in-command, Li’s voice for moderate reform provided a counterpoint to the prevailing trend of centralisation, offering a ray of hope for a middle path that might lead China towards a more open society and a more resilient economy.

Join Mailing List

For many advocates of change, Li Keqiang’s death highlights the significant obstacles on the road to transforming China into a society in step with the wider world’s aspirations for open economic engagement and improved political stability. The sorrow that has accompanied his passing goes beyond a simple tribute to a leader’s memory. It reflects a profound collective longing to preserve his vision for China – a vision of a balanced economy that supports both individual and economic freedoms in society. In the wake of his passing, his parting words resonate with particular poignancy: “While people work, heaven watches. Heaven has eyes.” These words, ultimately omitted from the official record, now take on a profound significance as the nation reflects on the end of his tenure and his life.

As the nation arrives at a pivotal juncture in its history, this period of mourning also presents a vital opportunity for reflection on how China will navigate the intricate balance between preserving internal stability, managing relations with Taiwan and the Western world, and confronting the myriad challenges posed by regional conflicts and global economic instability.

Smaller Government: Georgia Shows It’s Achievable

By
Damon Hayhow
-
1

To any true libertarian, Government regulation in Australia feels increasingly suffocating. This feeling is backed by statistics. According to the Parliamentary Education office the Australian Government added an average of 109 new laws every year from 1901 to 2013. Since 2013, that increased to 139 new laws per year.

Typically, when the Government is criticised for its interference in our private lives and businesses, it justifies this by drawing a comparison with European countries. Sure, Australia has unsustainable state and federal deficits, business closures exceed new businesses, there is increasing crime and homelessness, a housing affordability and supply crisis, plus a plethora of worsening social and economic statistics. But some of our taxes are lower than Germany, we are not as broke as Greece, and citizens are freer than in North Korea. Therefore, apparently, everything is fantastic.

The Government has a point, though. Looking at the nations of the G20, most are facing far bigger problems than Australia, and none are moving in a libertarian direction. All are increasing taxation, expanding the size and scope of the public sector, and raising the difficulty of operating a private business. There are almost no recent examples of a country achieving superior outcomes by moving in the opposite direction; except, perhaps, for the small nation of Georgia.

… first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy.

Georgia was the birthplace of Joseph Stalin and formerly part of the Soviet Union. A decade after the Soviet Union’s collapse, it was a basket case. The government was insolvent; the country was rife with corruption, crime and poverty; the police force was essentially a mafioso street gang; infrastructure was crumbling; utilities such as power and water only functioned occasionally.

In 2003 there was a revolution and Mikhail Saakashvili was elected to the presidency. The usual gaggle of globalist socialist technocrats showered Saakashvili with the usual ruinous recommendations straight from the book ‘Confessions of an Economic Hitman’: take out impossibly huge IMF loans, increase taxation and impose ruthless austerity.

Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.

Mikheil Saakashvili. Third President of Georgia. 2008-2013.

As a result, rather than deepening the country’s bankruptcy – as predicted by the IMF – tax revenue doubled in just the first year. Over Saakashvili’s two terms, the economy went on to quadruple in size while tax revenue increased 1200% and poverty decreased by 75%.

Saakashvili appointed a committed, renowned libertarian, Kakha Bendukidze, as the Minister of Economy and Reform Coordination. Bendukidze was no academic bureaucrat; he was a self-made multi-centi-millionaire. He had a degree in biology and made his fortune creating a chemical manufacturing empire in Russia.

Bendukidze’s first task was to cull the regulation that was facilitating the widespread corruption and strangling the Georgian economy. The head of every government agency was forced to justify their existence to him, like contestants on the TV show, Shark Tank. Bendukidze had authority to eliminate any agency on the spot.

Among the first of the Agencies to be eliminated was the police force. The force was determined to be so corrupt, and so distrusted by the populace, that the only solution was to fire everyone. So that is what they did. Somehow they managed to quickly form a new police force. The whole exercise earned the trust and respect of citizens, so the streets became safe. Within just three years Georgia was ranked among the top countries in the world for personal safety.

