Okay now I intend to open up my thoughts on politics. I don’t intend to but equally I don’t apologise if any of this offends you…
Let me start by saying that my views are primarily right with a tendency to the middle. I want to support the lower economic group with actions that move them out of the group rather than support them in the group. Don’t give them a fish….show them how to fish. I don’t believe in middle case well fair and I want the well off to do their bit with innovation, investment and by paying their bit. I also think people in a position of capability have a responsibility to do what they can in any arena that makes sense. We have many great leaders that are not financial as well as many financial people that are far from good leaders. Let us use people where they have natural ability.
Social well fair is a safety net, not a right. It is a safety net not only for the recipient but also the economy. In a recession governments have the option to cut tax or increase well fair. Increased well fair will cause a much more direct contribution to gross expenditure and has the best chance to kick start the economy in the short term. Almost all of the money will be spent in the first instance. But what does it do in the longer term. In combination the multiplier effect can be enhanced across the whole economy. Well fair has an additional advantage the people receiving it are grateful to receive it even if it’s a once off payment. If you want to make it really work of course you might put some restrictions on it like only being able to buy Australian products however I suspect that might not go down with our free trading partners.
I once saw a reference to wealth being accurately calculated as being the amount of time an individual spends to earn enough to purchase or produce enough calorie’s for the individual and his/her family to survive. ( if you wrote this comment or know who did let me know so I can reference it) To make sense of this you must use the cheapest carbohydrates of rice, wheat or similar cereal grain. I recently did the exercise. I thing I could get a bag of rice at about less that $3 a kilo which would feed my family for a day. (5 of us). It wouldn’t be very appetising but I guess the one cup of cooked rise delivers around 250 Calories a day so a Kilo is almost the 10000 our family would need. I’m in a position that I have the potential to earn my family’s required calories in less than three minutes. Put this into perspective in the developing world some people work for 18 hours per day to get the same or less calories.
This imbalance cannot continue with the globalisation of the workforces. The internet is the great equaliser. A person in a developing nation can work in the first world with a good internet connection and a VOIP connection. If you take this over time you will see that salaries will grow in the developing world and the first world will pay for it with reduced wages and conditions.
I use off-shore telemarketers and a PA. I’m not sure I would do without her. I pay my PA the market rate plus a bit so she stays and she manages all of the telemarketers. It’s a great deal. If I could I would do it in Australia but the pure reality is that I could not afford it. Unions should watch out as they will be fighting for a class of people that are economically unsustainable in the new global workforce. Why is it possible to make a call from India to Australia at around one hundredth of the cost???
Where does that leave the middle class in the first world? Innovate and add value or you will become the new socio-economic causality.
What about taxes…. They need to promote success rather than penalise it. So let’s look at them one at a time.
While I’m not certain the man-made carbon is the sole cause of climate change and in fact if climate change is a bad thing over the longer term. Surely the poor in current desert areas might want so more rain…. But regardless of the argument I think as a society we need to use less of everything including carbon.
Carbon Taxes add costs to good and services that use high levels of carbon so that less carbon intensive goods and products become more viable. I don’t have a problem with this concept as long as the government invested all of the money raised into making these low carbon products even more cost effective in terms of scale or even direct subsidy. Giving people and organisations handouts to make sure they are not worse off is not going to change behaviour. In fact I think it makes things worse. Let’s assume that a power station has a cost of production pre-tax of x and a margin of y if you introduce a carbon tax that everyone has been compensated surely they can do one of two things. Increase margins (More money for the same carbon) or keep the margin the same but increase production. Either way the result is more carbon. If the government instead took the carbon tax and said that energy was going up by 15% and gave the 15% to the renewables as a subsidy surely they would now be competitive and if they are not we need to find another renewable technology.
Rather than making coal more as expensive as renewables shouldn’t we invest to make renewables cheaper than Coal?
