Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Anyone for flat tax?

0 helpful
84 replies

by jardinier

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Yes, I know all you American right-wing fundamentalists would prefer no tax at all, so please spare me the reiteration of your gripes.

I am a great believer in flat tax as it would greatly simplify the taxation system, including calculation of personal or company tax, and in the long run would be a major incentive for people at all current tax levels to work harder, knowing that they would not be penalised for doing so.

This is an item from the only Australian national newspaper, "The Australian." [Founded in 1964 by Rupert Murdoch when he still had some ethics. It remains one of Australia's most highly respected newspapers.]

Americans and others please note that the conservative party in Australia is called "The Liberal Party."

[The Australian, February 28, 2006]
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has instigated an inquiry designed to find the world's best tax systems, which will include a review of low-taxing Asian economies and eastern European countries where flat taxes are as low as 16 per cent.

One of the prominent businessmen conducting the inquiry, Dick Warburton, said yesterday it would not be limited to the 30 developed nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It would include nations such as Romania, Slovakia and Estonia, which have a single low tax rate for all employees that also applies to companies.

"These are not beyond our remit and we discussed these countries at our last (Board of Taxation) meeting," Mr Warburton said. "We'll look beyond the OECD."

In Romania, the rate is 16per cent, while in Slovakia it is at 19per cent and Estonia 24per cent. Mr Warburton said the review would definitely include Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which have low personal income tax rates. Mr Costello said his inquiry aimed to provide a definitive set of facts showing the areas in which Australia met international practice and those where it lagged.

"Armed with those facts, we will be able to direct our attention to those areas where Australia lags and, in response to that, be able to ensure that the Australian taxation system meets international practice," he said.

Access Economics estimates the cost of getting the top rate of tax down to 42per cent, which is the average rate for the non-European members of the OECD, would be $1.7billion in the first year, rising to $2.4billion by the fourth year. The cost of taking the 47c and 42c rates to 40c would be more than $15billion over the next four years.

While interest in the tax investigation has focused on comparison with the tax rates of Australia's major competitors, Mr Warburton said the inquiry would not focus on developed nations' averages, which are distorted by small high-taxing countries in western Europe.

"We're going to look behind the averages to get some kind of a weighting and a range," he said. "For example, the threshold for the top personal tax rate in the US is about $US300,000. What happens if you go with that, or one that is much lower, or an average?"

Mr Warburton said he and Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive Peter Hendy had not been given any riding instructions from Mr Costello, other than to "get the facts" on where Australia stood. He said that although Mr Costello was of the view that Australia was a low-taxing country, he did not express an opinion about what he expected the review to find.

The Treasurer's major concern was that the debate on personal tax was distorted by people "cherry picking" elements of other systems and saying Australia should follow them. The review would go beyond headline tax rates and thresholds and would also try to compare the generosity of deductions and exemptions in other tax systems.

Mr Warburton said it was premature to conclude that the inquiry would pave the way for a trade-off of tax cuts for fewer workplace deductions. The inquiry would also aim to identify levies, such as road tolls. It would also look at high effective rates levied on low-income individuals as family and other benefits are withdrawn.

Mr Warburton said this was a difficult area to resolve, as any movement of thresholds or taper rates produced winners and losers. "There might be 80per cent winners, but in tax, the winners are grinners and say nothing and the 20per cent who lose make a lot of noise."

Liberal MP Sophie Panopoulos, a leading advocate within her party for tax and welfare reform, said scrutiny of Australia's tax and welfare payment system was needed for real tax reform to take place.

"It would be particularly useful if this inquiry included in its benchmarking of our taxation system benchmarking on family taxation," Ms Panopoulos said. "That is a comparison of effective marginal tax rates for working families. We may learn something from the various forms of income splitting applied in other countries."

84 replies

by gadgetgirl

I was wondering what sort of "flat tax" you were on about.....!

(if there was a "flat" tax, that'd be okey-dokey by me....!!! ;) )

]:)

GG

by maxwell edison

You said, [i]"Yes, I know all you American right-wing fundamentalists would prefer no tax at all, so please spare me the reiteration of your gripes.[/i]

Now I don't consider myself a [i]"right-wing fundamentalist"[/i], but other people have charged me as one. Nonetheless, I believe you were addressing people like me, regardless of what we or others may or may not call us.

I've never espoused [i]"no tax at all[/i]" -- never. It's where and how those taxes are spent that is the issue. Spending on national defense, yes; spending on a national retirement system, no. Spending on roads and infrastructure, yes; spending on personal housing, no. Spending on police and fire protection, yes. Spending on prescription drugs for individuals, no. Spending on maintaining our form of government, yes. spending on maintaining people's individual way of life, no.

When will you get it right? And how many times must I correct you before you stop repeating the same silly thing? And why do you always to that? I know you're smarter than that, but you keep doing it. I suppose you also accompany it with a silly and condescending giggle that's so prevalent in many left-wing fundamentalists.

And how can I possibly absorb the rest of your message if I can't even get past the first sentence?

by jardinier

because obviously I don't read all discussions, I have only heard you say: "I don't believe that a dollar which has been earned by someone who has worked for it, should be given to someone who has not worked for it," or words to that effect.

I am ONLY aware of your objection to the welfare programs.

As for assuming that you were one of the peers my comment addressed, then perhaps you are paranoid. There are some peers who have stated quite categorically that they DO NOT approve of taxation on ANYTHING !!!

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=190312&messageID=1961166

I have NO recollection of you ever specifying which taxes you find acceptable. But as I said, you may have stated this in some discussion which I did not visit.

Thank you for defining my political stance -- I was never quite sure where I fitted in.

What YOU will never get into your head is that the left-wing party in Australia, the Labor Party, bears very little resemblance to your Democratic party, either in ideology or practice.

But if I press your buttons so readily, perhaps you should add me to the list of people whose posts you deliberately avoid reading.

by maxwell edison

I don't know of any reasonable person who advocates the abolition of all taxes. I also don't know of any reasonable person who actually believes that there are such "reasonable" people. So if you want to have a reasonable discussion with reasonable people, I don't understand why you would start it with such an unreasonable comment, regardless of its intended audience.

By the way, your knowledge and recollection is correct, at least to some degree. But again, you pigeon-holed my sentiments into the "welfare" definition.

by maxwell edison

I won't presume to know what he meant or the context in which it was said. And I don't really care to read that whole discussion tree to figure it out.

Nonetheless, I will say this. He said, "Nobody should be able to use tax dollars to do anything." While you claimed he said that he, "DO(es) NOT approve of taxation on ANYTHING !!!

"to use tax dollars to do anything ...... versus ..... "does not approve of taxation on anything" ..... big difference.

But I'll only speak for myself.

by maxwell edison

You said, "What YOU will never get into your head is that the left-wing party in Australia, the Labor Party, bears very little resemblance to your Democratic party, either in ideology or practice."

I suppose I could be mistaken, but I usually consider left-wing more of a collectivist thinking group of people, and the "right-wing" being less of that, regardless of what you call it or where it is.

Okay, I admit my ignorance. But will you please provide me a comparison of Australia's left-wing Labor Party and America's left-wing Democrat Party?

By the way, how about defining your political stance? I'd be quite interested to know where you stand and why. Then they'll be no assumptions or misunderstanding on my part.

by jardinier

Your list of which items should be funded by taxes clearly categorises you as a right-wing fundamentalist. John Howard would love you. Much as he would like to dismantle the welfare system altogether, he knows that this would not be accepted by the electorate.

In fact during the 2001 - 2004 term of office, he had to introduce countless items of legislation which were virtually lifted off the ALP website, in order to remain in favour with the populace at large. In the run-up to the October 9 election in 2004, he "bought" votes by squandering a massive budget surplus to appease people with a leaning to the left.

I am not a left-wing fundamentalist and there is no "silly and condescending giggle."

I am attempting to start a serious discussion on the merits of flat tax, which you are trying to turn into a dialogue between you and myself.

by maxwell edison

If I had to choose between a progressive income tax or a flat income tax, I'd certainly choose the latter. However, I would prefer a flat tax based on consumption instead of a flat tax based on income.

Here is the best plan I've ever seen:

http://www.fairtax.org

by jardinier

In Australia we have a Goods and Services Tax, which of course is a consumption tax and so goes part way towards the ideal which you suggest.

This tax of 10 per cent replaced wholesale tax, which only applied to certain goods, so that some items (which had a wholesale tax of, say, 15 per cent) became cheaper, while items which were not subject to wholesale tax became more expensive.

However this tax is so unwieldy that it placed a huge burden on small business owners who sold items from both categories.

http://www.gstsolutions.com.au/terminolgy/gst_terms.html

It was part of a "simpler and fairer" tax package introduced by the Howard/Costello Government which turned out to be anything but simple and fair.

Some items which do not attract GST are unprocessed foods and medicines. So a pharmacist for example, who sells medicines, cosmetics and other items, has to calculate it item by item. I will remember that my pharmacist, when GST was first introduced, swore that he would never vote "Liberal" again.

However vendors, tradesmen and consumers all adjusted to this new tax set-up surprisingly quickly.

To apply flat tax to personal income would simply require gross incomes to be adjusted so that each person's net income remained unchanged.

It is my personal opinion that there will never be a simple tax system because too many people (accountants, lawyers, politicians and others) have a vested interest in keeping the tax system as complicated as possible.

Anyhow at least this study referred to is a step in the right direction, no matter how small.

If you know of any country that has considered implementing a consumption tax as the ONLY tax, I would be interested to know.

However the real world will never accommodate an idealistic solution.

by tonythetiger

and only at the point of sale is merely an attempt to decieve the consumer, who pays all taxes no matter what.

Manufacturers and retailers include the taxes they 'pay' into the costs of products and services they sell, just as they include every other business cost. So why not be upfront about it?

Because if you can hide it, there's an opportunity to decieve your way out of paying it, or (more likely) get someone else to pay it. That's the whole idea behind most current tax systems. Allowing those who are savvy to have an advantage over those who aren't.

Consumption taxes are different. They put the consumer in total control, and places those who are paid from taxes (politicians) at the mercy of the consumers.

It's time to remind these clowns just exactly who works for whom.

by brigand

A flat tax on income is the most cost effective and fair to everyone. If you are talking about a true flat tax. There are no deductions, no exceptions.

A consumption tax is disproportionate to the poor, any tax will be disproportionate to the poor. The poor have less than the rich, so anything they pay will be a greater percentage of there net worth than it will be for the rich. That's reality, get over it. Once you start playing games with exceptions and rules, you'll find your self creating a tax system similar to the one we currently have (in the USA). Consumption is no exception.

If you take into account the point above were there are no deductions, no exceptions. Example, you will cause the price of all durable good to rise. Microsoft makes Billions, so does General Motors. The difference is the cost making there products. GM has to purchase raw material and parts, each with its own consumption tax. Microsoft pays a developer (not taxable based on the consumption theory) so there cost of doing business will be reduced while GM's will increase considerably.

Back to the poor, that $10,000 new car the poor family was going to by is now a $25,000 car so GM can get back there tax paid on all of the parts and raw goods that they now have to pay in the price of the goods, again penalizing the poor. That whole consumption thing just took a nose dive in popularity.

A flat tax on gross income will produce a much larger pool of money, allowing a smaller tax rate to sustain the governments insatiable appetite for spending, allowing the poor to pay the exact same based on percentage of income making the system a fair a possible and reducing the amount that the poor have to pay, allowing them to get the most they can for the dollar spent. Consumption on the other hand is based on a much smaller pool of money. A consumption tax would encourage saving, making the pool of money even smaller.

That would be part one, part two and the biggest challenge is to get the government (state. local and federal) to stop wasting money. $0.80 of every dollar they spend going to administration, what's wrong with this picture? Show me one fortune 500 company that has 80% overhead.

If you don't believe me, do the math yourself.

by maxwell edison

For if you had, you wouldn't have had the objections you posted.

Before you can argue against something, you should, in the very least, be familiar with it.

Why not click on the link and read the plan?

(And don't say that you did, because your message proves you didn't.)

by maxwell edison

You said, "...That's reality, get over it..."

Unless you want to tag yourself as a royal jerk-off, refrain from such condescending and pompous crap.

You and I have never conversed, yet you presume to tell me to "get over it".

Get over it? Get over what? How about YOU get over yourself.

by absolutely

And I strongly doubt it would cause 250% increases in automobile manufacturing costs, or anything else. Primarily, the tax proposal at fairtax.org would lower the costs, in money and time spent, in figuring one's own tax burden. As Maxwell said, correctly, it's obvious Brigand did not read the contents of fairtax.org, which include the following summary:

"A Simpler Way...

Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary ?consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.
It's simple.

Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.
It's simple."

Furthermore, it's clear that Brigand simply decided to quit when his analysis led to the conclusion that any change to the present system would result in the Marxist fraud sold to "little people" as excuse for stealing from the productive.

Brigand: "A consumption tax is disproportionate to the poor, any tax will be disproportionate to the poor. The poor have less than the rich, so anything they pay will be a greater percentage of there net worth than it will be for the rich."

In [b]fact[/b] the tax proposal on fairtax.org has exactly one exemption, for people up to the poverty line. If you still say that's unfair to the lower middle class, I'm interested in knowing why you believe that, but "the poor", by definition, are fully exempted.

Regarding your closing line, Brigand ("If you don't believe me, do the math yourself."), that isn't quite the way it works. I personally happen to already believe that at least 80% of the federal government's budget goes up in proverbial smoke, due to countless hours of my own data-gathering & analysis. But even if you leave the [b]analysis[/b] to your audience, if you are trying to convince others to believe what you're saying, the way to convince thinking people is to provide the data, [b]then[/b] leave the math as an exercise. The smartest way to make these points is to gather the data and present it in such a way that the arithmetic serves as proof.

Coincidentally, Maxwell Edison does exactly that, frequently. Regardless of your feelings about his conclusions, you have a lot to learn about his methods before you presume the dismissive attitude you've taken with Mr. Edison.

by tonythetiger

But the consumption tax has an advantage. If you don't buy as much (or buy used stuff if you exempt it) you won't pay as much tax. You are in control!

and

"A consumption tax would encourage saving, making the pool of money even smaller."

Uh, only if they put it in trash cans buried in their yard. If they bank it, the bank will use that money to loan to, among other people, business who want to expand.

by jdclyde

it is one thing to say everyone will pay 25% off everything they have. It is insane to say that the more you make, you ALSO have a higher percentage to pay ON your increased earnings.

This gives everyone more incentive to earn more, even the poor poor.

Greater percentage of their net worth? waa.

by jardinier

If you read apotheon's comment in the context of the discussion, I think you will readily see what he implied by that statement.

In fact when I challenged him to suggest means other than tax for a government to raise revenue, he was quite unable to give a satisfactory reply, but instead responded with: "Have you no ability to think for yourself?"

by jdclyde

He said "income tax" not tax, in the follow up post.

We pay taxes on services, property, sales, "sin taxes" and so on that have NOTHING to do with income.

To tax someones income based on how much they make only removes incentive to make more.

I have known people to turn down Overtime pay (time and a half) because it would put them into a higher tax bracket and cost them more.

A current example in my own life. My ex wife made only 2/3 what I did over the year, but got back more than twice the tax return I did. (we each had the same weekly deductions and everything else was equal. Bottom line, I paid twice what she did in taxes. If I had made about 2k less, I would have gotten a huge deduction available. Made too much for it.

I also had the year my twins were born, an incredible thing happen to me. I got almost 2K back MORE than I paid in. Not only did I not pay taxes that year, but I got other peoples tax money given to me.

Can you say "redistribution of wealth"?

by jardinier

The Australian Labor Party is the oldest political party in Australian and was actually already in existance before Australia became a federation, with a constitution, in 1901.

Initially one of its primary objectives was to work towards the socialisation of industry and production.

HOWEVER, during the reign of Labor Prime Ministers Bob Hawke (1983 - 1991) and Paul Keating (1991 - 1996) the party moved very noticeably towards the centre -- so much so in fact that many people have complained that they can't tell the difference between the two major parties.

It was under Bob Hawke's leadership that the practise was introduced of privatising Government owned and controlled enterprises as a means of raising revenue without increasing taxes.

Thus Australia's left-wing party is very much closer to the political centre than America's Democratic Party.

The Labor Party is not trying to remove teaching of scripture in schools. It is not pro-abortion.

You can read the party's platform for yourself. Yes, it is certainly still a left-wing party, supporting welfare programs and so forth, but it has a more positive approach overall than your Democratic Party (IMHO of course).

http://www.alp.org.au/platform/index.php

I will address your other question (about my political stance) later as duty calls.

by jardinier

Some time ago you asked me to describe my core values. I simply answered that I try to live according to the teachings of Jesus, which apparently satisfied you as you made no further comment.

What you perhaps overlooked is that Jesus was extremely left wing ? support the poor and needy, pay your taxes, and do not aspire after wealth.

In the various online political tests, I usually come out slightly to the left of centre.

I will now address the issue of social welfare ? so regularly scorned by certain members of this website (those to whom I referred as right wing fundamentalists).

Australia has a very extensive welfare system and I have never heard ANYONE who is inclined to right wing politics suggest that we should not have such a system or that people who are welfare beneficiaries are in that position by their own choice because they are too lazy to work.

As I live in what was in 2001 the second safest conservative electoral division in Australia, I think I would know about it if any conservatives were against the welfare system in general. We do have people who are dole bludgers by choice, but most young people who are on the dole are there because, after two decades of high unemployment, young people who were genuinely seeking work simply became discouraged after failing numerous applications for work.

I will now address the issue of free or highly subsidised health care, from my personal experience. Some members of this website who are healthy, highly motivated and successful, are apparently unable to concede to the possibility that some people simply are unable to compete in the pressures of modern society.

Well I am one of those people. Genetically I inherited a highly sensitive nature and low physical stamina. Both my father?s parents had committed suicide, which is not a nice set of genes to live with.

In my unsuccessful attempts to compete to a satisfactory degree, I suffered what you might describe as a complete nervous breakdown, except that it occurred over a number of years. Eventually life became such a living nightmare that I visited a doctor who prescribed medication and put me on Sickness Benefits. When there was no improvement in my condition after two years, I transferred to a Disability Pension which has been my primary source of income for 20 years.

Two years ago some of you may recall that I suffered heart failure and was admitted to hospital. As a pensioner I was entitled to Medicare (introduced by Labor PM Gough Whitlam during his short term of office from 1972 ? 1975) which covered all my medical expenses which were incurred during my period of hospitalisation.

Part of Medicare is a system called Bulk Billing which allows doctors or other people in the health care industry to accept from the government a lower fee than they would normally charge, so that the patient is charged nothing.

We also have a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme under which certain medicinal drugs can be purchased for a nominal fee instead of the full cost.

Now if some of you feel that it is beneath your dignity to share the same cyberspace with someone whose very existence has and will continue to depend on welfare, then let me know and I will exit from these discussions.

by absolutely

You say Jesus was "extremely left wing" but you're wrong. He had no wing and was a member of no wing. When asked about taxes, he said don't mix religion and politics. Not in so many words, but I've already quoted the beginning of his answer. How do you resolve that contradiction?

"Now if some of you feel that it is beneath your dignity to share the same cyberspace with someone whose very existence has and will continue to depend on welfare, then let me know and I will exit from these discussions."

I enjoy reading pages by somebody who has made his living by the written word. Although I think you're wrong 50% of the time or more (100% of the times that I respond), I enjoy the care you take to express your opinions. On your exit, I vote "nay".

by jardinier

In the context, Jesus made that remark in response to some Pharisees and Herodians who were trying to trick him into revealing that he was not from God. I am not saying that Jesus did not make this statement, or mean it, but that it is something he most likely wouldn?t have bothered to include in his spiritual teaching if he had not been incited to do so.

[b]"left-wing"[/b] [partial definition only as there are so many nuances to the term]

A descriptive term for an [b]individual[/b] or a political faction that advocates [b]liberal, radical, or even revolutionary policies,[/b] usually in favor of overcoming social inequalities.

Jesus was [b]LIBERAL[/b] in that he replaced the harsh, legalistic Mosaic law with the gentler (people before principle) law of the New Covenant.

Pretty much everything Jesus said or did was [b]RADICAL[/b] in both religious and secular contexts.

Putting aside the religious connotation of the vicarious atonement, Jesus was put to death because he was considered to be a [b]REVOLUTIONARY[/b] and a threat to the status quo.

Perhaps you can add to my education by naming a few right-wing revolutionaries.

As for separation of state and religion, it appears to me that your Democratic party is copping a lot of flak trying to achieve that very thing.

by absolutely

I haven't been to Estonia or Slovakia, but from what I have seen of Romania the question is not what percent is the tax rate, but 16% of what?

"One of the prominent businessmen conducting the inquiry, Dick Warburton, said yesterday it would not be limited to the 30 developed nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It would include nations such as Romania, Slovakia and Estonia, which have a single low tax rate for all employees that also applies to companies.

"These are not beyond our remit and we discussed these countries at our last (Board of Taxation) meeting," Mr Warburton said. "We'll look beyond the OECD."

In Romania, the rate is 16per cent, while in Slovakia it is at 19per cent and Estonia 24per cent. Mr Warburton said the review would definitely include Singapore and Hong Kong, both of which have low personal income tax rates. Mr Costello said his inquiry aimed to provide a definitive set of facts showing the areas in which Australia met international practice and those where it lagged."

The Soviet Union dissolved, leaving its former satellites with nothing and consolidating all assets in Russia, which is now once again a thuggish dictatorship, which no longer claims economic equality as its guiding principle, but doesn't acknowledge equal protection under law, either.

In the eastern European nations conquered by the USSR, their taxes are x% of less than they have earned, and the President of the United States is giving his blessing.

by absolutely

"I am a great believer in flat tax as it would greatly simplify the taxation system, including calculation of personal or company tax, and in the long run would be a major incentive for people at all current tax levels to work harder, knowing that they would not be penalised for doing so."

by jardinier

To give people the incentive to work harder as they would not be penalised for doing so.

These are the current levels on personal income tax in Australia. [In Australian dollars of course]

$0 ? $6,000 ? Nil

$6,001 ? $21,600 ? 15c for each $1 over $6,000

$21,601 ? $63,000 ? $2,340 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600

$63,001 ? $95,000 ? $14,760 plus 42c for each $1 over $63,000

Over $95,000 ? $28,200 plus 47c for each $1 over $95,000

So as your salary increases, you move into a higher tax bracket.

My nephew, who is an IT pro, recently started a new job with a base salary of $85,000 which was about $20,000 higher than his previous job.

While both salaries are in the same general tax bracket ($63,000 to $95,000) a considerably higher proportion of his income will go towards taxation.

A flat tax would also be an incentive for honesty. The wealthiest people usually manange to avoid paying tax to a large degree.

The introduction of the GST gave self-employed tradesmen a strong incentive to ask for cash-in-hand payments which they could avoid declaring in their income tax return statements.

by absolutely

I don't think anybody has ever refused a promotion or better offer because they'd pay a higher rate of tax on their higher salary, because their after tax income will still be a net increase. I guess a flat tax could [b]increase[/b] the motivation to seek higher salaries, though. I prefer a flat tax because everybody's life & freedom is equally protected by law, therefore everybody's taxes should be at the same rate.

by maxwell edison

I believe people need the government (other people) to pay for health care because it is so expensive. I also believe that health care is so expensive because the government (other people) pays for it. And to a large degree, insurance companies may be substituted for government, and are the entity responsible for getting us into this mess to begin with (another interesting story in itself). Then, of course, you can throw in another factor for good measure, and that's the assumption that people are "entitled" to be provided health care, either free or subsidized.

First of all, people aren't "entitled" to anything if it must be provided at the expense of others. If you would like to debate that basic concept, without adding "the cause" to muddy the waters, I invite you to do so. And that's the concept upon which ALL arguments should be based.

Health care used to be purchased as a commodity, just like any other product or service. And there weren't people dying in the streets as a result. It was a very affordable service. And for those who couldn't afford it, they could still be treated at any number of health care facilities supported by various charities, primarily religious ones. But no one else was forced to pay for it.

And then insurance companies started to pay for it, and the rules started to change. When a third party pays for something, the concepts of prices controlled by the forces of supply and demand are thrown out the window. People start abusing and overusing the system, the third party interferes with prices and supply, the third party adds to the overall cost, and so on.

You might want to assume other people should pay for your health care, but then, as a result, they are often forced into a position where they can't pay for their own. Why would anyone want to deny a person his right to take responsibility to pay for his own health care?

Until we admit two things, the health care system will never be fixed, and/or will never be as good and functional as it otherwise could be. One, people are not "entitled" to free health care. Two, people should pay for their own health care, or seek treatment at a charitable (not forced charity) facility.

The reason so many people skew the argument is to maintain the appearance of being compassionate. I'm all for compassion, but when you start to be compassionate by forcing others into a faulty system, you become anything but. Be compassionate with your own resources, not the forced resources of others. That, my friend, is what Jesus would have done.

by tonythetiger

is what many object to. Of course, what got all of this government intervention was a small percentage of people who were taking undue advantage of the charity of others. When they got caught, then cut off and blacklisted, they went crying to the government that "nobody will help us" and it snowballed from there.

Health "insurance" is another matter entirely. First is the misguided belief that your employer pays for some or all of it. Wrong. The consumers of the company's product or service pays for it. Second is that it's just another form of subsidization, and for most people it is of questionable value. My insurance costs a total of about $15,000 a year! That's outrageous! I am 48 years old, and haven't had $15,000 worth of medical services IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!! Where is that money going???

by albert

Probably $14,500 makes its way into the American adversarial system in one way or another - or into the insurance system through premiums to insure against malpractive. Some, of course, goes to the education (and support for many non-productive years) of the doctors.

by jardinier

I concede your point about Jesus -- being compassionate with one's own resources. I guess I never thought about it that way. Likewise to "absolutely" who made the same observation.

However in the context of today's society, in my particular situation, without free health care I would be dead.

Perhaps you would prefer that I were dead.

by absolutely

I prefer that your "free" health care were paid by philanthropists who gave the money [b]freely[/b] instead of taking some from willing philanthropists, and some from unwilling money-grubbers who then get annoyed, and are even less pleasant than they would be without being forced to obey Christian dogma by their government.

by maxwell edison

My message was an instance of emphasizing a preferred system based on both principle and practicality. It's similar to my position on our Social Security system. I believe a person should take self-responsibility for both his own health care and retirement. However, it wouldn't be realistic to shift from the current system to the preferred system overnight. Both took 60 years to get us into this mess, and both would take a long time to phase out.

Both the health care system and the Social Security system are only getting worse, not better. And more of the same will only expedite their eventual collapse. I fear that if the trend isn't reversed, both will face a crisis at some time in the future. Collectivist systems have always collapsed under the weight of their own obligations, and it'll be no different here. It's only a matter of time.

But no, Julian. I certainly wouldn't want to see you, or anybody, dead.

by jardinier

Thank you Absolutely and Maxwell for preferring that I remain alive.

But then you "know" me so that is understandable.

Does your compassion extend to the hundreds of thousands (it could be more than a million, as it is hard to find precise figures on the internet) of other Australians who, like myself, because of some physical or mental disability, are unable to
provide for themselves, and cannot get support from family or friends?

In parallel with this are the countless people who are eligible for a "Carer's" pension because they have a full time task of looking after a disabled person.

For example when my late brother-in-law -- who was a hard worker and made a good income -- developed brain cancer which was not able to be completely removed, he required the Disability Pension and my sister the Carer's Pension, because looking after her now mentally dysfunctional husband was a full time job. [Not to mention trying to explain to her two young boys why they could no longer be given everything they wanted]

by john.a.wills

Harold Wilson, Yookeigh PM during the 1960s, said that a fair tax had to be complicated because life was complicated.

by absolutely

Life is complicated because too many people of integrity accept others' hypocrisy as "a fact of life". In fact, laziness and ignorance are the results of choices made, or options ignored, and I do not forgive them. I do not have time to waste or compassion to offer to people who do nothing but waste my time because they haven't the discipline to make use of their own.

Get the hell out of my way!

by jardinier

There is some weird stuff on the web, of which this is an example.

Jesus and politics: Which party?

During a recent Sunday's after-service coffee hour, a friend said to me, "You know, Jesus would be a Democrat."

My friend, not a Republican, knows I am a Republican, so it was obvious he was itchin' for a fight. "Not when abortion is on the platform," I replied. When that didn't seem to phase him, I took the bait: "Why do you think Jesus would be a Democrat?" His answer:

"He'd be against Big Business." I admit, I didn't see that one coming. Usually, the rationale is the Democratic party's allegedly superior social values and compassion for the less fortunate. Would Jesus really consider the offense of Big Business to be worse than the promotion of mothers killing their unborn children for the sake of convenience? Just to make sure I wasn't missing something, I checked the scriptures to see if there were clues as to where Jesus would stand on these issues. It's a no-brainer when it comes to murder/abortion, but I had to dig pretty deep for examples of His opinion of the evils of Big Business. I found two possible examples, but even these are questionable.

1. The local bankers lost revenue when Jesus expelled them from the Temple during Passover--high season for currency-exchange. There was a real need for exchanging foreign coins engraved with idols, and for travelers to conveniently purchase their sacrifical animals on-site. However, since He called them robbers and thieves, there must have been a pervasive climate of extortion and fraud within God's holy Temple.

2. The local pork industry hit bottom, so to speak, when Jesus expelled demons from two men and allowed the demons to possess a nearby herd of swine, causing the pigs to fling themselves over a cliff and into the sea. Interestingly, the whole town expelled Jesus for ruining their hog business, an enterprise which happened to be forbidden under Judaic law.

Yes, the bad apples of Big Business and the above examples have law-breaking and corruption in common. But Jesus didn't make a distinction between incorporated sin and individual sin. He condemned all sin, whereever it is found.

No one knows to what extent a contemporary, U.S.-born Jesus would be involved in the political process. He certainly supports government, for not only did He and His followers pay taxes, but [b]He, as God, established government.[/b] If one really wants to put Jesus in a political category, I would press for Social Conservative, as defined by The Center for Media and Democracy's SourceWatch: "One who favors social policies based on a particular reading of Judeo-Christian values, generally in favor of public prayer and the right to own guns [Ed. note: Jesus' disciples owned swords], and opposed to abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the teaching of evolution in public schools." But a Democrat? James Gannon, retired journalist and ex-Democrat, puts it this way:

"I began voting for Republican presidential candidates, and thinking of myself as Republican, only after it became abundantly clear that people with my views on abortion, prayer in school and other moral issues were no longer considered welcome in the Democratic Party... We didn't feel so much that we had abandoned the Democratic Party as it had abandoned us. "
-quote from USA Today "Confessions of a White Christian Republican"

The moral issues this ex-Deomocrat says are not welcome in the Democratic party are the very values Jesus espoused. I don't think I need to say anything more.

by absolutely

I never memorized long sections of the Bible, or the Chapter & Verse of those Verses I do recall, but most of the Bible was spoken at me during my youth, and I'm surprised I don't remember anything about Jesus' "establishment" of a government. Please explain.

by jardinier

Apparently you failed to read the first line in the post.

I thought Jesus' support for the 2nd Amendment was also rather quaint: "the right to own guns"

by jardinier

With people living longer due largely to new surgical techniques, Messrs Howard and Costello are already concerned about how to deal with what will be a crisis in the not too distant future.

John Howard and Peter Costello are NOT the best of friends, and Mr Costello expressed dismay when Howard blew a healthy budget surplus by introducing a lot of "carrot" legislation in order to get re-elected.

I believe the age pension funding crisis is also looming on the horizon in America.

by maxwell edison

It's called the "third rail of politics" in the United States, attempting to do something about Social Security. People have been paying into the system all their working lives, and they (we) all deserve something back. Nobody wants to see any of their future benefits affected; nobody wants to delay their retirement; and we're already paying 15 percent of our salary into the system. We pay, by the way, with after-tax dollars; and when people start collecting the benefits, those dollars are taxed again.

They're taking about as much as they possibly can without facing reelection defeat, but it's still not enough to sustain a population that's heading towards retirement age at warp speed. And considering, as you said, people are living longer, and those people didn't have the number of children their (our) parents did, the support for the system is dwindling just as fast. Without looking up the exact numbers (meaning I'm going off recollection, but I'm close), in 1950, there were 16 workers for each beneficiary. Today there are three. A debate going on right now is how long (or how soon) it will be only two.

The system is on a direct course with disaster, and nobody is willing to do anything about it, neither those voted into power, or those voting them into power.

President Bush wanted to make Social Security reform the primary domestic issue of his second term. He dropped the ball, however, after so much public criticism and demagoging, primarily spearheaded by the Democrat Party. (Anyone who denies that is an idiot.) The Republican controlled Congress isn't picking it up either. Anyone who really takes up the issue simply won't be elected (or reelected).

The voters are idiots, and the Congress is full of cowards and demagogues.

One side (the Republicans) wants to take steps to phase in an individual contribution system of savings (privatization), but even the proposals I've heard aren't drastic enough. The other side (the Democrats) want more of the same. How stupid is that?

One side is full of stupid demagogues. The other side is full of timid idiots -- timid idiots, by the way, who even have control of Congress.

It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz. One guy needs a brain. Another guy needs courage. And I don't think "having a heart" trumps either.

Bottom line: ANY COLLECTIVIST SYSTEM IS DOOMED TO FAIL.

by jardinier

Well this discussion seems to be turning into the autobiography of Julian Hancock which is fine because my experiences have shaped who I am today.

I had my first steady relationship at the age of 17. We were totally in love and totally compatible, BUT for the fact that her parents were communists and atheists -- an ideology that I could not relate to because of my own upbringing -- and had raised their four daughters to hold these same beliefs.

This conflict of ideology was to prove to be the downfall of the relationship.

HOWEVER one thing has stuck in my mind all these years -- the title of a book on her parents' bookshelf -- "The God That Failed" edited by Arthur Koestler.

The full title and authorship:

[b]The God That Failed.[/b] Six Studies in Communism (1950) by Arthur Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Andre Gide, Richard Wright, Louis Fischer and Stephen Spender.

Communism and socialism have proved to be unviable, primarily I think because they squash individual enterprise.

by tonythetiger

Indeed it is, and to think it could all have been avoided by a little "personal responsibility".

by maxwell edison

This is what derails any practical implementation of public policy. See my message that ends with my quip about courage and brains.

And this is the type of demagogic argument that got us (the U.S.) into our current mess. And yes, it is being a demagogue to some degree. Appealing to people's hearts, and feelings, and compassion -- and especially their fear of being labeled as one who lacks compassion.

Compassion is a great thing, Julian, but one should not legislate with it. Legislation takes brains and courage.

by absolutely

into making a treasonous statement so they could take him to the Romans for crucifixion, which they were later able to do because of a different occurrence. I'm not saying you're wrong because you clearly have more interest in that book than I ever did. I just mean to explain my assumption, because it's obviously different than yours. Requirement of meaningful communication, you know.

The most fascinating part of your post, to me, is "I am not saying that Jesus did not make this statement, or mean it, but that it is something he most likely wouldn?t have bothered to include in his spiritual teaching if he had not been incited to do so." I find it very difficult to argue with that, since the writers at that time didn't include narrative comments like "Jesus said with disinterest," which might have been included if Matt, Mark, Luke and John had been modern novelists.

As I try to formulate an argument that Jesus meant it, I find my attention is more attracted to the cup of coffee next to me. So, thank you for supplying the requested explanation, and have a nice weekend.

note: I avoid use of the word "liberal" altogether because of the painfully disappointing difference between its current colloquial use and its original meaning, which was fully consistent with laissez-faire capitalism as a morally ideal model for government involvement in privately-owned business. When I say "left-wing" I mean socialist or communist.

by absolutely

"they could no longer be given everything they wanted" the better off they, and everybody else in their lives, will be. Toys don't just fall from the sky or spring ready-made from the ground. Even vegetables need to be planted, nourished & cultivated. Those boys will be more likely to have some extra compassion on hand as adults if they gain some skills to provide for themselves, and some surplus, which they'll then be happy to share with a disabled neighbor or two. The key is rewarding competence to encourage that trait in those kids.

"Does your compassion extend to the hundreds of thousands (it could be more than a million, as it is hard to find precise figures on the internet) of other Australians who, like myself, because of some physical or mental disability, are unable to
provide for themselves, and cannot get support from family or friends?"

My compassion, no. But consider the state of your country's economy without the taxes that are now largely being squandered, if your country is anything like ours, before a percentage of what's "budgeted" for care of the disabled is actually spent on the disabled. Everybody has more money without the extra tax burden, thus more able, and thus more willing, to help their disabled family and friends.

The lower general rate of tax also describes the state of the economy before all the work of the Salvation Army and other charities was commandeered by the government. Here, that occurred during the Great Depression. Now, the Great Depression is over, and there is no [b]good[/b] reason to continue voting, en masse, as though we are all still Greatly Depressed.

by jardinier

It was more than 20 years ago that my brother-in-law developed brain cancer and subsequently died.

The elder of my two nephews, Alexander (now aged 31) is the IT Pro referred to in another post (He is a Unix Systems Administrator)

The younger, Nicholas, tried very hard to find work when he left school, but in the high unemployment situation at the time he was unsuccessful and became disillusioned.

Later when the economy had picked up somewhat he gained his first full-time job working in an air-conditioning factory. He stuck that out for quite a few months -- which was quite commendable in the circumstances.

While he is highly intelligent, he was not motivated to study, but it soon became evident that he was motivated by money.

His next full-time job was as a driveway attendant/cashier at a petrol station and after only a short period of time he was invited to qualify as assistant manager.

If you knew the full scenario of the mega dysfunctional family environment in which they were raised, you would no doubt be as amazed and pleased as I am that they both eventually rose above that handicap.

by absolutely

Jardinier: "If you knew the full scenario of the mega dysfunctional family environment in which they were raised, you would no doubt be as amazed and pleased as I am that they both eventually rose above that handicap."

What you have told me about their situations, I summarize thus: both have discovered how to succeed in life instead of suffer. That's enough to please me. The world is perishing in an orgy of self-sacrifice because suffering is treated as a virtue. I side with Aristotle, that the purpose of pleasure and pain are to provide incentive and disincentive, respectively, for the actions that produce each. There is no inherent virtue in the [b]experience[/b] of either, just virtue in pursuing pleasure, and of course, vice in pursuing pain, either one's own or anybody else's.

by alexh19740110

Absolutely, Greetings!

What's this about the Australian economy being in a "state," first of all? I don't follow economics all that closely but if Australia's suffering economic woes then I'll be damned. As recently as 12 months ago, according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook put out by the International Institute for Management Development (IMD), Australia was the most resilient economy in the world. It withstood the bursting of the dot-com bubble, a world recession, and the worst drought in a century. It was ranked behind only China, India, and Korea in terms of average economic growth over the past eight years (and, yes, largely thanks to the left-of-centre Hawke/Keating Labour Government who actually introduced the reforms for which our Conservative Government are now taking credit).

Anyway, you write: "But consider the state of your country's economy without the taxes that are now largely being squandered, if your country is anything like ours, before a percentage of what's 'budgeted' for care of the disabled is actually spent on the disabled. Everybody has more money without the extra tax burden, thus more able, and thus more willing, to help their disabled family and friends."

1. This argument is something of a many-headed hydra methinks. Can't one apply this equally to anything that is taxed? Why is it only health care that carries this horrible overhead? What's the overhead of taxation that?s destined for an army capable of fighting wars on the other side of the planet? How much tax is squandered here, exactly?

2. I'm sorry, but the appeal of the Religious Right to Christianity as a justification of right-wing policies--I agree with Julian wholeheartedly--is simply hypocritical.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." The number of times I've heard this one-liner turned into the basis for an economic philosophy it is CLEARLY not. The only thing any Christian can with justification make of this statement is that Jesus didn't support a wholesale abolition of taxes--even then, only if we're happy to turn a blind eye to this cynical distortion of context.

So how about this then: "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

There is no ambiguity as to Jesus' political sentiments--not to mention the undisputed, Biblical, historical fact of the early Christian community's communitarian, socialist structure. You can pretend if you like, but you sure ain't readin' your Bible.

Regards,
Alex

by absolutely

I asked Julian a simple question, and he replied informatively. I'm not interested in using the Bible or any interpretation of it to support my philosophy. Objective facts work much better to support my philosophy than religions.

Taxes spent on defense are not "squandered", they secure the right of the citizens to spend their money as they like, including on charity, [b]if we choose to do so.[/b]

Finally, I never meant that your economy is or was "in a state". I completely forgot about that British Empire figure of speech.

by jardinier

AHA !!! Finally a non Australian understands why the longest serving Prime Minister in the history of federation, Bob Menzies, chose the name "Liberal" for the conservative party he formed in 1945.

I think your definition: "laissez-faire capitalism as a morally ideal model for government involvement in privately-owned business" is precisely what he had in mind.

And now to Jesus and Caesar. If I posted this question at a Christian website, probably after 40 or so posts, there would still be disagreement.

However in the total context I think my interpretation is correct.

The following extract from Scripture is not required reading, but is necessary to prove my point, namely that they were questioning his authority as the Messiah (Son of God).

Matthew 22:15-46 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.

And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?

But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.

And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also.

Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

But when the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together.

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.

He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, the LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

by maxwell edison

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. You said, "Communism and socialism have proved to be unviable, primarily I think because they squash individual enterprise." Yet, your previous "compassion" arguments, would suggest that you actually support collectivist systems? Could you elaborate?

by jardinier

The answer is very simple Max.

Australian legislature has about an equal balance of free enterprise and socialism.

When the conservative government is in power, it introduces right-wing legislation. When the Labor government is in power, it introduces left-wing legislation.

So we play this hoppity hop game of alternately veering to the right and then veering back to the left.

As mentioned elsewhere, Howard -- who would turn Australia into a fascist state if he had the chance -- has HAD to introduce heaps of left-wing type policies to appease the people and remain in power.

Currently in Australia we have a conservative Federal Government, but a Labor government in all the states and territories.

This does not produce a balance however because of the specific areas of legislation which belong in the federal domain.

Currently the Federal Labor Party is in a mess, primarily because of factional infighting. After Mark Latham resigned because of illness, Kim Beazley (who had already lost two elections against Howard) was elected leader simply because he was the only choice to minimise squabbling between the factions. If Howard remains in power until the next federal election in 2007, which it appears he has every intention of doing, then most likely (although you can never predict how the elctorate will vote) Beazley will lose again.

This will be a good thing for the Labor Party because there are several younger front benchers who would make much better leaders.

My first choice would be Julia Gillard -- and many agree with me. And "sigh" :x she personally answered a brief email which I sent to her a few days ago.

At around the same time (500 B.C.) Aristotle in Greece, the Buddha in India and Confucius in China taught the doctrine of the Middle Way -- the avoidence of extremes.

Socialism and communism have failed to deliver good government because in the countries where it has been practised, there has been no opposition party to balance the extremes.

Possibly at the time the constitution was drawn up, America came close to being a totally free enterprise country but with safeguards built in to prevent it from ever becoming fascist.

As for myself, while I am not emotionally bonded to the Labor Party, after following Australian federal politics for more than three decades, it has been my observation that a Labor Prime Minister is more likely to try and fulfil election promises than a Liberal Prime Minister.

In fact when Labor PM Gough Whitlam was elected in 1972 -- breaking 23 years of continuous Liberal government -- you could literally tick off one by one the introduction into the legislature of the election promises that he had made.

I hope this has provided a satisfactory answer to your question. Like I said -- I am just a little to the left of centre.

by absolutely

"Matthew 22:15-46 Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk."

Or was Matthew one of the Pharisees? How would he have known why they took counsel?

Ha-ha!

by jardinier

Well of course you're just being a smart-ass and trying to have the last word after being totally unable to debunk my reasons why Jesus was left-wing.

As the gospel was written about 30 years after the event, I guess Matthew would have had plenty of time to figure out what was taking place in that particular discourse.

Additionally, as Jesus had promised to send the Holy Spirit to instruct the disciples after his death:

[b]John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.[/b]

Then I guess Matthew could have asked the Holy Spirit to clarify the situation.

But besides all this, as I presume neither of us considers the Bible to be an accurate account of events which may or may not have taken place, then nit-picking about a particular meaning of a particular verse is obviously a fatuous exercise and waste of time.

by absolutely

"Well of course you're just being a smart-ass and trying to have the last word..."

Absolutely! But in a less abrasive manner than I've taken in the past. I guess an apology & explanation is in order.

You didn't force me to waste my time in church for 18 years, my worthless deadbeat father did. I don't have any rational justification for treating other religious folk as the scapegoat for the wrong choices made on my behalf. And I don't hope to persuade anybody to abandon their faith.

"after being totally unable to debunk my reasons why Jesus was left-wing."

Where I think you're wrong is where you assume that I have been "totally unable to debunk my (your, Jardinier's) reasons why Jesus was left-wing."

Honestly, I never thought of that query as an attempt to debunk. My initial challenge was for you to explain how [b]you[/b] handle what appears to me to be a logical contradiction, and was intended only to gain clearer insight into the basis of your beliefs. My curiosity was satisfied by your explanation, that the teaching "Give to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's," was something Jesus would not have bothered to include, but for the efforts to ensnare him in some sort of heresy or treason or the like, by the established religious powers of his day.

Given my previous position and manner on the subject of religion, I had no good reason to expect you to take that remark about Matthew's necessary omniscience in good humor. That is how it was intended, and the spirit of understanding your position is the one I intend to take in future questions about your faith, or anybody else's. Any other approach to others' faith is irrational and unproductive.

by absolutely

But you didn't define what "right-wing" means to you. If it has to do with free markets, as case could be made for every individual whose name appears on the United States' Declaration of Independence from England, and/or on our Constitution. Does that answer the question you meant to ask, or were you driving at something else?

by major kong

I find it interesting how you want to force your ideals on others via the stick of the government. My understanding of Christianity is the teachings of the prophet Christ were to teach people about personal responsibility and their relationship with a new manifestation(sp) of God. I do not remember reading anything advocating turning the responsibility of the individual over to government. Governments are inherently corrupt. This is a line of thought which runs through much of section of the Gospels you keep refering to. The Romans were occupiers and the Pharisees colluded with the Romansto maintain power. There seems to be evidence most if not all of the Diciples were memebers of the two main terrorist/freedom-fighter groups of the day, the Essenes and the Zealots, both of which were famous for their violent acts.

You appear to fall into the trap most people get caught in, to force others to accept and practice your values by force of government. Everyday I see and experience people who believe thet are entitled to this , that and the other thing (read fill in the blank whit almost anything you like.) Governments have, throughout history, fallen when this line thinking becomes action. There is no long sustaining Socailist government which is no in debt up to it ears or higher. Governments have almost nothing to do with the welfare of the people. Governments primarily exist to foster and continue the greatest aphrodisiac known to humanity.....POWER. The power is maintained by programming the citizens to believe they cannot do for themselves. I constantly hear politicos make statements about how John Q Public does not understand the complexities of the situation. Well maybe you are a child, but I can assure you most people are not.I see most people live in reletively good harmony when left ot their own devices regardless of where they live. It is when some pedigod decides they know what is best for others the problems really begin to start. This is not an advocacy for Anarchism. There is a place for government, but it is a very small place. Simply because someone wins a popularity contest is no qualifier for intelligence or "common sense." Now maybe it works in Australia, which I doubt from talking to many people there and constantly reading AU papers, but it isn't working well anywhere else.

A flat tax is just a equitable version of theft. The people in the middle still get stiffed stupid. And mark my words the government will still figure out all kinds of additional revenue generators, such as user fees, license fees, consumption taxes, value added taxes, death taxes, and on and on...........

by absolutely

Yes, I ignored the first line, and thought the whole story was an actual conversation you had with an actual lefty looney. I'm glad to see that it is a fictional character that [b]admits[/b] to such absurd beliefs! Thanks for the clarification.

by jardinier

I think there is a misunderstanding if you perceive that I am trying to force my opinions on others. Primarily I was answering questions put to me. I have stated in two places in this discussion that politically I stand a little to the left of centre.

Could you please provide your source(s) of information for: "There seems to be evidence most if not all of the Disciples were members of the two main terrorist/freedom-fighter groups of the day, the Essenes and the Zealots, both of which were famous for their violent acts."

I am not aware of there being any evidence for that assumption in Scripture.

The Government in Australia works quite well with a balance of both free enterprise and socialism, which would also be the situation in most/all developed countries.

Not all people enter politics to get high on power. Some actually feel that they can improve government and/or society if they get into a position where they CAN influence government.

As for the quality of leadership, the method of electing a leader is quite different in the USA than in Australia.

You could call it a popularity contest in Australia if you wish, but in America it seems to have a lot to do with how wealthy the aspirants are.

If I am "a child" at the age of 64, then I guess I will never have the chance to grow up.

Thank you for your input to the discussion. However I doubt that your personal views are necessarily any more or less valid than those of other people who have posted.

by jardinier

That was the opinion of a "REAL" person which I found on the web.

I was actually searching for specific material about current Democrat activities to separate state and religion, but some of the articles by devout Christian Republicans were awesome in their naivety.

I especially enjoyed the suggestion that a modern day Jesus would encourage people to bear arms.

However Jesus did say: Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." :)

by absolutely

Just one sword? For the whole Earth? The use of the singular, and his instruction to Simon/Peter to put down his sword, indicates to me that Jesus intended that [b]His[/b] would be the only sword in use.

I have to bow out, unless this discussion turns to economics. I just don't remember enough of the Bible to contribute anything serious or meaningful, so goodb'ye and have a nice thread, Julian.

by jardinier

That is what the discussion was supposed to be about.

I unintentionally hijacked my own thread.

However elder nephew has expressed an interest and intends to make a contribution -- of an economic kind I understand.

by jardinier

The thought did cross my mind that you might be joking, and if it were anyone other than yourself I would have assumed this to be the case.

The simplest way to avoid possible ambiguity of intentions in such a situation is to insert a smiley or a devil.

And while I understand that you may have only required an explanation as to my interpretation of "give to Caesar," it seemed an appropriate opportunity to address in detail the political leanings of Jesus.

With your declared new attitude of commenting politely when you disagree, I will look forward to any remarks addressing inaccuracy or ambiguity in my posts.

I think there are several reasons why people post to these discussions:

1. To express their personal views (and hopefully shove them down other people's throats);

2. To test one's views to see if they can be discredited by fact or logic;

3. To learn from people who have a greater knowledge in some particular field of speciality.

As for "right-wing revolutionaries" that was a deliberately sarcastic remark because it is my understanding that revolutions occur when a majority of the people can no longer bear being oppressed and impoverished by a small and elite ruling class -- sometimes a monarchy, sometimes an autocrasy and sometimes a social group.

by jardinier

with thanks and apologies to Major Kong. Thanks, that is, for introducing me to a very radical concept that flies in the face of everything that has been believed and taught about Jesus for more than 1900 years.

I will explore the matter further.

http://www.eclectica.org/v7n3/rogers.html

So far I have not found evidence of violence in relation to the Essenes.

While some people believe that Jesus was an Essene -- thus accounting for the missing years of his life between the ages of 12 - 30 while he lived in an Essene community, there is considerably stronger evidence that he travelled to India and Tibet during those years, to instruct and be instructed by the gurus of Eastern esoteric philosophy.

It is my contention that the "Star" followed by the three wise men from the East refers to an astrological configuration indicating the birth of a person of great spiritual significance.

by major kong

The Gospels were not put to paper until almost 100-150 years after the incidents described. The initail council and preceeding councils had their own adgendas. Starting to sound like a government isn't it? Not only did they determine what the New Testament would contain, but they decided what was to be removed from the Bible. It maybe God's word, but I can assure you it has been corrupted by man.

Now that I have your attention I will answer your challenge of "naming a few right-wing revelutionaries."

John Hancock, President
Charles Thomson, Secretary
Adams, John -- MA -- Lawyer
Adams, Samuel -- MA -- Political leader
Bartlett, Josiah -- NH -- Physician, Judge
Braxton, Carter -- VA -- Farmer
Carroll, Charles of Carrollton -- MD -- Lawyer
Chase, Samuel -- MD -- Judge
Clark, Abraham -- NJ -- Surveyor
Clymer, George -- PA -- Merchant
Ellery, William -- RI -- Lawyer
Floyd, William -- NY -- Soldier
Franklin, Benjamin -- PA -- Printer, Publisher
Gerry, Elbridge -- MA -- Merchant
Gwinnett, Button -- GA -- Merchant
Hall, Lyman -- GA -- Physician
Hancock, John -- MA -- Merchant
Harrison, Benjamin -- VA -- Farmer
Hart, John -- NJ -- Farmer
Hewes, Joseph -- NC -- Merchant
Heyward, Thomas Jr. -- SC -- Lawyer, Farmer
Hooper, William -- NC -- Lawyer
Hopkins, Stephen -- RI -- Judge, Educator
Hopkinson, Francis -- NJ -- Judge, Author
Huntington, Samuel -- CT -- Judge
Jefferson, Thomas -- VA -- Lawyer
Lee, Francis Lightfoot -- VA -- Farmer
Lee, Richard Henry -- VA -- Farmer
Lewis, Francis -- NY -- Merchant
Livingston, Philip -- NY -- Merchant
Lynch, Thomas Jr. -- SC -- Farmer
McKean, Thomas -- DE -- Lawyer
Middleton, Arthur -- SC -- Farmer
Morris, Lewis -- NY -- Farmer
Morris, Robert -- PA -- Merchant
Morton, John -- PA -- Judge
Nelson, Thomas Jr. -- VA -- Farmer
Paca, William -- MD -- Judge
Paine, Robert Treat -- MA -- Judge
Penn, John -- NC -- Lawyer
Read, George -- DE -- Judge
Rodney, Caesar -- DE -- Judge
Ross, George -- PA -- Judge
Rush, Benjamin -- PA -- Physician
Rutledge, Edward -- SC -- Lawyer
Sherman, Roger -- CT -- Lawyer
Smith, James -- PA -- Lawyer
Stockton, Richard -- NJ -- Lawyer
Stone, Thomas -- MD -- Lawyer
Taylor, George -- PA -- Ironmaster
Thornton, Matthew -- NH -- Physician
Walter, George -- GA -- Judge
Whipple, William -- NH -- Merchant, Judge
Williams, William -- CT -- Merchant
Wilson, James -- PA -- Judge
Witherspoon, John -- NJ -- Educator
Wolcott, Oliver -- CT -- Judge
Wythe, George -- VA -- Lawyer

These are the signers to the Declaration of Independence. Almost all of these men were very conservative in their views. The common radical point they held was to establish a hegemony free of a king or church. As far as their veiws on taxes, 3% was considered excessive. My gift to you is the enlightenment of this, almost ever war the US has been involved in was brought about by a left-wing president and congress.

by jardinier

Holey, Moley ! What a patronising, fact-twisting, condescending piece of horse manure you are.

And I was actually stupid enough to answer you politely.

Of course Gulf Wars 1 and 2 presumably started by spontaneous combustion. I will research earlier wars later.

Australia became a federation and drew up a constitution in 1901. I would say that was a resolution rather than a revolution.

I gather you are implying that the War of Independence was a right-wing revolution. Well I never thought of it that way before, but perhaps someone like Max would care to vindicate your view.

If he is in agreement with you, I am confident that he will explain in detail WHY he considers the drawing up of the constitution as a revolution, and not just post it out of context as you have done.

Here are the estimated dates that the books of the New Testament were written (with authors):

MATTHEW: Matthew , 60s A.D.
MARK: John Mark, late 50s ? early 60s.
LUKE:Luke, 60.
JOHN: John, late 80s ? early 90s.
ACTS: Luke, 61.
ROMANS: Paul, 55.
1 CORINTHIANS: Paul, 54.
2 CORINTHIANS: Paul, 55.
GALATIANS: Paul, 49.
EPHESIANS: Paul, 60.
PHILIPPIANS: Paul, 61.
COLOSSIANS: Paul, 60.
1 THESSALONIANS: Paul, 50 ? 51.
2 THESSALONIANS: Paul, 50 ? 51.
1 TIMOTHY: Paul, 62.
2 TIMOTHY: Paul, 63.
TITUS: Paul, 62.
PHILEMON: Paul, 60.
HEBREWS: (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) 60's.
JAMES: James, half brother of Jesus, 40's or 50's.
1 PETER: Peter, 63.
2 PETER: Peter, 63 ? 64.
1 JOHN: John, late 80's - early 90's.
2 JOHN: John, late 80's - early 90's.
3 JOHN: John, late 80's - early 90's.
JUDE:Jude, half brother of Jesus, 60's or 70's.
REVELATION: John, late 80's - early 90's.

Well you had my attention for a moment, now you have lost it forever. Deliberate distortion of facts does not rest well with me.

by tonythetiger

it happenned once in my career. I got a small raise that pushed me into a higher bracket resulting in less takehome pay :)

by absolutely

I have been trying to understand that assumption all weekend, and the only thing that computes is that the Brigand who originally made that statement believes that the poor are all just far too stupid to save. I do not share that opinion, by the way. I have been poor, and saved at the same time.

by jdclyde

there was a point where with a family of four, I wasn't even up to "low income".

$6.50 an hour makes things pretty tight. I still worked my way through school and now I don't do ANYTHING for under $30 an hour.

Of course, getting rid of my ex-wife cleaned out any and all savings I had, but it was worth it. I was saving her life by getting her out of the house before I was force to bury her in the back yard. The ground is too rock, so I didn't want to have to do that...... :O At least PART of it I will get back when the house sells, and the money I advanced her to get a place comes out of HER half of the equity. (an advance, not a gift)

I NEVER stopped putting money into my personal 401K though.

If someone doesn't like having a "greater percentage of their net worth" going to taxes and expenses, get a better friggen job to increase your net worth. It really isn't rocket science ya know.

Stop smoking, get rid of the big screen tv, shut off cable TV and disconnect the cell phone. Gee, I just saved you about $3000 a year AT LEAST!
[b]
It isn't "too stupid", it is too lazy. Some people DESERVER to be poor based on their choices in life.[/b] Others had outside influinces bring them down, but they work to bring themselves back up.

by brigand

You are vacuous, your crusade is meritless, and again your ill-conceived, feeble attempt to attaint is inadequate. I read the splendid tax plan in your link. Yet I find it wanting as previously stated. Your apparent lack of noesis is glaring. Had you a inkling of intellection, you could see the difference.

by brigand

You are vacuous, your crusade is meritless, and again your ill-conceived, feeble attempt to attaint is inadequate. I read the splendid tax plan in your link. Yet I find it wanting as previously stated. Your apparent lack of noesis is glaring. Had you a inkling of intellection, you could see the difference.

by absolutely

"However elder nephew has expressed an interest and intends to make a contribution -- of an economic kind I understand."

by jardinier

I do not wish to reveal his identity in case your responses to his posts are coloured by what you know about myself.

As he has been a member of TR for two or three years -- albeit not a particularly active member -- you may have already encountered him.

by jdclyde

I used to see it all the time. If they worked the OT it would push them into the next bracket and cost them dearly.

I JUST missed a HUGE tax break this year by a few thousand. (grrrrr). If I dump a lot into my 401K (pretax) and a lot into my medical savings account (pretax) I might be able to lower my claimed income for next year to get that break. Got to sit down and figure it out.

by jardinier

[b]There is no such thing. Fact is an absolute term:[/b]

[b]fact // n.[/b]
1 a thing that is known to have occurred, to exist, or to be true.
2 a datum of experience (often foll. by an explanatory clause or phrase: the fact that fire burns; the fact of my having seen them).
3 (usu. in pl.) an item of verified information; a piece of evidence.
4 truth, reality.

The term "objective fact" is not technically an oxymoron, although one might question the intelligence of a person who uses such a term.

I guess if a number of people observed a particular fact, you could say that the fact was: "Viewed objectively."

If a single person viewed the fact, then you could say that the fact was: "Viewed subjectively."

But you can't have an "objective fact," or a "relative fact," or a "true fact," or an "untrue fact."

A fact is a fact is a fact. It is absolute.

by tonythetiger

Objective fact = same from all reference points:

One and one are two.

Subjective fact = may be different from different reference points:

I went to school today.

by jardinier

adunlap, I think you are simply expressing in a slightly different form what I said myself:

I guess if a number of people observed a particular fact, you could say that the fact was: "Viewed objectively."

If a single person viewed the fact, then you could say that the fact was: "Viewed subjectively."

The "fact" itself remains neutral and absolute.

by absolutely

who corrected my syntax.

"Objectively determined fact" would be a meaningful phrase, and "objective fact" was nonsense. Thanks for the tip, I'll remember to use those words correctly.

by jardinier

Something for which I will remain forever grateful is that I trained as a journalist on The Sydney Morning Herald in the early 1960s when grammar and syntax were regarded as important as, well, facts.

This discussion is closed to new replies.