Shockingly, Saakashvili declined the loans and socialistc advice; incurring ridicule and disapproval from the EU, US and IMF. Instead, he immediately cut taxes by 70%.

In his first two months, Bendukidze slashed approximately 70% of regulations and the majority of government agencies. He and Saakashvili also instituted a policy that no new regulation could be added unless two existing regulations were repealed. In total they achieved a 90% reduction in regulations, resulting in Georgia being recognised as the top reforming country in the world by the World Bank, and leaping from 137th to 8th in the Ease of Doing Business rankings. It also went from ranking among the most corrupt countries in Europe, to 3rd least corrupt.

Join Mailing List

They not only cut tax rates; they cut the tax code down to just six taxes, and amended the constitution so that the only way to increase taxation was via a referendum. This gave confidence to the international investment community that Georgia’s reforms were stable and reliable, resulting in a quadrupling of the rate of international investment.

Georgia represents a compelling case study in contemporary politics and economics. It was brought to ruin by Marxism, then revived by the unapologetic application of libertarian principles and free market capitalism.

Closing The Gap One Child At A Time

By
Gary Johns
-
2

So Stan Grant wants to prance around like a prize git and pretend he is an oppressed man. Give me a break. Grant is healthy, wealthy, and (un)wise. I suggest he get over himself and let the wise think about the plight of the unhealthy and poor.

This is some of the bile he poured out at a recent ANU ‘oration’. ‘Not the big truths: how land is stolen without repatriation (I assume he meant reparation); how countries are invaded with no accountability; how people are killed without conscience; how the poor stay poor; how money buys speech…these truths that democracies hide so well.’

Let’s workshop this, Stan. Land stolen without reparation? Those who might conceivably require reparation are dead, Stan. The descendants are no more deserving than you or me. As for invasion, I presume you are aware that Aboriginal clans regularly invaded others’ territory. Were they held accountable, or indeed, did they pay reparation?

Killing without conscience, do you have any proof that either side did so? But be aware that murder was a capital offence under white man’s law from the earliest days of settlement and was enforced. The courts were, however, reluctant to intervene in inter-tribal disputes. As for staying poor, you seem to have worked out how to avoid that, Stan. Maybe you should pass on your secret to poor Aborigines; that would involve escaping a non-adaptive culture, but I guess if you admitted that, your whole Aboriginal identity thing would fall down around your ears. As for money buying speech, that is rich! Your top-end-of-town mates spent more than $50 million on the Yes case in the referendum. On the No side, we scraped around for pennies.

Close the Gap Research will concentrate on needy Aborigines. We will also call out the privileges and ideologies of upper and middle-class Aboriginal identifiers – like Professor Grant.

To cap it off, your distaste for democracy puts you in elite company. Translated, your disdain reads, ‘We of the elite were defeated by ordinary Australians, including many Aborigines, who could smell a grab for power a mile off. We were foiled when we tried to defile the Australian constitution and undermine universal citizenship in favour of group rights. Now I want to get back at you, you common bastards.’

Grant will get back at us in his new job. He was recently appointed a professor and inaugural Director of the Constructive Institute Asia Pacific at Monash University. If you have never heard of ‘constructive’ journalism, think of a ‘public interest’ NGO, ‘activist’ journalist, or ‘ABC’ journalist.

The constructive journalist is no mere cipher. Instead, they will facilitate ‘conversation with experts and those in power.’ That is precisely what the ABC and 9 News did in the referendum when they berated anyone who opposed the ‘experts’ from the Yes camp. The predominant side, woke academics and craven CEOs, readily captures journalists who take on this facilitative role.

If Professor Grant and the entire Aboriginal industry and their activist ciphers want to bat on after their drubbing at the referendum, we will be there to greet them. Our winning team, Recognise a Better Way, one of the teams on the No side, is flipping to the next phase in the war against Aboriginal separatism.

