Ruler for a day

Then you better always have a co-signer with great credit when you start looking into getting a house, a car,...

Why do you need a co-signer? I went to my local credit union which does its own underwriting and got a home loan. As long as you have a steady job, can show that you paid your rent on time or early for a couple years, and show that you can afford the loan, a credit union will give it to you. You don't need to show that you had a credit card for 10 years. And car loans? Now why the hell would anyone really ever want a car loan. They are probably the worst thing money can buy, period. You mean you really want to pay interest on a loan for something that is depreciating so quickly?

It's considered absurd in other countries for healthcare to cost so much. You should not be penalized for being sick or injured.

I'm guessing you probably don't realize how much health care costs in other countries. Just because you don't physical write a check that says "medical bills" on it doesn't mean you are going to be paying for it dearly. I'm not saying you pay as much as we do in the US, but your medical care isn't as good either. It is a well known face that the best medical care in the world is available in the US. In fact, sometimes I think the medical care here is too good.

Anyway, this is kinda off topic I guess.

Don't ever say that. If the discussion wanders off topic, that is OK. Discussion is better than no discussion. It is perfectly acceptable for discussion to veer in a different direction. To say "this is off topic, I'm going to stop talking about it" is to essentially say, "I want out of this discussion" Don't back out, just go where it takes you!

Wow Jae, it seems you have some serious resentment towards some of the immigrants who come to your country. Sounds like a lot of the problems we have with immigrants here in the US. That said, I would argue that historically, immigrations has been as good for this country as anything. Currently it is a problem, but historically, very beneficial. I don't know if that is the case in Australia or not.

I'd increase taxes on various luxuries that have no real value or purpose other than to exist and fuel addictions. Cigarettes, alcohol (except the sort of beers I like), gambling and poker machine taxes all up.

I have always thought this was a great idea personally, though the argument against it is that there becomes a huge incentive for a black market for these items. In fact the tax a.k.a. penalty on illegal drugs like marijuana is a fine and possible jail time so which huge penalties come a black market. Some would argue the better idea is to legalize marijuana and tax it so you can regulate it. However, that is a different argument I am glad to get into if anyone is interested. Anyways, my point is, you can't raise it too high. You would have to do some research to figure out the price point at which people are going to try and buy this stuff on the black market or quit smoking, etc. Another possible argument against this is that it has been well documented that there is a negative correlation between smoking and income. That is you are more likely to smoke the less money you make. So increasing the tax on cigarettes is essentially a tax on the poor, which makes them poorer and more likely to be on welfare or the Australian equivalent. Essentially you would be taxing them so that you could give the money right back to them via food stamps, etc.

I would also increase taxes for people earning 2 million AUD+ a year. If you can't live off a million dollars a year you're a fucking idiot and you need a dose of reality.

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. Everyone has always said that taxing the rich would be a great idea. Do you know that in America, the wealthiest 1% of the people foot something like 50% of the tax bill already? Or that the wealthiest 50% foot 99% of the tax bill? So we need to tax THEM more? I just think it is counter productive. Take the following example into consideration. You are a wealthy business owner. You have the option of buying a machine which is going to increase your income by 10%. This is a good return on an investment. The government is going to take half of your money away, essentially meaning you only make 5% on your investment, not so good. Instead, you take the money and put in in a bank account and let it set. Who wins here? No economic growth, and more importantly, no tax generated! The government essentially decided they were going to hold out for a bigger piece of pie and ended up getting no slice instead of a slightly smaller one. I saw lower the taxes on the wealthy and encourage them to invest in the country!

Why do you need a co-signer? I went to my local credit union which does its own underwriting and got a home loan. As long as you have a steady job, can show that you paid your rent on time or early for a couple years, and show that you can afford the loan, a credit union will give it to you.

I guess you were luckier than I was. Until my wife co-signed to finance a new HDTV, all the previous applications that I had done on my own were denied, whether it's for a stupid cell phone, a car, a new computer,...

And car loans? Now why the hell would anyone really ever want a car loan. They are probably the worst thing money can buy, period. You mean you really want to pay interest on a loan for something that is depreciating so quickly?

Well, I'll admit I don't have thousands of bucks to pay upfront, and I do need to go to work and buy groceries, so what other choice do I have?

I'm guessing you probably don't realize how much health care costs in other countries.

I come from another country with a unified healthcare system, so yes, I do know exactly what it costs. Yes, your deductions are larger than those in the US, but if you compare the whole thing, you end up paying much less, and you don't have that feeling of a Damocles sword hanging above your head.

It is a well known face that the best medical care in the world is available in the US.

I'd disagree, for is overall quality, nothing justifies its costs. Trust me, having lived in different places helps when it comes to that.

Don't ever say that. If the discussion wanders off topic, that is OK. Discussion is better than no discussion. It is perfectly acceptable for discussion to veer in a different direction. To say "this is off topic, I'm going to stop talking about it" is to essentially say, "I want out of this discussion" Don't back out, just go where it takes you!

That's not what I meant, sorry about that. Since it's not the original topic, I just didn't want to derail this thread.

Wow Jae, it seems you have some serious resentment towards some of the immigrants who come to your country. Sounds like a lot of the problems we have with immigrants here in the US. That said, I would argue that historically, immigrations has been as good for this country as anything. Currently it is a problem, but historically, very beneficial. I don't know if that is the case in Australia or not.

I think frustration is a better word than resentment. I made a thread not long ago about my thoughts on immigration in Australia, what it all boils down to is that I'm tired of being surrounded (and I mean that literally) by people in an English speaking country who speak little to no English and have little to no desire to learn. If I were moving to Germany for example I'd learn German at least well enough to be able to communicate fluently enough with the locals. It's something that irks me since I live in a region that has a large foreign population (various nationalities) they seem to see it as our problem if we can't understand them (foreigners with poor English), as opposed to theirs.

I have always thought this was a great idea personally, though the argument against it is that there becomes a huge incentive for a black market for these items.

I think that's definitely always an issue, but in reality it already exists for things that are legal. My mum is a smoker, she buys her tobacco from a guy who runs a convenience store and grows it at his house. It's not as high quality as regular cigarettes but it's alot cheaper and smokers get their hit without spending as much money. You can buy alcohol that has either been home brewed or "fallen off the back of a truck" as they say. I don't think the black market movement would ever become a big enough problem to be relevant if it was simply a hike on taxes as opposed to something like prohibition which basically forces people into finding other ways to obtain what it is they're after.

That is you are more likely to smoke the less money you make. So increasing the tax on cigarettes is essentially a tax on the poor, which makes them poorer and more likely to be on welfare or the Australian equivalent. Essentially you would be taxing them so that you could give the money right back to them via food stamps, etc.