Now the Mining Tax. Again no real issue if the tax was used to create the resources required to make the mining industry more competitive. Imagine if you can a government scheme to interlink all of the north-west mines via rail and create a local workforce to match. Rather than FIFO make regional towns viable. Give tax breaks if people choose to work in the north of Australia. Use the funds to ensure that students in these areas can live with their families but get a first class education from secondary to University. Extend every university the capability to deliver content to these remote areas. Want to keep doctors in the country then take medicine to these regional areas. Make a super city in the Karratha or Port headland. Let people commute from these areas.
The key to this is the massive release of land. We need to make it affordable to build a house and run a business in the town rather than the big companies owning it all. This was the original problem the states took discounted royalties to enable these companies to build the infrastructure but didn’t hold them to account that the infrastructure belongs to the states not the companies. If we tax the mines we should also pay for the infrastructure so it can be shared and used efficiently and reduce the barriers to entry for new players.
Single Wheat Desk. Just no! What are you thinking of? Would we introduce a single desk for Australian Iron Ore? Gee the billionaires would be screaming from every rafter. We need to be open and accessible to our markets. If NSW grower has a better grain characteristic let them market it directly with a Japanese noodle provider to get its full value. The single desk is the same as unions; they pander to the bottom of the market.
Let me start off that I’m not opposed to minimum conditions and wages I think there should be a safety net and I think it should be higher than it is today….(I say hearing business groups scream.) Lets be fair if I work for 40 hours a week I should be able to support myself and my family with its basic needs. I’m about to make the make some other sections of the community scream. I further believe that a family has the right and should be able to have a parent look after their children through to the end of university.
This could and should be achieved by income splitting. If there is two people in the household but only one is working then the income tax of the working party would be taxed as if both were working at 50% each. Let me put it is very simple terms I believe that we get better social outcomes when bringing up children is not outsourced. Rather than providing day-care subsidies provide non-day-care subsidies or tax breaks. Please note I’m very gender equal in this. If a woman has the desire, skills and education they should get the same rate of pay as their male counterpart. But equally nobody should be looked down on by deciding to look after their own children.
Let me expand on my concept of awards, enterprise bargaining agreements, and even industry bargaining agreements. This is the rate of pay that you have to pay the worst person that you are willing to employ. On the top end of the agreements they tend to be the minimum amount that a person is willing to receive before they find a better profession. Below this threshold they are not employed and above the threshold they are don’t want to be employed. The problem with these agreements is that employers on average get average employees and employees get average wages. Where is the possibility of innovation here? The union’s only role is to protect the less than average at the expense of the higher than average. In a time of labour shortage the unions can make great gains in wages and conditions. When the tables are turned when the shortage is resolved employers tend to get their revenge. “Get the highly paid workers and contract out their jobs at the market rate.”
Here is a question for all? Why are the all of the union officials of UK origin? Of course I make generalisations however if it was so good there why are they here??? (Great annoyed the unions and the UK residents.)
Immigration! Sigh… We should do our international duty by taking our full quota from UN run refugee processing centres after this our borders are closed. The easiest way to get to Australia is to go to one of these centres. We should pressure and possibly fund the UN to take over all Australian processing centres but have a policy that Australia does not take people from these centres. So the only sure way not to get to Australia is not to come. Let me get a little more controversial. Only bring in people that have similar political, social and religious beliefs Mr and Mrs Average Australia. While the White Australian policy might not have been politically correct at least it was a stick in the sand.
Anti-Immigration! Sigh. When I say Anti-Immigration I actually mean that people should not be able to become a citizen without showing that they have Australian values. I also wouldn’t seek or accept citizenship from any country whose people have different beliefs than me. Any breach of Australian laws that has a prison sentence as a possible punishment would make the person not only ineligible for to become a citizen it would also ensure they will be deported on their release from prison or before if adequate prison swap provisions can be enacted. I believe is a person’s right to express their view and to protest. I don’t believe that anyone has the right to assault or to cause damage to others property under any circumstance. If you have a problem with another country go there and protest don’t protest in Australia. If you are concerned with the state of affairs in one of these countries contact your local member and arrange many people to do the same. Do a petition to parliament.
I am not anti-anyone except the extremists on all sides.
More to come.