Close the Gap Research (closethegapresearch.org.au) will concentrate on needy Aborigines. We will also call out the privileges and ideologies of upper and middle-class Aboriginal identifiers – like Professor Grant.

We want to carry the fight to the industry that created the mess in the first place. We will assess existing programs for relieving the benevolent needs of Aboriginal people in three fields: school scholarships, employment programs, and prisoner rehabilitation.

These are critical points of intervention in a person’s life. Our method is to team with providers who are prepared to publish proof of success. Organisations prepared to publish their measure of impact and methodology would be added to a list of preferred providers.

Those who might conceivably require reparation are dead. The descendants are no more deserving than you or me.

The Productivity Commission, for example, reports on Aboriginal welfare relative to the non-Aboriginal population but does not assess whether the funds invested in raising Aboriginal Australians’ living standards are effective.

There is also the more significant question of what to do for those stuck on land with no economic base. It’s why we suspect the children of Aboriginal landholders are losing interest in the land rights game: there is little in it for them. They need the key to the broader world that lies beyond the title.

Several billion dollars are spent on programs for Aboriginal people each year. A small percentage improvement in the effectiveness of these programs would represent millions of dollars of new investment in programs. Now that is constructive, Stan.

A Serving of Humble Pie, Minister?

By
Gerardine Hoogland
-
6

Arrogant and egotistical are the two words most equated with politicians.

Australians who voted NO to enshrine race into our Constitution will no doubt confirm the veracity of these two terms now that some states have declared they intend to legislate it anyway.

Despite the overwhelming NO vote, state politicians, through their arrogance and egos, are ignoring that majority by either pushing on, in the case of South Australia and Western Australia, or begrudgingly backing down for now while continuing to make excuses as to why it is needed.

The question must be asked by every citizen who values their democratic rights and the rights of their fellows: how is this democracy at work?

The focus here is not on pros and cons of the issue, nor the referendum result. Rather, it is to highlight the blatant disrespect of the citizenry by those who are elected to represent them – the “pollies,” to use Australian vernacular.

It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris.

Is it power they cannot resist? Or do they truly believe they know best?

Undoubtedly, it is a combination of both. And it is as old as time. Most of them are caught up eventually in the net of hubris. As Plato wrote over two millennium ago, that “under tyranny of the master passion, a man becomes in his waking life what he was once only occasionally in his dreams.”

Plato learned from his teacher, Socrates, considered to be the wisest man in history despite him declaring he knew nothing.

Socrates was condemned to death on the charge of leading the youth astray by encouraging them to continually ask questions of everything. Here we are, 2400 years later, and the modern West is on the verge of censoring their citizens from forming their own opinions via strict misinformation laws. Not much has changed really. But I digress.

The Death of Socrates

Plato presents Socrates’ account leading up to his death in Apology. The God of Delphi declared that there was no man wiser than Socrates. In his defence to his accusers, he urged them to listen carefully to his account, as I likewise urge you to read it closely:

‘After long consideration, I thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the god with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, “Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest.” Accordingly, I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed him—his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination—and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and still wiser by himself; and thereupon I tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So, I left him, saying to myself as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is—for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.’

It would be helpful, to say the least, if aspiring politicians would read his story in the hope that our societies would benefit from more humility and less hubris. Then perhaps they, with the wisdom of Socrates, would look with eyes wide open at the upcoming Misinformation Bill that is slated to rob Australians of their right to think and speak as free people.

Sure, we won’t be put to death by hemlock poisoning; but to censor what we as free people have to say and be threatened with jail terms should we resist the edict by what James Hol describes as the “Cult of Authority” is not acceptable in a modern democracy.

It is very concerning when a Minister of the Crown fronts the media to say that “there are no lessons to be learned from the Voice referendum.” The Queensland Minister for Housing, Meaghan Scanlon, made this statement on 16 October. A few days later, the Queensland government announced it would not proceed with the legislation due to the Opposition withdrawing support. But the political indifference by politicians of people’s views is indisputable.

