another waste of tax payer money:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/14/1210444490103.html
hard working and efficient producers being unreasonably persecuted by the law. a war on “the war on drugs” perhaps should be the top of any libertarians campaign.
8 comments May 15th, 2008 cato
OK folks – a special open forum for discussing and debating the ALP’s budget. Since I haven’t the time to study the budget in depth and it’s not really appropriate for me to comment on the stuff I do know about (telco & broadband), I’ll kick things off with some casual observations and questions for the audience.
In no particular order.
Medicare Surcharge
What’s with increasing the income at which the Medicare Levy Surcharge kicks in, particularly increasing it by more for singles than couples? On the one hand – the levy was probably an artificial distortion anyway and every person that decides to not take up private health insurance will save the government $$$ since it won’t have to pay the 30% subsidy for these people . But this change potentially will see fewer young and healthy under 30’s joining private health insurance, which is likely to put upward pressure on premiums and in turn drive more people back into public health care. Was this a cost saving plan or a plan to undermine private health? (Disclosure – I have private health insurance and have shares in a health insurer)
First Home Saver Accounts
What the? I know this isn’t new and it’s been debated before in the blogosphere, but I still don’t see how giving potential buyers more money doesn’t wind up being a little bit self-defeating.
Fuelwatch
I hope to find time to write a specific post on this proposal. In short – I think it’s good politics, will be popular with many voters and will make petrol companies more money.
Babybonus
Yes – I accepted it when the government gave it to me, even though I (we) probably didn’t need it. But I’m not a fan using taxpayer funds to provide a cash gift to people when their baby is born. People who have chosen to live child-free must be going nuts at the increase of the baby bonus to $5k… it’s just another $5k of their taxes they won’t get back.
One laptop per child? (in years 9-12)
If only it were as cheap as the real OLPC. But the government is talking about ~$250m p.a. here. The likes of Dell, HP, Asus & Apple must be rubbing their hands with glee at this one.
Future Funds (Building Australia, Health & Hospital, Education Investment)
So the surplus has to go somewhere…somewhere that’s not inflationary and not in the hands of Jo Average who might just spend their money if you give it back to them. Can’t give it to rich people (despite their higher marginal propensity to save and invest any money they get back)… so why not squirrel the money away for a rainy day when the economy (or the government’s election prospects) are looking a little gloomy.
FBT on Laptops
Well there goes my favourite salary sacrifice item out the window.
60 comments May 14th, 2008 HeathG
For once Iemma-Costa are doing the right thing with their crash or crash through stance on privatisation. Meanwhile, former Libs leader Peter ‘Speedo’ Debnam, supposedly from the Right of the party is quitting the Opposition front bench because of his party’s decision to support power privatisation, and this after a period of hemming and hawing and revealing themselves to be unprincipled populists. Now we know for sure that the ‘Right’ of the Libs are no better than the wets in their economics and really are nothing more than fetuses-and-gays obsessives.
39 comments May 13th, 2008 Jason Soon
Somewhat odd news that may interest readers here: “Former Republican Rep. Bob Barr launched a Libertarian Party presidential bid Monday, saying voters are hungry for an alternative to the status quo who would dramatically cut the federal government.” From AP posted in Washington Post, 12 March 2008. LA Times story. Bob Barr’s site.
11 comments May 13th, 2008 Kodjo
2,370 warrant requests granted in 2007, up 9% from 2006, to search or eavesdrop on suspected terrorists and spies in the U.S.
9,254 national security letters issued in 2005; 12,583 in 2006 (data for 2007 is not yet available). Such letters request information like your bank account details and telephone usage, but do not rely on a court order and are issued without informing the person spied upon.
Meanwhile, prosecutions for terror related matters brought to court have continued to decline.No doubt some would say we should continue to trust this government, confident that shielded by secrecy, they have grown tired of abusing their position and now are acting competently and sensibly in raising surveillance levels… or maybe not:
“The Senate Intelligence Committee last week concluded that the bureau was far behind in making internal changes to keep the nation safe from terrorist threats. Lawmakers urged that the FBI set specific benchmarks to measure its progress and make more regular reports to Congress.”
In any case, I continue to believe that open transparent processes (which includes court approved surveillance) that ensure those who abuse civil liberties are held responsible better protect our values, freedom and safety than administrative processes such as letters of request, and unanswerable bureaucrats whose chief response to criticism is fear-mongering.
Source for all the material here: Richard B. Schmitt, LA Times, 12 May 2008
1 comment May 13th, 2008 Kodjo
Too busy to write much this week but I’m going to steal a leaf out of pommy’s book and invite readers to post links, comments and speculations about the upcoming Federal Budget.
60 comments May 12th, 2008 Jason Soon
While browsing today at my neighbourhood Berkelouws I saw out on the new book shelves Three new deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. This is a book which will probably interest and delight Catallaxy regulars as it purports to explore the parallels between FDR’s New Deal, Italian fascism and German Nazism. The author is a renowned independent scholar and historian with no known affiliations to libertarianism or background in economics so it’s interesting that he’s come to similar conclusions as many Austrian economics scholars. I haven’t read it yet but here is a review on the Mises website. Some excerpts:
Critics of Roosevelt’s New Deal often liken it to fascism. Roosevelt’s numerous defenders dismiss this charge as reactionary propaganda; but as Wolfgang Schivelbusch makes clear, it is perfectly true. Moreover, it was recognized to be true during the 1930s, by the New Deal’s supporters as well as its opponents …
The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the “uninhibited frenzy of market speculation.” The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, “stressed ‘Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,’ praising the president’s style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler’s own dictatorial Führerprinzip” (p. 190) …
Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman’” (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini’s program to modernize Italy: “It’s the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious” (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).
154 comments May 11th, 2008 Jason Soon
As reported by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, so-called “hate speech” laws are taking effect in Canada, and their censorial effects are showing.
Patently ridiculous. And of course, it’s over criticism of Islam.
I should add that I have not read the mentioned book, though it interests me. The Amazon.com summary of the book notes that Australia is listed as another “last bastion” along with the States.
9 comments May 11th, 2008 Brock
Annie Leonard argues in the presentation at the top of her site that the modern means of production and rates of consumption are fatally flawed. She backs up her assertions with some interesting (though US-centric) numbers. I particularly like how every time she refers to the “golden arrow” of consumption, there’s a little “aaah!” sound.
While I agree with some of the things she has to say, there are plenty of other things I take issue with. However, I’m more interested in the opinions of Catallaxians on the presentation. What do you agree with? What do you disagree with. I assume there will be more of the latter.
10 comments May 11th, 2008 Brock