What makes me ignore this particular argument in my initial post is the fact that there is not one sort of addiction that can not be conquered. Everything from drugs to alcohol to gambling to Warcraft (lol) it can be overcome, it's a matter of the individual wanting to make changes themselves. Because of this, I would see that particular idea (taxing the poor as they are more likely to smoke etc) as optional for them. It wouldn't be the government forcing the tax upon them, it would be their choice to either continue smoking or to seek whatever assistance they need to quit. It's sort of like someone saying "If only I didn't buy a cup of coffee every morning I'd have an extra $1,000 a year".. it is their choice to buy the coffee, they're not being forced into it if that all makes sense.

Personally, I think this is a terrible idea. Everyone has always said that taxing the rich would be a great idea. Do you know that in America, the wealthiest 1% of the people foot something like 50% of the tax bill already? Or that the wealthiest 50% foot 99% of the tax bill? So we need to tax THEM more?

The thing is, even with the amount of tax they pay already they are still earning more than enough to live beyond comfortably. The every day person is expected to find a way to live off between 25,000-60,000 a year and still pay their taxes, so why then are people earning 100 times that amount protected? I understand there's an issue of fairness but I personally don't think it's fair that some people are allowed to make more money than a lot of small countries generate per annum while others as you mentioned before are scraping for loose change and living off food stamps. This isn't always an issue of pure hard work/determination etc, there's so many variables in life that all it can take is one great idea or one concept (or in Bill Gates' case the ability to steal ideas and market them better) to make someone wealthy and successful. I'm not suggesting bringing the rich to their knees or levelling their income to the same amount as everyone else, but no one needs tens of millions of dollars to live off. And even if they were to pay insane taxes beyond what I would personally set (60, 70% etc) they would still be living much more comfortably and freely than virtually everyone else in the population. I know it's almost a communist approach to take but until I'm worth millions of dollars I would go down this path as "ruler".

I think I talked about this with Ben a while back and he disagreed with me as well. What swung it for me is that lower income families are the ones least likely to hoard money because they simply can't afford to and need to spend it, so any extra money they get will be pumped back into the economy anyway. We had a couple of stimulus packages here recently in which people were given lump sum payments of $800 and $1,000, they all went to people earning less than 100k a year because the government reasoned they were the ones who would be more likely to spend it.

Instead, you take the money and put in in a bank account and let it set. Who wins here? No economic growth, and more importantly, no tax generated! The government essentially decided they were going to hold out for a bigger piece of pie and ended up getting no slice instead of a slightly smaller one. I saw lower the taxes on the wealthy and encourage them to invest in the country!

That's a good point but you also have to take into account the actual revenue we're talking about here. Like that 5% increase may not sound like much as a raw number like that, but consider what that 5% is of. Microsoft made 50 billion dollars last year, do you really think they'd forgo the chance to increase that by another 2.5 billion just because they could've made 5 if the government hadn't raised taxes? Increased revenue is a good thing regardless of the number IMO.

Almost 50 million people uninsured is slightly more than 5-10% Joe.

I was referring to Ben's post (although I'm not even sure I got it right,) I didn't know the actual number of uninsured people. Still I'd prefer to spend more on healthcare every year and less on taxation. At least I'd be actually spending the money, not donating it to the government. VAT is a ridiculous concept itself, setting the percentage at 21% for pretty much every item except milk, eggs and bread is freaking thievery.

Not to mention 45-55% of the items have some other kind of taxation on them; gas is the perfect example: while you bitch about paying 2.45 - 2.65 DOLLARS for a GALLON of diesel fuel (of which only 45 cents per gallon go to the government,) we have to deal with much higher prices, 1.15-1.25 EUROS for a LITER of diesel fuel, to be precise (of which 70 EUROcents are taxes.) That's about $ 1.80, or 70-75% of what you pay for a gallon. Only a liter is more or less one-fourth of a gallon. So, that would be what, 8 dollars (maybe even a little more) per gallon after conversion?

Same exact thing with booze, cigarettes, furniture, electronics or any (and I mean ANY) kind imported goods. A car that costs $ 15,000 over there in the New World may end up costing twice or three times as much here, considering conversion rates, VAT and taxes. I just literally came back from the store and paid five euros for a 350mL bottle of freaking maple syrup.

There are many things that sound ideal about this country when you don't actually live in it, but it's a different story when you have to pay a couple of grands for a few hours spent at the hospital, when you realize how mediocre the education actually is here, when you have no "real" existence until you finally managed to build some credit,... If you can manage to avoid all those hurdles, then yes, it's certainly good living here.

How mediocre the education is over there? 11% of Italian citizens aged 25-70 currently hold an undergraduate degree, man. That is just six million people, compared to the 95 million in the US (almost one third of the population.) The number goes up to a whopping 13.5% for those aged 30-55. And less than 2% hold a graduate degree. A third of the kids enrolled at most schools actually have trouble obtaining a high school diploma. And the literacy rate for Southern Italy is currently lower than 75%, up from 55% just two decades ago. So please, don't you talk to me about education.

And about the credit, you're lucky you at least get it. Credit cards are firmly exclusive to those who have had an open-ended job for more than four years (which is also determining for getting any kind of loan) and have a yearly salary of over € 25,000 ($ 36,000.) That is as low as 18-20% of the population here in Milan and Northern Italy, much lower in Central-Southern Italy. In comparison, over 80% of the population own a credit card in the UK, and I'm sure the number isn't much lower in the US.

I moved to Italy almost eight years ago. My parents, who both have a degree (my mom's a teacher, my dad's an engineer,) couldn't find a single decent job for three years, and got their first loan for a house and a credit card just a year ago.

So yeah, there's not one chance for me to change my opinion. We may have free universal health care but everything else kind of sucks. Well, except for the food..

VAT is a ridiculous concept itself, setting the percentage at 21% for pretty much every item except milk, eggs and bread is freaking thievery.

We have something here that I think is somewhat similar in the GST (Goods and Services Tax)... our Prime Minister at the time swore we'd never have a GST while he was in charge, a matter of years later there we go 10% GST under his rule. To his credit, the oppositions biggest argument at the next election was that in every other countries who used a GST/(possibly) VAT system the percentage has increased far beyond what it was originally set, yet ours remained at 10% throughout his time as PM and is still 10% now.

I guess you were luckier than I was. Until my wife co-signed to finance a new HDTV, all the previous applications that I had done on my own were denied, whether it's for a stupid cell phone, a car, a new computer,...

Wow. There is your problem. Financing and HDTV? A computer? What a freaking rip off.

Well, I'll admit I don't have thousands of bucks to pay upfront, and I do need to go to work and buy groceries, so what other choice do I have?

If you weren't spending so much of your money every month of interest for crap like TV's and computer's it wouldn't be hard to save up some money to buy stuff. I paid cash for my vehicles. Paid cash for my HDTV last month. I don't make a ton of money, I am a teacher in rural Idaho for crying out loud.

And about the credit, you're lucky you at least get it.

Trust me, you don't want it.

Because of this, I would see that particular idea (taxing the poor as they are more likely to smoke etc) as optional for them.

Yes, it is optional. However, I think that many of them aren't mentally strong enough to quit, which probably has something to do with why they started in the first place. We have rules and laws all over society that protect people from themselves. I mean, if the high taxes and cancer hasn't made them quite yet, why would a few more dollars a pack?

This isn't always an issue of pure hard work/determination etc, there's so many variables in life that all it can take is one great idea or one concept (or in Bill Gates' case the ability to steal ideas and market them better) to make someone wealthy and successful. I'm not suggesting bringing the rich to their knees or levelling their income to the same amount as everyone else, but no one needs tens of millions of dollars to live off.

I think you are letting the media skew your view of who the millionares in this world are. Sure you have a few Bill Gates' and Paris Hiltons here and there, but the majority of the millionares in the world are people like electricians, dentists, or accountants who have worked their asses off, made good investments, didn't do dumb ass things like pay interest for a new HDTV and accumulated their wealth responsibly. I know they don't need 10 million dollars to live comfortably, but why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to have it? Why eliminate the incentive to work hard. You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. I'm sure you have read the story "Harrison Bergeron" by Vonnegut about weighing down those with talents. That is what outrageous taxes on the rich do.

I know it's almost a communist approach to take but until I'm worth millions of dollars I would go down this path as "ruler".

I guess at the end of the day, in the spirit of the thread, you can do this. Like benji said, my original title was better "Dictator for a day" These ideas need to be what YOU think would be best for your society in the long run, despite what past theories or practices say. I admit, I would love to have a giant simulation machine where we could give this a try and see what happens, and if it sucks just hit the reset button.

That's a good point but you also have to take into account the actual revenue we're talking about here. Like that 5% increase may not sound like much as a raw number like that, but consider what that 5% is of. Microsoft made 50 billion dollars last year, do you really think they'd forgo the chance to increase that by another 2.5 billion just because they could've made 5 if the government hadn't raised taxes? Increased revenue is a good thing regardless of the number IMO.

Ahh... but I think you missed my point. In order to make a purchase worth while for a business, it needs to perform better than what you could do by just putting your money in the bank and watching it build interest. The scenario I presented doesn't. It would be more worth Microsoft's time to just put their money in a freaking money market account and sit around and swim in their money Scrooge McDuck style than to actually invest in growing the economy, etc.

Yes, it is optional. However, I think that many of them aren't mentally strong enough to quit

I don't see why that should be societies problem. It would essentially be pandering to weak minded addicts at the expense of more hospital beds and the like. If they can't quit they can't quit, as my idea is to pump most of the money made from this increase into hospitals, their addiction shouldn't be to the detriment of millions of people who can't get hospital beds. As you can tell I'm not overly sympathetic to the plight of smokers.

I think you are letting the media skew your view of who the millionares in this world are.

I doubt that. My view is formed from the fact that I'm living comfortably off under 60K a year while there are people making one hundred times the money I do are either rolling in debt or stashing money they will never spend in banks to let it accumulate so that their offspring and their offspring's offspring doesn't have to work or contribute to society in any meaningful way.

the majority of the millionares in the world are people like electricians, dentists, or accountants who have worked their asses off, made good investments, didn't do dumb ass things like pay interest for a new HDTV and accumulated their wealth responsibly. I know they don't need 10 million dollars to live comfortably, but why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to have it? Why eliminate the incentive to work hard.

How does only having 7 million dollars to not spend instead of 10 eliminate the incentive to work hard? You will not find a person on this planet who would turn down that sort of money purely because they could have had a little bit more if taxes weren't so high. People work hard every day to make minimum wage, and you're saying by only allowing people earning 2 million+ a year a majority of their full wealth would eliminate that incentive?

You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. I'm sure you have read the story "Harrison Bergeron" by Vonnegut about weighing down those with talents. That is what outrageous taxes on the rich do.

I haven't read it, but I think you and I have very very very different views on weighing down those with talents. If someone is making 10 million dollars a year, paying half of that (or more) in tax they are still bringing in 5 million dollars clear... if that's weighing someone down then I'm buried 50 feet under the ground right now.

Ahh... but I think you missed my point. In order to make a purchase worth while for a business, it needs to perform better than what you could do by just putting your money in the bank and watching it build interest. The scenario I presented doesn't. It would be more worth Microsoft's time to just put their money in a freaking money market account and sit around and swim in their money Scrooge McDuck style than to actually invest in growing the economy, etc.

I think you'll find a large majority of bigger companies are investing more overseas in order to cut their costs. I know for sure ours are, there's a word for it but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. Outsourcing, that's it. Regardless, under your scenario they could not spend the money (thus not increasing their profits) and instead put that money in the bank to accumulate interest... or they could spend the money and use the profits the upgrade makes them as an investment in itself.

To put it simpler (because I think I may have overcomplicated it) imagine you were making $10 a week and putting $2 of it in a savings account which accumulates .25 cents interest a week. Someone said to you if you give me your $2 this week, I will give you an extra $1 every week on top of what you are already making. In your scenario you keep that $2 and keep putting it in the bank, making your .25 cents. In my scenario you give away the $2 for that week, and then you are put in a position where after this instead of making $10 a week you are making $11, letting you invest $3 instead of $2 thus gaining more interest... or even spending the extra $1 and continuing to invest your usual $2. That is a horrendously simple way of explaining it but it sums up my argument regardless.

I think you are misunderstanding something fundamental here. You are only looking at the picture from the finish line. You are saying OK, now you have worked your way up to having 10 million dollars so I am going to take it. After all, you don't need all of that money anyways.

The real truth is that if you tax these people out of their minds, they won't even be able to get there. Let's say for example, that in my life or business, I spend $800,000 on investments to my business. This goes towards buying new equipment, hiring more workers, etc. By spending this money, I make $1,000,000. That is a return of 25% on my investment. That is fantastic. If I can do that, I kick ass and will make lots of money. More money than I need to live comfortably. But it isn't like nobody benefited from this. I bought machinery from some guy and he made a profit on it. I provided people with good jobs. This is great. Additionally, since I made a profit of $200,000 the government gets a cut in taxes. Say I am in a 30% tax bracket. The government gets a check for $60,000 from me. Good for them. I still made $140,000 which is a 17.5% return on my investment of $800,000. Still fantastic.

Now since I kick ass so much you decide to take me at a rate of 65%. Now of my $200,000 I cut a check to the feds for $130,000 leaving me with 70,000. Now the return on my investment is 8.75% Not bad, but a better option for me is now to say fuck it and stick by $800,000 in a mutual fund making 10% interest. What are the repercussions? I no longer buy machinery from a guy so he makes no money. I don't employ anyone. Guess what else. Not only does the government not get $140,000, they don't get the $60,000 they could have gotten. Instead they get NOTHING. It is lose lose. I don't build wealth like I could have, the government doesn't get the revenues they could have, the guy selling machinery doesn't sell the machine he could have, and the people don't get the jobs they could have.

So you say that it won't hurt their motivation because people will still be happy to make 7 million instead of 10 million. The reality is that nobody will ever be in the position to even have that kind of money because since they kick ass, you take it from them. Business is worth doing when you can make a profit. If it all goes to taxes, I may as well not take the risk. \

I'm not sure I understand your $10 scenario thing. Why are you giving me an extra dollar? How does this relate to increasing taxes at all? Enlighten me.

I think you'll find a large majority of bigger companies are investing more overseas in order to cut their costs. I know for sure ours are, there's a word for it but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. Outsourcing, that's it. Regardless, under your scenario they could not spend the money (thus not increasing their profits) and instead put that money in the bank to accumulate interest... or they could spend the money and use the profits the upgrade makes them as an investment in itself.

But what you are missing is that I put the money in the bank to earn interest because that would make more money than investing in my business, since business profits are taxed so heavily.

Additionally, I think you will find that if you tax these kick ass earners out of their mind, it is just going to give them more of an incentive to move their business to another country entirely and make the profits there, where they won't be taxed so heavily. That is what you've seen in states like California and Maryland have seen many of their millionaires move away to more tax friendly states. You even see more public cases like NBA players wanting to play in Florida or Texas because those states have no income tax. In the end, over taxing the rich just doesn't work. In inhibits growth without actually making any more money.

I doubt that. My view is formed from the fact that I'm living comfortably off under 60K a year while there are people making one hundred times the money I do are either rolling in debt or stashing money they will never spend in banks to let it accumulate so that their offspring and their offspring's offspring doesn't have to work or contribute to society in any meaningful way.

Whoops, missed this and wanted to address it.

I think that most people would agree that most governments are surprisingly inept at handling their money. Most of these VERY wealthy people give a lot of their money away. They give it to hospitals and schools and the like. They give it to organizations who help people in Africa and etc. Why should we give the money to government so they can waste it on crap? If we let people decide where their money went by allowing them to donate it projects they felt were worthwhile, the world would be a better place. What could be more democratic than that? Want to decide how the money in the country is spent? Than make some and spend it! Why should I give money the government to run shitty schools when we could do it better privately?

Take Bill Gates. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation does so much good. Bill isn't going to leave $40 billion to his kids. He is going to give it to his foundation. They do great things for it. Just the other day the foundation helped me buy new textbooks for our school since the government is so inept at budgeting, there was no public money for it.

Great post Jae. I might get to it later though. I'm going to jump around in these anyway.

I was referring to Ben's post (although I'm not even sure I got it right,) I didn't know the actual number of uninsured people

My number's more correct. The 46 million uninsured number includes as I said about 90% who shouldn't really count, a third of that is undocumented citizens, another third is people eligible for government programs who have not signed up or even applied, and the last third is people who can afford it but don't buy any. The true number of uninsured, but can't afford and aren't eligble for government programs is more like 1-3% of the population. This is, as I explained, why "universal coverage" was dropped as a reason for the reform.

I guess you were luckier than I was. Until my wife co-signed to finance a new HDTV, all the previous applications that I had done on my own were denied, whether it's for a stupid cell phone, a car, a new computer,...

Wow. There was your problem. Outside of a car you shouldn't be taking loans to buy any of that stuff. (Even a car is debatable.) I'm going to have to say it you know. (And this is lighthearted.) El_badman caused the credit crisis and economic collapse.

I'd disagree, for is overall quality, nothing justifies its costs

What about "some people want to pay whatever it takes to get the best"? When Bill Gates pays for that fancy newfangled million dollar operation or Grant Hill has his ankle remade every six months, while you and I are buying our generic $4 pills at Wal-Mart, per capita costs go up but you and me still paid $4.

It's considered absurd in other countries for healthcare to cost so much. You should not be penalized for being sick or injured.
I'm not saying it's necessarily for free, but all things considered, when you look at what's been deducted from you at the end of the year, you do end up paying much much less than here for equivalent or better healthcare. I don't see what's wrong with that.
I don't care if the government is involved or not as long as the end result is the same for me, but obviously that's an unbearable moral issue for some people.

Here's the thing. All the countries in the world with state-provided health insurance are smaller, have a different population makeup (usually less diverse, always less overweight, generally smaller funding base) and gain their cost advantages through shifting of the costs to other markets.

This is the entire way health insurance works. Everyone pays in, and those in need get paid for. It's already a shifting of the costs. In private insurance it's shifting from the healthy and lucky to the unhealthy and unlucky, and most importantly, it's voluntary. In public insurance it's from the rich and healthy to the poor and unhealthy, and it's against your choice.

As I noted above, currently Canada and other countries can negotiate lower prices and set lower prices because companies can shift the cost to the largest market, the United States. We already see this on a small scale example within the US. Medicare/Medicaid refuses to pay full costs, so doctors who don't drop, shift the costs onto their non-Medicare patients.

Once the federal government begins attempting to set prices it destroys that market advantage for other smaller countries which will cause a rise in prices and drop in care. The government has already shot up medical costs by mandating specific coverage in health insurance plans. It is illegal for insurance companies to not offer plans with coverage for various things. That increases costs, because instead of you paying for your Botox, it might be mandated for the insurance to pay for that.

Other foreign countries are already facing a medical cost and pension cost crunch, despite their lower costs. Here in the United States, Medicare/Medicaid, which covers only a third of the population (while paying almost half of the costs in the US...showing how well a federal program will lower costs here) is already facing $75+ trillion in unfunded mandates and that bill comes due in the next decade.

Enacting a forced public plan in the United States will be a disaster. It will force massive tax increases on the middle class to pay for it and enforce legally a two-tier system. Everyone who is not super-rich will be trapped in the public plan and be failing to pay for the entire thing, the rest not only won't pay for it they'll still be able to buy the best care. Care will worsen as it's run through the government ringer, and coverage will depend on political decisions. (Kinda like education!) "Pre-existing conditions" won't disappear, they'll be enforced by the law as you see in the NHS where to control costs they're taking steps towards denying coverage to smokers, alcoholics, people who are too fat, etc. unless they change their ways. Now you have the federal government regulating everyones personal lives.

Since no other large "modern" country has ever attempted a full scale state-run health insurance program except the Soviet Union, we have to look at them. The government controlled 90% of the economy. It had a balanced budget every year because of this. It also provided health care for every citizen. Now, we know that care depended on your political ties, and they simply didn't give a shit about the peons. It'll be the same here, but not to that extreme. The biggest problem however, was despite having 90% of the economy to play with, the Soviet Union still ran into a funding problem for their shitty health care. They were assholes who didn't care about the non-party members for sure, but they also couldn't fund it. They had to make it even worse otherwise it was going to consume their entire budget, and they really really really wanted tanks and nuclear missles.

Right now you have not only a federal government, but state governments who cannot stop adding more and more non-health care related spending to their budgets. President Obama proposed a $3.6 trillion budget for 2010. Only $800 billion of that was related in any possible way to health care. (I'm including HHS, etc.) Social Security consumes $700 billion, the defense department $650 billion. This is his proposed budget. Only about 1% of the time does Congress pass a budget lower than the President. And this is the Congress that has now passed two major cost (i.e near the $1 trillion a year range) bills in a rush without ever reading them, and that would've been three if the health care bill hadn't fallen apart. Think they're going to scale back the rest of the government to pay for health care? Does government ever give up programs and money?

I'm not talking about political decisions like "this guy voted Republican, kill his health insurance!" I'm talking about the massive Leviathan we all hate subjecting all health questions to a political process. People think the lobbyists we have now are the worst thing in the world, they're going to love when the government assumes control of health care. When the feds see that paying for cancer is too expensive, you're going to need a cancer lobby to make sure the government doesn't cut that. If you do get cut, guess what, you can't sue the federal government like you can a private insurance company.

You might say "the government would never do that, they're all wonderful caring people who want to do what's best and what's just." Yeah, I don't trust people with absolute power. You may trust the guy in there now, but what if Ms. Palin becomes President? Do you want her in charge of your health care decisions?

You might also say that the democratic process will prevent the government from doing things its citizens don't like. You know, like with rendetion, wiretapping and budget deficits. But that's the entire problem. Look at social security, it's a failed program that will never work under it's structure but you can't say you're going to do shit about it or else you're tarred with "HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY!" Imagine once the attack line is "HE WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HEALTH CARE AND LET YOU DIE IN THE STREET!!!"

Now, what if we were to do the things both me and Christopherson have proposed in this thread? We'd free up the market and take it national, provide more choices (instead of one insurance company in your state, there's now competition across the entire country, and this would create more and smaller more specialized insurance plans and companies undermining the giants), let people not be double taxed on health expenditures, get rid of the market distortion which is the government, while still providing an independent and basic catastrophic fund (which can't be raided like FICA/Medicare) for emergency life-threatning situations primarily for the poor but could also assist in making up lacking of funds for everyone. (And could also back a percentage of loans along with sharing costs with insurance companies. i.e. your insurance company pays $5000 for your operation, the catastrophic fund matches or pays half what they do, etc.) I even threw out a proposal to provide subsidies (not insurance) like WIC to pay for an basic insurance coverage plan for the poor. We want a safety net, not the government running everything.

Of course, this is all pretending that this whole thing isn't illegal and unconstitutional. But we long since stopped caring about the rule of law.

I'd put a two year limit on Centrelink benefits.

The Clinton-accepted Welfare Reform put a four year limit along with work rules that not only drastically lowered the cost, but took tons of people off the roles who never came back (until recently obviously) and killed a lot of fraud in the system making it more efficient. Although a number of the states continued to destroy themselves, and now the Administration and Congress wants to roll back that reform to the old system like the one that you describe.

I'd also buy back enough shares of various Australian-grown companies that have been sold to overseas firms so that they remain Australian based as opposed to being sent overseas. I'd also put a cap on the amount of work businesses can divert to India or Malaysia or wherever else is cheap. I'd strengthen laws protecting casual/temp workers because I think they are in prime position to be screwed over, I'd also find a way to regulate the amount of dominance supermarket chains can have... as it stands now the Woolworths and Coles groups essentially have a dual monopoly going on, there is not enough competition for them to bother keeping their prices down so I'd find way around this. I don't know what however.

I would suggest not doing what you said in the first, along with rolling back any regulations that affect supermarket chains. Companies that send work to places that are cheaper lower costs for you and provide jobs and improve economies of other countries. The best way to lower the dominance of a chain is to undermine it with competition. If the costs of entering the supermarket...market is too high for a new business then there would never be any competition that grows. Any regulations benefit the largest companies position in the market at the expense of the smaller.

A duopoly is tougher than a monopoly to break, but you could still investigate them to find if there was price-fixing, contracting shennagians, etc.

That's a good point but you also have to take into account the actual revenue we're talking about here. Like that 5% increase may not sound like much as a raw number like that, but consider what that 5% is of. Microsoft made 50 billion dollars last year, do you really think they'd forgo the chance to increase that by another 2.5 billion just because they could've made 5 if the government hadn't raised taxes? Increased revenue is a good thing regardless of the number IMO.

Here's the problem. You aren't going to increase revenue, especially with a 50+% tax. People who are rich enough to make millions are people rich enough or smart enough to find and afford ways to not give you their money. This is why tax increases on the rich can never pay for anything, you have to hit the middle classes ($50,000-$250,000) because they can't escape the tax and there's tons of them.

EDIT: I'll use an example to make it clear. I'm assuming here this is a flat income tax, not a wealth accumulation tax.

Let's take the guy making $10 million a year. Let's assume it costs him $1 million a year to move 90% of his income out of the tax. So he's down to $9 million, and he can move $8.1 million of that offshore. So his taxable income is now only $900,000, even assuming that is still in the 50% tax bracket you're only bringing in $450,000, not $5 million. People make this kind of decision all the time. It's why CEOs get paid $1 in salary, but make $25 million off stock options. If that was his income, he'd pay 35% of it, but capital gains tax is only 15%.

To maximize your revenue, you want to find the rate where he's no longer willing to pay $1 million and move 90% of his income away. At 10%, he pays you $1 million, or he pays $1 million to pay you $90,000. Let's give him some strong patriotism, he really fucking loves Aussieland. At 20%, he'll pay you $2 million because he loves his country enough to not save $820,000.

Here in the United States after The War, the highest tax bracket used to be 91%, then 70%. But that bracket never brought in any money. Reagan slashed it down to 50% and then 28% and revenues soared in those brackets. Indeed, despite the rate, revenues are always the same % of GDP:

but no one needs tens of millions of dollars to live off

That's where our disagreement lies. That's their money, they earned it. Nobody else should have a right to demand they give it up. Setting some kind of "acceptable level of compensation" and confiscating anything more than that is just an unsettling idea for me and my type. Saying "you're too successful, so that money belongs to the government!"

We had a couple of stimulus packages here recently in which people were given lump sum payments of $800 and $1,000, they all went to people earning less than 100k a year because the government reasoned they were the ones who would be more likely to spend it.

And it was irrelevant. Lower incomes spend larger percentages of their income, but they're spending consistent amounts on low level goods, food, clothing, shelter, etc. They aren't generating massive wealth production that happens on the high end. They're buying goods that are already democratized and have gone through economies of scale.

You are saying OK, now you have worked your way up to having 10 million dollars so I am going to take it. After all, you don't need all of that money anyways.

But my idea isn't to take the 10 million dollars away from them. Only a higher portion of it than what they are currently paying.

The real truth is that if you tax these people out of their minds, they won't even be able to get there. Let's say for example, that in my life or business, I spend $800,000 on investments to my business. This goes towards buying new equipment, hiring more workers, etc. By spending this money, I make $1,000,000. That is a return of 25% on my investment. That is fantastic. If I can do that, I kick ass and will make lots of money. More money than I need to live comfortably. But it isn't like nobody benefited from this. I bought machinery from some guy and he made a profit on it. I provided people with good jobs. This is great. Additionally, since I made a profit of $200,000 the government gets a cut in taxes. Say I am in a 30% tax bracket. The government gets a check for $60,000 from me. Good for them. I still made $140,000 which is a 17.5% return on my investment of $800,000. Still fantastic.


Now since I kick ass so much you decide to take me at a rate of 65%. Now of my $200,000 I cut a check to the feds for $130,000 leaving me with 70,000. Now the return on my investment is 8.75% Not bad, but a better option for me is now to say fuck it and stick by $800,000 in a mutual fund making 10% interest. What are the repercussions? I no longer buy machinery from a guy so he makes no money. I don't employ anyone. Guess what else. Not only does the government not get $140,000, they don't get the $60,000 they could have gotten. Instead they get NOTHING. It is lose lose. I don't build wealth like I could have, the government doesn't get the revenues they could have, the guy selling machinery doesn't sell the machine he could have, and the people don't get the jobs they could have.

I'm not talking about business wealth I'm talking about personal wealth. Most people who would draw my tax increase (2 million + per year) are not funding their businesses out of their own pockets. They fund it by the money the business itself generates because that is how you run a successful business in the fist place. If you are paying $800,000 for anything out of your own pocket then you are failing as an owner. I'm not even sure in your scenario that the person you're speaking of would qualify for the tax increase, I did specify $2 million + per year.

So you say that it won't hurt their motivation because people will still be happy to make 7 million instead of 10 million. The reality is that nobody will ever be in the position to even have that kind of money because since they kick ass, you take it from them. Business is worth doing when you can make a profit. If it all goes to taxes, I may as well not take the risk.

I still fail to see how it is all going to taxes. Even by what you just said, making seven million instead of ten, you are keeping 70% of what you would have made had taxes not increased. That's hardly putting you on the breadline and forcing you to close your wallet and never open it again. High level businessmen lose money every day in the stock market and such, in some cases they lose huge portions of their personal wealth, far far more than I would be taxing. Does that mean they shut up shop and stop trying to make money? How is a stock market crash not a deterrent but a tax increase hurts motivation?

I'm not sure I understand your $10 scenario thing. Why are you giving me an extra dollar? How does this relate to increasing taxes at all? Enlighten me.

You brought up the idea of someone not wanting to spend money and instead stashing it away in a bank somewhere, that is what I was referring to. It's pretty simple, in your iniitial example you said it would be better to take money you would've used to buy something that increased the profitability of your business and instead store it in the bank to collect interest... in my example you take the money and spend it on buying something to increase your profits, then use those additional profits as the investment as opposed to using the money you were using previously.

But what you are missing is that I put the money in the bank to earn interest because that would make more money than investing in my business, since business profits are taxed so heavily.

I'm not taxing businesses though, I'm taxing individuals. I've never once said anything about wanting to tax businesses. If anything if someone who owned a business is being taxed more personally, wouldn't they want to find ways to increase the profitability of their business thus increasing their own finances and gaining back some of the money they lost via higher taxes? Though you seem to think they'd just give up and beg for change.

Additionally, I think you will find that if you tax these kick ass earners out of their mind, it is just going to give them more of an incentive to move their business to another country entirely and make the profits there, where they won't be taxed so heavily. That is what you've seen in states like California and Maryland have seen many of their millionaires move away to more tax friendly states.

You're using the USA as an example when my country is Australia. Aside from payroll tax I am fairly certain we have level income taxes in every state. At least I can't find any evidence saying otherwise. They would also not be able to move their businesses to other countries entirely because in my original post I said there would be measures made to prevent foreign ownership of Australian companies.

I think that most people would agree that most governments are surprisingly inept at handling their money.

Not my government. Remember this is the "ruler for a day" thread.

Most of these VERY wealthy people give a lot of their money away. They give it to hospitals and schools and the like. They give it to organizations who help people in Africa and etc.

It's also tax deductable.

If we let people decide where their money went by allowing them to donate it projects they felt were worthwhile, the world would be a better place. What could be more democratic than that? Want to decide how the money in the country is spent? Than make some and spend it! Why should I give money the government to run shitty schools when we could do it better privately?

If charities were so efficient then there wouldn't be any of them left. The immensely rich make these donations mostly in an effort to dodge paying more income tax, so they're basically robbing from the government and giving to organisations in the hope that they'll do something worthwhile with it. The fact is if you let people be selective about what is funded and what isn't, you then get into an extremely dangerous situation where there is a huge imbalance in who gets the donations and who doesn't. Right now the name-brand charities get the donations, if you expand this process it just makes things worse.

At least the government realizes it needs to spread the wealth over varying sectors, not just the ones that are popular with the general public. If your plan was implemented we'd be seeing floods of money being donated to organizations trying to "save the environment" while many other valuable causes would go ignored purely because they aren't mainstream or viewed as important.It's like when natural disasters happen and so many donations flood in that they start sending the money back. People donate either to dodge taxes or to feel good about themselves, that's virtually it.

Here's the problem. You aren't going to increase revenue, especially with a 50+% tax. People who are rich enough to make millions are people rich enough or smart enough to find and afford ways to not give you their money. This is why tax increases on the rich can never pay for anything, you have to hit the middle classes ($50,000-$250,000) because they can't escape the tax and there's tons of them.

I have no real argument for this, other than I was looking less at generating income for the nation I'm running and more about trying to balance the finances in order to increase quality of life for the masses.

That's where our disagreement lies. That's their money, they earned it. Nobody else should have a right to demand they give it up. Setting some kind of "acceptable level of compensation" and confiscating anything more than that is just an unsettling idea for me and my type. Saying "you're too successful, so that money belongs to the government!"

For me it's not about trying to make the government richer, it's about balancing out the wealth somewhat within the general public. Not significantly, as I said you don't need a huge amount of money to live off, and while obviously there's always going to be people who are living well within their means (and the opposite) there are enough people struggling to get by day to day that I wouldn't feel guilty about making it harder for one person to pay for their luxuries in order for someone else to feed their family or have a roof over their head. I wouldn't suggest taking someone who's making 2 million a year and suddenly hitting them with 70% tax or anythng, but I don't think an extra 5-8% would kill them. As it stands right now, another 5-8% would push the income tax rate over here for high earners to about 50-53%. It's a bit of a bleeding heart policy and I'd guarantee if I were one of those making 2 million + I would probably backtrack faster than you could imagine but for now I like the Robin Hood approach.

And it was irrelevant. Lower incomes spend larger percentages of their income, but they're spending consistent amounts on low level goods, food, clothing, shelter, etc. They aren't generating massive wealth production that happens on the high end. They're buying goods that are already democratized and have gone through economies of scale.

[/quote]

This sounds logical, it doesn't change my views on increasing taxes at the high end but does now make me think the stimulus package was entirely useless.

I have no real argument for this, other than I was looking less at generating income for the nation I'm running and more about trying to balance the finances in order to increase quality of life for the masses.
For me it's not about trying to make the government richer, it's about balancing out the wealth somewhat within the general public.

Yeah, but what I was saying is, it won't work.

You have to take the money from them through the government, and even if it was a straight redistribution (i.e. you take the money and split that up until everybody is making $100,000 a year) you're going to eventually run into a funding problem.

The only way to do it was to make it illegal to make any more or less than $100,000. (I'm just using this as a nice figure for basic life plus some bonuses.) And then you do run into the problems Christopherson is trying to talk about. I agree with you on a 5% increase isn't going to set off mass anything, but we were going off your original 50% suggestion. (Or at least that's what I read it as.)

And you run into an even bigger problem, the stagnation and eventual collapse of your economy and country. In order for it to be sustained, you'd have to find some level in which people couldn't afford to leave the country. You'd also have to make that illegal and create a kind of Fortress Aussieland to prevent anyone from leaving.

Basically, I'm saying the only way to do this is turn Aussieland into North Korea.

You have to take the money from them through the government, and even if it was a straight redistribution (i.e. you take the money and split that up until everybody is making $100,000 a year) you're going to eventually run into a funding problem.

I wouldn't want to distribute it THAT evenly, but I see your point.

I agree with you on a 5% increase isn't going to set off mass anything, but we were going off your original 50% suggestion. (Or at least that's what I read it as.)

5% increase would be 50% here.

You'd also have to make that illegal and create a kind of Fortress Aussieland to prevent anyone from leaving.

Basically, I'm saying the only way to do this is turn Aussieland into North Korea.

If I were a cartoon there'd be a lightbulb popping up over my head at the moment... that is all quite interesting though, I'll never pretend to be an expert on economic structures or practises, but I have to admit I never took into account the actual tax evasion that goes on amongst the richest group. Aside from the obvious one like charitable donations.

There's a reason for this quirk in the legal system. It's so a law can't be made because you did something and then charge you under it even though it wasn't illegal at the time. Like if I right now suddenly drafted a law making it illegal to complain about old child molesters and charged you with committing a crime for your post.

I get that and that's fair enough, but I was referring more to the law that a community/neighbourhood must be notified when a former child molester moves in, which only applies to people convicted before a certain date (I can't remember what it is). I know it's sketchy because there's a big privacy issue there but there's a safety and peace of mind issue too. I wouldn't allow people to be charged and tried again under any new laws but I think that particular form of protection afforded to people formerly convicted of sexual assault, particularly when children are involved, is unfair to the communities they move into upon their release. Again, I have to admit there's the issue of their privacy and right to make a fresh start and I don't have an answer as to how that could be respected while eliminating that particular grandfathered law, but these things have a way of getting out anyway and causing hysteria. Why not do it in a less gossipy way and arm parents with their facts so their children can be protected?

I'm in Australia like Jae. I like some of his immigration policies. I'm from New Zealand and a dual citizen of both countries. I was only received Government benefits for one week (I was a citizen at the time) & only because it was getting dire. I like his idea of the 2 year limit. There needs to be more incentive to get people off their arses. I also like the English requirements and that it is offered for free.

1. Get rid of 1.5% medicare levy surcharge on income: I personally never get anything back from it. I'd prefer to put that money towards private health insurance and income protection insurance, which both give me coverage in the event of serious illness & not just the flu or whatever.

2. Abolish unions and free up the job marketplace: It doesn't affect me as I don't work in them, but it frustrates me to see ineffective working practices. I've heard many cases of new employees working hard & then the union representatives going to them & telling them "to pull their head in" & not work so hard as they are making everybody else look bad, & if they choose not to, they'll ensure they don't have a job. At the moment, remuneration seems to often be based on tenure rather than performance. Given this change, as Jae alluded to, there needs to be increased protection for unfair dismissal for workers.

3. Add random drug testing (for illegal drugs) requirement to anybody receiving Government benefits: If you fail the test & a subsequent re-test, then you become ineligible to receive your benefit.

4. Increase taxes on cigarettes: $1 per cigarette ($20-$25 per pack) sounds fair

5. Decriminalise, regulate and tax marijuana: I don't smoke myself, but many do. Good tax earner. Obviously people still can't grow themselves and have to buy as they do with cigarettes.

6. Add compulsory 2nd language in primary and secondary school: Because frankly, I now wish I could speak Spanish or Italian fluently than go through some of crap they taught.

7. Scrap State Governments: Frankly I don't think they're needed. In New Zealand it's only really Federal & Local (City) Governments. I think the extra layer of Government needs to go. I'm sure a lot of what is handled by the State Governments could be handled Federally.

8. Furthermore to point 7, this will result in the alignment of regulations. All teachers will be dealt with under a national body, not a State level. Same with police force and so on.


I'll come up with more later.

7. Scrap State Governments: Frankly I don't think they're needed. In New Zealand it's only really Federal & Local (City) Governments. I think the extra layer of Government needs to go. I'm sure a lot of what is handled by the State Governments could be handled Federally.

New Zealand's also smaller in both population and size than Victoria.

The point of states are separation of powers and protection of liberties.

You actually couldn't really scrap them because the federal government would just recreate them because they're useful administrative bodies, only they'd be appointed instead of elected by their constituents.

Add random drug testing (for illegal drugs) requirement to anybody receiving Government benefits: If you fail the test & a subsequent re-test, then you become ineligible to receive your benefit.

I think this is a great idea. The fact that illicit drug users could be using my tax dollars for something other than rent on a prison bed bothers me.

Decriminalise, regulate and tax marijuana: I don't smoke myself, but many do. Good tax earner. Obviously people still can't grow themselves and have to buy as they do with cigarettes.

I have always been a HUGE proponent of the legalization of pot, but recently the thought of legalizing it so that we can tax/regulate it might have some potential benefits. A few benefits I can think of might be:
1. We could control the potency of it. From what I've read, pot has way more THC now then it did in the 60's. Perhaps if we were able to "water it down" it might be a good thing.
2. I think that it is possible that legalizing it might stop some people from using. I think that if some people had to go into the public at a convenience store in front of their friends and neighbors they might be less likely to buy it? I've never been a drug user so I don't pretend to understand the psyche of one so I might be off base. I just think that there might be enough people stopping to offset those who would start because it was legal.
3. Tax revenue, obviously. Also the ability to have accurate statistics about its use, etc.
That being said, I have never, and will never buy into the argument that we should legalize it because "its not that bad" and crap like that.

My only concern with the legalisation of marijuana is how it relates to driving offences. Anytime you get behind the wheel when you're impaired, be it booze, pot or prescription medication that you're using legitimately, it's a dangerous idea. If it's legal and taxed, should it remain a crime if you partake and drive, same as if you drink and drive? I think it should be, but by the same token I'd extend that anything that impairs your senses and judgment when you're on the road; illicit, recreational or medicinal.

It's already illegal to drive under the influence. Decriminalizing possession wouldn't change that. It would be placed in the same substance classification as painkillers, alcohol, etc.

But as some posters have advocated on here, smoking pot actually makes you a better driver when you're going 150-200% of the speed limit. So maybe it should be encouraged.

I would ban the spanish-style bullfighting aka "corrida de toros". I think they brutal, barbaric and stupid. They show how far is Spain from being a modern and sensible country. The animals have also their fundamental rights as the right to live, to freedom and the most important, the right not to be tortured.

I know this has nothing to do with the issues previously posted, but I just wanted to say it.

Decriminalise, regulate and tax marijuana: I don't smoke myself, but many do. Good tax earner. Obviously people still can't grow themselves and have to buy as they do with cigarettes.

I have always been a HUGE proponent of the legalization of pot, but recently the thought of legalizing it so that we can tax/regulate it might have some potential benefits. A few benefits I can think of might be:
1. We could control the potency of it. From what I've read, pot has way more THC now then it did in the 60's. Perhaps if we were able to "water it down" it might be a good thing.
2. I think that it is possible that legalizing it might stop some people from using. I think that if some people had to go into the public at a convenience store in front of their friends and neighbors they might be less likely to buy it? I've never been a drug user so I don't pretend to understand the psyche of one so I might be off base. I just think that there might be enough people stopping to offset those who would start because it was legal.
3. Tax revenue, obviously. Also the ability to have accurate statistics about its use, etc.
That being said, I have never, and will never buy into the argument that we should legalize it because "its not that bad" and crap like that.

I didn't mention that, but yes, that was one of my thought processes. At least the end user will have a better idea of what's in it rather than it being laced with fly spray (back in NZ from Black Power) for extra kick....

I know this has nothing to do with the issues previously posted, but I just wanted to say it.

That's the beauty of a thread calling for open discussion. Your post doesn't have to do with the ones above it. If no one introduces a post that has nothing to do with those above it, this thread will die quickly. Only if people keep introducing NEW topics will discussion continue. I've got several more ideas to try and milk the thread farther along, but don't want to use them as long as more people are posting.

As for your post, I would support that. We demonize Michael Vick, yet something similar (I know it isn't the same by any measure) happens as a regular part of other cultures. At the time, a lot of people tried to justify what Vick did by saying it was cultural, and I think that they did have some basis.

But as some posters have advocated on here, smoking pot actually makes you a better driver when you're going 150-200% of the speed limit. So maybe it should be encouraged.

Not only does it make you a better driver, it makes you a better employee, a better test taker, and a better citizen. Trust me, I have worked with some outstanding pot heads before. And no way in hell did the introduction of pot into their lives lead to them using harder drugs like cocaine or meth. Nope, in fact I do believe it made them less likely!

Another option that you could have is that the "work for Government benefit/dole" is actually working for the army reserves....this might straighten a few people out & motivate them towards becoming more productive members of society....I actually couldn't care less if some people don't want to work, that's fine & that's their decision, but I do care if they are collecting unemployment benefits....I'd prefer that my hard earned taxes could go into health and education and other avenues....

But yep, as for Jae's 2 year rule, think about it I'd probably knock it back to a 1 year rule (2 years cumulative over your lifetime) & you are only eligible for it after losing your job....obviously there would need to be some exception, plus some transitional rules, but they could be worked through....these changes wouldn't apply to people whom are in approved courses/trades, as at least they're doing something about their predicaments....

As an Accountant, I would want the tax system streamlined a bit. The first to go would be capital gains tax. I have never been a fan of it and the whole premise behind it where you are essentially taxed for taking a risk with your own money and making investments for the future that may or may not work out. If they do, you are slugged with tax. Where's the fairness in that? I'm sure there are other reasons for it, but I don't like it.

I would also get rid of payroll tax. Actually that would be the first to go. I find it crazy that this war-time tax is still around. It is good for the economy when businesses are employing lots of people. But once you have group (companies and associated entities in the group) payroll of more than $1 million (it's not a lot, only small businesses won't pay more than that), then you are taxed 4.75% on the excess. Makes absolutely no sense as the Government is essentially discouraging businesses of that size from wanting to employ. Each employee that you hire once over $1 million payroll, at minimum will cost you the employees wage plus 9% super plus 4.75% payroll tax on the combined wage and super. I'm glad the 9% super is there for everybody but the payroll tax needs to go.

Whilst I am happy with value added taxes (VAT) like GST, I am not a fan of capital gains tax. I think it should be like New Zealand where there is no capital gains tax. Why should people that take a risk and make capital gains from it be taxed on it? I wouldn't call capital gains income as it's more capital in nature & often not related to effort, but more often risk and sometimes luck. If I buy an investment property and make $100,000, then I'm going to be taxed on that money I make. Obviously some concessions might apply, but on average somebody would pay at least $20,000 tax on that gain ($40,000 tax if the asset was held for less than 12 months).

I would ban the spanish-style bullfighting aka "corrida de toros". I think they brutal, barbaric and stupid. They show how far is Spain from being a modern and sensible country. The animals have also their fundamental rights as the right to live, to freedom and the most important, the right not to be tortured.

As opposed to two people fighting inside a ring to beat the hell out of each other?

You do know that the dead bulls are cooked and eaten after, and at least they get to have a fighting chance to make a new asshole out of a person before they die.