Alfa Romeo Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What do you think about this idea to help the economy:

In Australia, the government is giving approximately £450 to every citizen. It is hoping that they will spend it, create more demand, safeguard jobs and generally get things moving again. A kind of financial kick start to create a bit of economic momentum.

(The thread title comes from reports that due to less than perfect databases, some citizens currently living abroad and some deceased have also received the money).
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Hmmm, not really worth becoming Australian for.


And certainly not worth dying for!


But generally I applaud politicians trying to think creatively. As long as it is for the public good and not just thier own expense claim good.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Its a bit like pyramid selling, without the pyramid :lol:
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
:lol:

So let me get this right; the Australian Labour Government tax the ar$e of people, then give them back £450 of their own money that they have just taken off them......

Brilliant plan ! Wonder why no one else has thought of that :lol:
The Labour government call it "working families tax credits" :lol:
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Brilliant plan ! Wonder why no one else has thought of that :lol:
Someone has, sort of - the Conservatives. They also believe that if you can put more money in peoples pockets by reducing taxation the economy will get a boost. It sounds a bit like a one-off tax rebate to me.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Precisely mate. So why not just cut taxes in the first place, and let people keep more of their hard earned :)
Because the average person will have to pay more than their tax breaks to get the same services they can get for "free" now. It is about economies of scale and lack of profit being sliced off.

"Personal choice" is just a myth perpetuated by the wealthy minority (who would actually benefit from tax breaks and fewer services because they already pay for their own health care, education etc) to con the average majority into electing a Conservative government on their behalf.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
So what services do I get for "free" that I would have to pay more for if I paid less tax :confused:
.

It all has to paid for, the debate is should it be provided centrally, funded by taxation or should the private sector provide the service (to those who can afford it). If there was no National Health Service for example, the private sector would become the provider. As there would be many competing "businesses" to get the same total level of care currently provided the total cost would be higher. Reason: economies of scale from having one provider and because each health care provider would need money to cover costs AND its profit.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Is it the "free" bit? I put it in speech marks to indicate that it was paid for indirectly (via taxes) rather than directly (via an invoice). Wasn't trying to suggest that any service comes without cost.
 
N

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
What do you think about this idea to help the economy:

In Australia, the government is giving approximately £450 to every citizen. It is hoping that they will spend it, create more demand, safeguard jobs and generally get things moving again. A kind of financial kick start to create a bit of economic momentum.



Bush did it in '01 and it did not work.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
No, I got that thanks ( we're sharper than the average turkey farmer down here mate :))

I was just querying exactly what it was that you feel I would have to pay more for directly than via taxation ?

The NHS isn't one for starters; not only is it *****e, but I go private so I end up paying twice for healthcare anyway.
Ah, got you now. No you would be better off with lower taxes because, as you say, you currently pay twice. Losing the NHS would be no loss to you. But society would be financially worse off for the reasons stated previously if the same care is provided.

Where this financial argument breaks down is that the poorest would not have access so less will need to be provided and the overall financial burden to society would be lower than now meaning people like you or me would be able to fill our petrol tanks more often than we can currently.

I concede that, providing you are currently have a reasonable salary, a Conservative government may well make you wealthier, but it will be at the expense of those poorer than yourself. I guess it boils down to which you think is the more important: "Me" or "Us".
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
There's no value in being all pious about it is there.

Everyone votes for the party that they feel will act in their own best interests, surely ?

I find it hard to believe that anyone would vote for a party that made them personally worse off, just because they felt that "society" overall would benefit ?

Or are there people out there who are really that naive :confused:
Plenty of "naive" people - all the middle class socialists for example (e.g. me). Its a subconsciousness thing, upholding overwhelming personal values and beliefs that develop when we are very young. It becomes part of who you are and you can't just stop.

The logical and selfish choice for you would be to support Chelsea or Man U - they win more often and would cause you less pain. But could you ever stop supporting West Ham? Its the same if you believe in "us".
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
23,020 Posts
Labour are the party of the working class surely :confused:
That was indeed it's origins but if you believe the principles than what does it matter what your personal background is?

New Labour - something else entirely.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #15 (Edited)
I don't see the logic however in middle class socialists ? Labour are the party of the working class surely :confused:
It is because we have a genetic predisposition to altruism - humanity has survived and developed because we are social creatures whose instincts are to help others. Groups with more altruists are better equipped to survive when several groups compete. It is because teams are better than selfish individuals. It is because wanting to help others is part of what makes us human.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #16 (Edited)
but human nature is essentially selfish, not altruistic.
No, it is human nature to despise selfishness. It is perfectly normal for the strong to help the weak without expecting anything in return. We are stronger when we are together. As circumstances become increasingly more extreme we revert back to basics and feel these instincts more and more keenly - ask anyone from a sporting or uniformed services background for example.

It is the same with financial strength. The most successful and wealthiest in society are often also the most generous - nothing to do with short term "logic" and everything to do with human nature.
 
R

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Different ends of the same telescope on this one mate :)
I guess so.

One more attempt though. You are on your own, in a quite part of town. You spot an elderly lady making her way home after collecting her pension. You spot her purse fall out of of the back of her tartan shopping bag. Do you:

a) pick it up, catch her up and give it back whilst wishing her a good day?
b) after checking that no one has spotted you, think "good, another tank of fuel for the GTA" and stick it in your back pocket.

If b) how would your mates down the pub react when you told them that what you did was perfectly normal?
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I guess so.

One more attempt though. You are on your own, in a quite part of town. You spot an elderly lady making her way home after collecting her pension. You spot her purse fall out of of the back of her tartan shopping bag. Do you:

a) pick it up, catch her up and give it back whilst wishing her a good day?
b) after checking that no one has spotted you, think "good, another tank of fuel for the GTA" and stick it in your back pocket.

If b) how would your mates down the pub react when you told them that what you did was perfectly normal?
There's parts of town where people wouldn't wait for the purse to fall before nicking her pension.

Still think you are right rewe6a, very many humans are altruistic. Well beyond the instinct to assist self and family. Just because some are not doesn't make altruism a myth.

Are more people altruistic than are not? Couldn't prove it but I think the answer is a resounding yes.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top