It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.

Perhaps the Minister considers that in her very young life she has learned all there is to learn in this world. Socrates died 2400 years ago, yet his words still resonate for those who have ears to hear and the will to listen.

Two millennium must count for something – wisdom via endurance.

The most infamous of prideful kings of ancient Rome was Lucius Tarquinius Superbus – Tarquin the Proud. Superbus is the Latin term for a proud man. So, in ancient Roman terms, Ms Scanlon would be referred to as Superba, the “ba” representing the feminine, compared to “bus” representing the masculine.

It is past time for politicians of all persuasions to sit down to a very big serving of Humble Pie.

Is Australia Becoming Untenable?

By
James Hol
-
3

How does a country go from being highly investible to completely uninvestible? In many cases this seemingly happens overnight.

Prior to the Chávez administration, Venezuela was a highly investible country, with an economy that was the envy of their South American counterparts. Now, thanks to an unstable socialist government and unexpected legislative changes, no prudent investor would put their money anywhere near Venezuela. In finance, this concept is known as legislative risk.

AUSTRALIA: LEGISLATIVE RISK-OFF

In Australia, we have always prided ourselves on an economy that punches well above our geopolitical weight. Despite being a small and distant country, we have adopted a favourable attitude towards foreign investment and maintained an active foreign exchange market with minimal capital controls. This has earned Australia AAA credit ratings and favourable dispositions from international bodies and foreign investors – as well as local investors.

Simply put, legislative risk means we all must consider whether Australia is stable enough to be worth investing in – and not just financially.

However, I cannot help the feeling that things are starting to change. During Covid, it did not take long for Australia to revert to its isolationist ways. By slamming our borders shut and keeping them shut well beyond many other countries, we began destroying our service and education industries – Australia’s biggest exports outside of the mining industry. While tourists and students are slowly returning to our shores, other legislative risks are beginning to present themselves.

Tourists are slowly returning

LEGISLATIVE RISK BEYOND COVID

It is not just me that feels this way. Recently Binance, the biggest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, halted Australian-dollar deposits and withdrawals. It is evident their currency partner was simply unwilling to take on the growing risk of overburdening regulation in Australia’s financial sector. While Binance has assured Australian clients that Australian-dollar deposits and withdrawals will resume when they find a new partner, several months on they are all still searching. Is no one in the crypto space willing to touch Australia?

The danger of unexpected legislative change is a concept West Australian farmers are all too familiar with. While the WA Labor Government has backed down from requiring farmers and regional landholders to consult with indigenous communities regarding any changes they wish to make to their land or farming practices, more subversive versions of this legislation are on their way. Had the Voice to Parliament become a reality, this may have been something we all have to learn – and it may well still be via state and territory legislation.

Australian firearms owners and shooters have experienced legislative risk for decades, even if they were not aware of the term.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN

Simply put, legislative risk means we all must consider whether Australia is stable enough to be worth investing in – and not just financially.

Is it worth pursuing higher education if the job you are studying for might be regulated out of existence?

… other legislative risks are beginning to present themselves.

Is it worth buying property in Australia, whether you’re a buying your first home or you’re a foreign investor, if you are not sure how long it’s going to be before you’re paying indigenous rent?

Is it worth starting an alternative media platform if you are not sure how long it will take until you are shut down and fined by the Ministry of Truth?

These are just some of the questions we all must ask ourselves before we start a business, pursue a degree or start a family in Australia. They are certainly questions I find myself asking more and more frequently.

No Laffing Matter

By
Bob Day
-
3

An Australian was on holidays in the south of France.

Strolling along outside his hotel, the Aussie was suddenly attracted by the screams of a young woman kneeling in front of a small child.

The Aussie knew enough French to determine that the child had swallowed a coin.

Seizing the little boy by the heels, the Aussie held the boy up and gave him a few good shakes and out popped the coin.

