TAFKAS does not know why the Greens are referred to as socialists. They’re not socialists. They’re fascists. The don’t want to socialise the means of production. They want to confiscate from those they don’t like, give to those they do like and do this all a the point of a gun. Oh and of course they want to use the state to silence and jail anyone who disagrees with them.
Don’t accept TAFKAS’ description? Well this is how fascism is defined on Wikipedia:
dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
Tell TAFKAS he is wrong.
There is no equality in in Green-landia. There are the preferred and the unpreferred.
Take for example the latest contribution from “prominent Australian economist, author and public policy commentator” and Chief Economist of the Australia Institute, Richard Denniss. He must be prominent, he himself says so in his multiple biographies including here, here and here.
Dr Denniss is as green as they come. Here is a snapshot of his biography from, oh yes, a report against the Adani project:
But the more interesting contribution is his contribution in the AFR today where he writes:
Tax reform is simple: soak the rich – Reducing the disposable income of high income earners who save a lot and spending more on nurses and child care workers who spend the most will boost GDP.
Pretty bold statement. Take from the rich and give to his preferred constituents; those preferred constituents being Greens voters of course.
But there is a small problem with his analysis. No, not small. There are multiple large problems.
To start with, the tax measures he advocates and supports don’t take money from the rich. They take from the middle and poor. But who cares about those people. They don’t vote for the Greens.
But even if he was correct, in that the taxes would hit the rich only, what does he think the “rich” do with their money? Do they put it under their beds? Do they add tomato sauce and chili and eat the notes? They invest to create jobs and generate other taxes. That is, jobs for non-public servants and non-quasi-public servants who themselves also pay taxes. But secondary thinking is not the kind of thinking Dr Denniss seems to practice.
Then there is this:
Not all Australians have the same “marginal propensity to consume” and collecting more tax from those who save the most and spending more on those who spend the most will increase consumer spending. The economic benefits of such redistribution aren’t complicated, but they are inconvenient for the wealthy.
That’s right. Saving and investing is bad.
This is the same logic that said that the Christchurch earthquake would be good for the New Zealand economy because it would boost GDP.
Next Dr Denniss will be advocating for conscription so that holes could be dug and refilled to boost GDP.
There is much to criticise in Dr Denniss’ diatribe, but life is short and facts and history won’t change his mind.