“Oh, thank you sir, thank you,” cried the woman.

“You seemed to know just how to get that coin out of him, are you a doctor?”

“No madam,” replied the man, “I’m with the Australian Tax Office.”

In my last post, Prison Break, I spoke of rights and responsibilities.

… when taxation rates are reduced revenues do not fall.

Regulations that prevent people from working under terms and conditions which suited them, was, I said, an infringement on liberty, freedom and dignity. It violated a person’s right to get a job and their responsibility to provide for their families.

I will now add a further hazard – it prevents them from paying tax to cover the many services the state provides to that person.

Rights … responsibilities … and tax. They are all linked.

Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Finance Minister to King Louis XIV of France, famously declared that “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

A modern finance minister might rephrase this as, “The largest possible amount of revenue with the smallest possible amount of economic and political damage.”

Which brings me to a man called Arthur Laffer.

I had the privilege of meeting the famous US economist in Parliament House in 2015. Dr Laffer was in Australia on a speaking tour.

Arthur Laffer is of course most famous for his Laffer Curve.

It is self-evident that tax revenue would be zero if tax rates are set at 0% (bottom left corner of the graph).

Revenue would also, of course, be zero if rates were set at 100% (bottom right corner).

Starting at 0%, as tax rates rise, revenue also rises until at some point on the graph it starts decreasing as it heads towards that 100% point.

Eminent Australian and UK economist Colin Clark once said economic growth declines if taxation is more than 25 per cent of GDP.

It’s also been said, “When the taxes of a nation exceed 20% of the people’s income, there is a lack of respect of government. When it exceeds 25%, lawlessness.” 

In Australia it is close to 30%.

Take one example of this lawlessness – the cash economy, currently estimated at 15 percent of GDP, one of the largest in the developed world. An underground economy of that magnitude requires the involvement not only of a lot of businesses, but also of millions of consumers.

As we know, laws only work when people believe in them and clearly, they have no respect for our tax laws.

It’s also been said, “When the taxes of a nation exceed 20% of the people’s income, there is a lack of respect of government. When it exceeds 25%, lawlessness.” In Australia it is close to 30%.

Despite what many advocating tax increases would have us believe, the total tax take in Australia is quite high. They say that compared with other developed economies, Australia is a low tax country, and that workers and companies could comfortably pay more. Not so.

When it comes to taxing incomes, Australia is up there with the Europeans and is way ahead of most of our neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.

A paper published by the Adam Smith Institute stated, “If you look at the experience of those who have introduced a single-rate flat tax, and also the tax reforms of the 1980s which took place in Britain and America, reducing tax rates causes revenues to rise.”

As Arthur Laffer showed, and as has been demonstrated many times, when taxation rates are reduced revenues do not fall. When the Australian company tax rate was cut from 39 to 30 percent, revenues went up, not down. The famous Reagan tax cuts from 70% to 30% in the 1980s produced a $9 billion increase in revenue when a $1 billion shortfall had been forecast.

When Sweden halved its company tax rate from 60 per cent to 30 per cent, company tax revenue tripled.

Nobody enjoys paying taxes, but in the 1950s and 1960s relatively low taxation and a comparatively simple set of tax rules meant that most people paid what was due without too much complaint.

Today, however, the Government and the ATO find themselves locked into a destructive relationship of repression and resistance with ordinary taxpayers.

Where people can avoid tax by exploiting loopholes, they will do so; where they can’t eg PAYG taxpayers, they become resentful at the unfairness of it all.

1...192021...38Page 20 of 38

Popular Posts

My Favorites

Tobacco Smuggling: A Problem of Government

David Leyonhjelm - 0
If smuggling isn’t the world’s oldest profession, it’s likely a smuggler was one of its first customers. The moment a tax or restriction is...

The Libertarian ACT Party’s Influence On The New Coalition Government

Little House On The Prairie: A Libertarian Story

Freedom, Moral Norms and the State

Popular Categories

© Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv