Declaring Religious Tithes as a Tax Free Donation

[Mind Over Matter]

Now put yourself into these shoes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...
Should any respectful donation to a religious establishment be honored by the State?

Just to clarify the highlighted part, the word "respecting" in this sense means, "with reference to" or "concerning". It does not mean to hold in esteem any established religion. It just means that the government cannot make laws that would actually establish a state religion.

To answer the question, the State is not necessarily honoring donations to religious establishments as much as it is giving a tax break for ANY charitable donation, whether it be to a church organization, the Red Cross, or Goodwill Industries, etc.

 

[Michael]

What a load of right wing pig swill, the only thing which protects the poor and sown troden from becoming the slaves to the ritch the way things were in the midle ages is democracy and the protection of goverment.

(1) ".. is democracy and the ..."
I totally agree with you. I mean, we live in a Republic but get your point.

(2) "protection of government"
Yes, I agree, the government is there to ensure all Citizens are protected under the Law.

So, we actually agree there.

already the top 1% hold 90% of the worlds wealth and you think taking the few protections the rest of have away is going to do what?

Ah, so it seems (to me anyway) that you have a problem of who get what share of wealth. Yes?

Well, I totally agree with you. So why don't you consider changing the way in which wealth is stored? Surely you realize that the 1% pay way LESS taxes than you do. They are wealthy enough to ensure they sometimes pay ZERO. It's YOU they are milking USING the government as their means.

You're the one paying the tax, not them. They're using YOUR wealth to send their kids to private school - not yours. You're the one being milked here, not them.

i love reading the idocy inherent in views such as yours,

That's an ad hominid attack. Which means you're about to launch into a tirade. Which is fine, I do that all the time BUT lets make sure we're both clear that's about to happen.

its quite clear to everyone that either a) you have no concept of history or

I apt at Western as well as Eastern history. I can rattle off most of the Pro-consuls and Dictators from Rome by memory. I know the History of Chinese and Japanese unification as well as tons of little bit and peaces of trivia that help make it make sense. Like the fermented fish sauce Romans loved to eat or the fact the Japanese longed to be hairy like the Dutch.

b) you dont actually belive what your saying.

No, I've given it some thought. I do know a bit of history. But I also lived in a number of countries and I've worked in a lot of different institutions and industries. Enough to know what bureaucracy looks like :shrug: I've seen governmental agencies blow through $10s of millions and create ONLY paperwork, and then everyone gets raises and pats on the back.... as if something were done, when actually NOTHING was done. At all. That happened in Australia by the way.

Anyone who knows anything about the middle ages and the start of the industrial revolution knows exactly what will happen if the protections of goverment evporate.

We don't live in the middle ages.

Look at the agency you hold up as a waste, the transport saftey authority. what happens when you remove the stick which forces companies to act ethically?

Companies actually don't "act". It's the people in those companies. If someone breaks the law, then, as we agreed, they are punished (notice this hasn't happened to all the Banksters, just the opposite, GoldmanSux gave out $12.5 Billion AFTER take and 50% cut in profits).

Companies don't have to act ethically, they do have to act legally. As it stands they use the government to create loopholes. See, IF they really do act against the ethical wishes of society, people in that society won't give them business - if the society is ethical. Image if someone at Woolworths was caught using Slaves. I'm sure people would stop buying groceries and it's stop (that person would be fired), or they'd go out of business.

Let me reiterate that point again. People have ethics, corporations are not people.

They cut corners and those who WISH to act ethically are undercut which leads to a race to the bottem where ethics and saftey are sacrificed for progits.

Do you think Apple is cutting corners?

Before goverment proection insted of OH&S laws to protect and workcover to provide for those injured or killed in there work, it was a case or work till you get injured and then you are replaced with someone else "life is cheep" was the ruling principle and this is your idea of an ideal world. How sickerning

Again, these are LAWS. Which we agreed, is something that the government should enforce.




As you can see, we agree on more than we disagree. I think you have a few concepts blurred though.

Let me therefor be clear, I believe we need to change the monetary system. Imagine if your wealth was decoupled in some way from the elite 1%, maybe your $100 ethical money would be worth $1000 of theirs? We just don't know. But, it would be worth trying IMO.

 

[Asguard]

(1) ".. is democracy and the ..."
I totally agree with you. I mean, we live in a Republic but get your point.

(2) "protection of government"
Yes, I agree, the government is there to ensure all Citizens are protected under the Law.

So, we actually agree there.

Ah, so it seems (to me anyway) that you have a problem of who get what share of wealth. Yes?

Well, I totally agree with you. So why don't you consider changing the way in which wealth is stored? Surely you realize that the 1% pay way LESS taxes than you do. They are wealthy enough to ensure they sometimes pay ZERO. It's YOU they are milking USING the government as their means.

You're the one paying the tax, not them. They're using YOUR wealth to send their kids to private school - not yours. You're the one being milked here, not them.

That's an ad hominid attack. Which means you're about to launch into a tirade. Which is fine, I do that all the time BUT lets make sure we're both clear that's about to happen.

I apt at Western as well as Eastern history. I can rattle off most of the Pro-consuls and Dictators from Rome by memory. I know the History of Chinese and Japanese unification as well as tons of little bit and peaces of trivia that help make it make sense. Like the fermented fish sauce Romans loved to eat or the fact the Japanese longed to be hairy like the Dutch.

No, I've given it some thought. I do know a bit of history. But I also lived in a number of countries and I've worked in a lot of different institutions and industries. Enough to know what bureaucracy looks like :shrug: I've seen governmental agencies blow through $10s of millions and create ONLY paperwork, and then everyone gets raises and pats on the back.... as if something were done, when actually NOTHING was done. At all. That happened in Australia by the way.

We don't live in the middle ages.
Companies actually don't "act". It's the people in those companies. If someone breaks the law, then, as we agreed, they are punished (notice this hasn't happened to all the Banksters, just the opposite, GoldmanSux gave out $12.5 Billion AFTER take and 50% cut in profits).

Companies don't have to act ethically, they do have to act legally. As it stands they use the government to create loopholes. See, IF they really do act against the ethical wishes of society, people in that society won't give them business - if the society is ethical. Image if someone at Woolworths was caught using Slaves. I'm sure people would stop buying groceries and it's stop (that person would be fired), or they'd go out of business.

Let me reiterate that point again. People have ethics, corporations are not people.



Do you think Apple is cutting corners?

Again, these are LAWS. Which we agreed, is something that the government should enforce.




As you can see, we agree on more than we disagree. I think you have a few concepts blurred though.

Let me therefor be clear, I believe we need to change the monetary system. Imagine if your wealth was decoupled in some way from the elite 1%, maybe your $100 ethical money would be worth $1000 of theirs? We just don't know. But, it would be worth trying IMO.

So what you abhor is government services. Who's going to police these laws if you abolish the regulating authorities (ie the police, the TSA, the CDC etc)? Private cops? Private courts? Private prosecutors? that means the law is only available for those who can afford it. Then it doesn't matter what the law is because its not available for those who need its protection the most.

We call them "essential services" for a reason, Health, education (which includes libraries and museums) , Roads and public transport, Police and Emergency services, Water, Garbage, Postal services.

The cost when these are in private hands are obvious. When the public transport service was privatised in Victoria it went bankrupt and the state government had to take it back over. The US health care system is the basket case of the world costing the most per person with the worst health care outcomes for patients. Private fire services might not have been tried but we can look at the cases where on 2 separate occasions fire trucks were dispatched to sit and watch a house burn to the ground because instead of it being paid for out of tax revenue its "user pay". Toll roads, like private "public" transport has been shown to cause isolation and disengagements of whole sections of the community. User pay garbage and water services have OBVIOUS impacts on health at a community level. The privatisation of Telstra caused obvious impacts for all that the sale agreement tried to protect service delivery. Communities cut off, elderly people who rely on constant connections for there lives because health issues cut off leading to deaths in various cases.

If you wish to see what a lack of services actually does to a community look at some of the Aboriginal communities, in spite of what the Libs would have you believe it has nothing to do with welfare. Its social isolation, lack of education, lack of health services all those services that government provides which has lead to the staggering levels of substance abuse in these communities.

 

[Michael]

Ten Reasons Why We Should Revive the Dark Ages

10.
The tax rates in medieval England varied a lot, depending on the King and what was happening in society. The taxes seldom went above 15% but were more often closer to the 10% mark. For most people today this is nearly one third or half of the tax currently being paid.

... a bit tongue and cheek, I'll leave the other 9 to the website, however I noted #1 was Money was Money. Who knows? Maybe money is really working it's way into the consciousness

 

[Asguard]

Ten Reasons Why We Should Revive the Dark Ages

10.
The tax rates in medieval England varied a lot, depending on the King and what was happening in society. The taxes seldom went above 15% but were more often closer to the 10% mark. For most people today this is nearly one third or half of the tax currently being paid.

... a bit tongue and cheek, I'll leave the other 9 to the website, however I noted #1 was Money was Money. Who knows? Maybe money is really working it's way into the consciousness

tongue in cheek huh? you think slavery is a joke? because serfs were slaves.
As for the rest of the article, they might as well have taken that out of an RPG because NONE of it is referenced and none of it is accurate.

And lastly you spend a lot of time banging on about gold, gold is irrelevant, you cant eat it, you cant drink it, it cant heal you. So the only thing your changing is what your making money out of, instead of plastic it would be gold

 

[Michael]

So what you abhor is government services. Who's going to police these laws if you abolish the regulating authorities (ie the police, the TSA, the CDC etc)? Private cops? Private courts? Private prosecutors? that means the law is only available for those who can afford it. Then it doesn't matter what the law is because its not available for those who need its protection the most.

I certainly would LOVE to see the TSA abolished.

In a theoretical Libertarian world you're pay for your own protection. That is never going to happen and I'm not in favor of it (and, recall we'd have lot od different currencies as well so it'd be a totally different world). I'm happy with local police being payed for and held accountable to the local population. Some federal agencies. The courts should be impartial and justices should be coted on (as is the case). It's not perfect, but, works as good as it's going to in the sorts of disjointed "society" we live in.

* I'm not sure if the poor people in the Dark Ages would even consider what we have a "society" or not. I consider it more a Farm personally.

So, we agree, we need rule of law, this must be enforced, that enforcement should be at a level larger than the individual but must be accountable to the population as a whole.

We call them "essential services" for a reason, Health, education (which includes libraries and museums) , Roads and public transport, Police and Emergency services, Water, Garbage, Postal services.

We agree, ALL of those services must be provided for. The question is how to do it? Well, to pick one, my friend started a garbage service and contracted to collect garbage. He was able to do it quicker, cleaner, provide a better service for a cheaper price to the State than the service provided for BY the State. There you go.

You know Healthcare is private. Doctors are individuals selling their service to the community. Education is a good example of how public education is failing us. You won't see the elite wealthy sending their kids to public schools, they milk US and send their kids to public which ALSO get money from the government. It's like a double whammy.

The cost when these are in private hands are obvious. When the public transport service was privatized in Victoria it went bankrupt and the state government had to take it back over.

OK, then that probably can not be privatized because there's no competition. I'm OK with agree monopolies don't work. So, we agree here.

The US health care system is the basket case of the world costing the most per person with the worst health care outcomes for patients.

I agree it is f*cked. But, my opinion is it's due to regulations and monopolies. It IS the best if you have the insurance. It's also where a lot of innovation takes place that is then used in other countries. So, it's a twisted tale. I'd like to see MORE medical schools training many more doctors. I'm more than happy to even put it under MORE government control until the field is re-leveled.

Private fire services might not have been tried but we can look at the cases where on 2 separate occasions fire trucks were dispatched to sit and watch a house burn to the ground because instead of it being paid for out of tax revenue its "user pay".

That's true, however, they should have paid. It's unfortunate, and a hard lesson to learn (that may seem harsh) but I think it's a lesson that NEEDED to be learned.

Let me explain. Suppose a child fails their all their tests. Should they be "punished" by being withheld and repeat the grade, or should they be passed into the next grade because it's too hard a lesson to learn? At some point people need to be responsible for their actions. We as a society have really done people a disservice by not seeing that this happens more often.

Toll roads, like private "public" transport has been shown to cause isolation and disengagements of whole sections of the community.

OK, maybe those can not work because there's a monopoly. It's not like you can build 20 different roads.

User pay garbage and water services have OBVIOUS impacts on health at a community level.

See above.

The privatisation of Telstra caused obvious impacts for all that the sale agreement tried to protect service delivery. Communities cut off, elderly people who rely on constant connections for there lives because health issues cut off leading to deaths in various cases.

Telstra is still mostly owned by the government. I'm happy with splitting the company into a few littler ones.

If you wish to see what a lack of services actually does to a community look at some of the Aboriginal communities, in spite of what the Libs would have you believe it has nothing to do with welfare.Its social isolation, lack of education, lack of health services all those services that government provides which has lead to the staggering levels of substance abuse in these communities.

Their culture shouldn't be forced to BE like the rest of Australia. I mean, maybe they should be left alone and their land rights protected so they can do with their life as they'd like? You do agree Aboriginal societies are fairing extremely poorly? These government treats aren't working that well.


Obviously these are complex issues. I think everyone wants the same outcomes, it's just trying to deliver them.

We shouldn't be afraid of trying new things and admitting when something fails and trying to do better the next time.

 

[Acitnoids]

Originally Posted by Mind Over Matter
It just means that the government cannot make laws that would actually establish a state religion.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Your interpretation says:
.
Congress shall make no law (concerning) an establishment of (a state) religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (of a state religion); ...
.
That's a contradictory statement with an inserted assumption. My interpretation says:
.
Congress shall make no law (with reference to) (any) establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion); ...
.
That is a much more consistent statement. From dictionary.com:
.
an
- indefinite article
.
1. One
2. Any; any one
.
IMO, it shouldn't matter if the law includes all religions or not because NO LAW shall be made that includes ANY religion, or prohibits the free exercise of religion.

 

[Asguard]

No actually its not, wow you have obviously been out of touch for a while if you think Telstra is still in government hands. The remaining portions which were government owned were passed over to the "future fund" to be sold down in exchange for other shares over time in order to reduce the drop in the share price that would happen if it was all sold in one go but one of the restrictions on the future fund is that its non voting. Ie no matter how much the government still holds they don't control Telstra. In fact I would look at the shit storm which happened between the former government and the former CEO of Telstra (Sol Trujillo), its actually one of the few things I agreed with the Howard government over, he reduced services, massive job cuts, saw a massive drop in the share price got into a brawl with the ACCC, trashed the Telstra brand and then walked back to the US with AU11 million (according to Wikipedia, I thought it was lower than that). So basically if we look at this as an example of "free enterprise" it failed ABYSMALLY. Telstra went from being one of the most widely respected government agencies when in government hands down to failing its shareholders, its customers, AND its employees (not to mention the government and the whole of the country). The only person his tenure appears to have benefited is HIMSELF, it certainly tainted the publics opinions of US imported CEOs

Anyway on to the rest of your post,

I certainly would LOVE to see the TSA abolished.

In a theoretical Libertarian world you're pay for your own protection. That is never going to happen and I'm not in favor of it (and, recall we'd have lot od different currencies as well so it'd be a totally different world). I'm happy with local police being payed for and held accountable to the local population. Some federal agencies. The courts should be impartial and justices should be coted on (as is the case). It's not perfect, but, works as good as it's going to in the sorts of disjointed "society" we live in.

I always find these sorts of comments amusing. We DO pay for our own protect, that's what tax IS, its about spreading risk across the whole community. Sure you might never need the police if your lucky (and if you ignore the preventive effect but anyway) but everyone pays for them so that if you DO need them they are there.

We agree, ALL of those services must be provided for. The question is how to do it? Well, to pick one, my friend started a garbage service and contracted to collect garbage. He was able to do it quicker, cleaner, provide a better service for a cheaper price to the State than the service provided for BY the State. There you go.

You know Healthcare is private. Doctors are individuals selling their service to the community. Education is a good example of how public education is failing us. You won't see the elite wealthy sending their kids to public schools, they milk US and send their kids to public which ALSO get money from the government. It's like a double whammy.

No, PRIMARY health care (ie GPs) are small business and yes there is a private health care system but the majority of the health care system is actually public or are NFP which might as well be government (like RDNS, the ambulance services, RFDS etc). Public hospitals, community health centres, specialists services are all provided by state and local government.

In general I'm not opposed to essential services being contracted out IF (and IN THIS ORDER) a) the services can be provided at LEAST to the same stranded as the public service or BETTER and b) can be provided significantly cheaper than the public service without cutting corners. At the moment one of the issues is that far from the public service being over paid, the doctors, nurses, paramedics, police and all the other essential services workers are being UNDERPAID (especially in NSW where the government has put an idiotic cap on pay rises which is less than inflation and is slashing the death and injury benefits for the police which really need to be raised up to the same level as what the ADF recive)

Private fire services might not have been tried but we can look at the cases where on 2 separate occasions fire trucks were dispatched to sit and watch a house burn to the ground because instead of it being paid for out of tax revenue its "user pay".

That assumes you CAN pay for it and because of that fact the price per person ends up being MUCH MUCH higher (as the example shows, it was a $7 tax vs a $40 subscription). Its an amazingly accurate way of showing how user pay fails and why Australia is in general so much against it.

As for your example about a child being held back SPECIFICALLY, there is evidence that there are less benefits in holding a child back than advancing them, the social disadvantages well and truly outweigh any academic good that is achieved. In fact mum was telling me recently that if a child is held back now its not about academic performance, but rather they are held back if there SOCIAL development isn't where it should be for there age group and the belief is that THAT will improve by being held back. For the same reason children rarely skip a year any more. Obviously this only goes for primary school and maybe early secondary, not late secondary and tertiary.

User pay garbage and water services have OBVIOUS impacts on health at a community level.

See above.

You are changing the goal posts here. We aren't talking about who PROVIDES the service, we are talking about how the service is paid for. You can contract out the service IF its more safe, efficient, and cost effective (ie the default should be for the service to be provided by the public service, not default that it should be in private hands and in that order), but it should be PAID for by tax because a) its a essential service and b) its delivery to OTHER people effects me as much as its delivery to me does (ie it doesn't matter if my rubbish is collected if the rest of the street is piling up with everyone else's rubbish because they cant afford it). Same goes for water and sewage with the added point about safety.

Their culture shouldn't be forced to BE like the rest of Australia. I mean, maybe they should be left alone and their land rights protected so they can do with their life as they'd like? You do agree Aboriginal societies are fairing extremely poorly? These government treats aren't working that well.


Obviously these are complex issues. I think everyone wants the same outcomes, it's just trying to deliver them.

We shouldn't be afraid of trying new things and admitting when something fails and trying to do better the next time.

Yes and no, yes they should have the right of self determination but NO that doesn't give the government an out when it comes to service provision. Ie the government has a responsibility to provide health services to them, if they chose to use it or not that is up to them as its a choice ANYONE has a right to make. Education is less clear cut. However one thing to be remembered is that the social problems can be traced back to issues that WE caused and therefore we have a responsibility to help fix them, one of the services we should be providing no questions asked is the sorts of trauma counselling we offer to refugees to victims of the stolen generation. However the "intervention" was complete idiocy

 

[Michael]

tongue in cheek huh? you think slavery is a joke? because serfs were slaves.
As for the rest of the article, they might as well have taken that out of an RPG because NONE of it is referenced and none of it is accurate.

And lastly you spend a lot of time banging on about gold, gold is irrelevant, you cant eat it, you cant drink it, it cant heal you. So the only thing your changing is what your making money out of, instead of plastic it would be gold

Yes, serfs were a type of slave.
Are we?
I mean, do you think you're all that different?

Why is it you can recognize that being forced (through threat of State violence) to give over some wealth (which then was wheat harvested) is morally wrong. But YOU being forced to give over your tax (through threat of State violence) isn't? Or YOU forcing someone else to give over their wealth (through the State proxy) isn't morally wrong?

If you've thought about it, well, then don't find THAT odd???


--
Convincing the Cattle to police themselves, so that some Cattle/Debt Serfs force others to hand over their wealth. Well, it never works too easily when you just use blunt force, what you have to do is give them a choice of occupation AND cloak everything in a disguise of Democracy. Right versus Left.
Liberal versus Conservative.
Get the Cattle to focus on themselves, never stopping to consider that the money they're fighting over, that they never have enough of, is all the time controlled by their Farmer.

That's actually quite clever. You have to give them that. It makes the Cattle more productive - more milk for the Farmer.


Right now Australia's not doing all that bad. It's got a decent amount of wealth per population. However, I'm telling you it reminds me very much of the USA when times used to be pretty decent for most folks. It's heading down the exact same road. While you may not see it, I lived it, so I do see it. It's worth at least TRYING to see things from a different point of view.

You worry so much about the 1%. BUT what if YOU had a different currency then them? One that was worth much more than theirs? Would you still worry about them?

 

[Asguard]

Yes, serfs were a type of slave.
Are you?
I mean, do you think you're all that different?

Why is it you can recognize that being forced (through threat of State violence) to give over some wealth (which then was wheat harvested) is morally wrong. But YOU being forced to give over your tax (through threat of State violence) isn't? Or YOU forcing someone else to give over their wealth (through the State proxy) isn't morally wrong?

If you've thought about it, well, then don't find THAT odd???


--
Convincing the Cattle to police themselves, so that some Cattle/Debt Serfs force others to hand over their wealth. Well, it never works too easily when you just use blunt force, what you have to do is give them a choice of occupation AND cloak everything in a disguise of Democracy. Right versus Left.
Liberal versus Conservative.
Get the Cattle to focus on themselves, never stopping to consider that the money they're fighting over, that they never have enough of, is all the time controlled by their Farmer.

That's actually quite clever. You have to give them that. It makes the Cattle more productive - more milk for the Farmer.


Right now Australia's not doing all that bad. It's got a decent amount of wealth per population. However, I'm telling you it reminds me very much of the USA when times used to be pretty decent for most folks. It's heading down the exact same road. While you may not see it, I lived it, so I do see it. It's worth at least TRYING to see things from a different point of view.

You worry so much about the 1%. BUT what if YOU had a different currency then them? One that was worth much more than theirs? Would you still worry about them?

currency is irrelevant, its just a different form of barter and its an idiotic comparison to compare tax to slavery. If you cant even see how stupid that comparison is then there is no point talking to you. You agree that services should be provided but you don't want to pay for them? Government needs money to fund services, whether they subcontract those out to a private company or the public service does it no one is going to do it for free

 

[Michael]

You are changing the goal posts here. We aren't talking about who PROVIDES the service, we are talking about how the service is paid for. You can contract out the service IF its more safe, efficient, and cost effective (ie the default should be for the service to be provided by the public service, not default that it should be in private hands and in that order), but it should be PAID for by tax because a) its a essential service and b) its delivery to OTHER people effects me as much as its delivery to me does (ie it doesn't matter if my rubbish is collected if the rest of the street is piling up with everyone else's rubbish because they cant afford it). Same goes for water and sewage with the added point about safety.

This is why I'm much more inclined to support State and local / community control over these issues. Imagine if the Federal Government said: You WILL use our garbage services and it is going to cost this much tax. AND you knew it was a corrupt overpriced bunch of crap service. That's what I don't like.

I feel that the money supply falls into this category.


I will admit, it's not possible to work as much as we do, and still be educated and informed to make wise communal decisions. Which is why we elect people. BUT, I prefer to try and keep the decision making as local as is possible.

I wanted limited government, not no government.

 

[Asguard]

This is why I'm much more inclined to support State and local / community control over these issues. Imagine if the Federal Government said: You WILL use our garbage services and it is going to cost this much tax. AND you knew it was a corrupt overpriced bunch of crap service. That's what I don't like.

I feel that the money supply falls into this category.


I will admit, it's not possible to work as much as we do, and still be educated and informed to make wise communal decisions. Which is why we elect people. BUT, I prefer to try and keep the decision making as local as is possible.

I wanted limited government, not no government.

actually if you know ANYTHING about Australia (which you claim to have lived in) you would know that the federal government directly provides very few services AFP, ADF, ASIS, ASIO, customs, quarantine etc.

The biggest service provision parts of government are the states and then local government. Feds really just pay for things. Health, Education, roads, water (except the Murry-darling system soon because that crosses 4 states and the ACT) and as for making things MORE local HELL NO (for the most part). When you call 000 do you want the operator to say "sorry cant give you an ambulance, the only one for your council is on the other side of the council area"? No you want the ambulance service to strategically move its resources to maintain constant coverage for the whole state. Same with the police, same with the fire service, same with the health department (though over a longer time frame and with different resources). I am constantly trying to bang into peoples heads that you cant put a trauma center in every town (let alone every council), there isn't staff in the whole WORLD for that, not to mention the lack of workload AND the cost and inefeciancy

 

[Michael]

currency is irrelevant, its just a different form of barter and its an idiotic comparison to compare tax to slavery. If you cant even see how stupid that comparison is then there is no point talking to you. You agree that services should be provided but you don't want to pay for them? Government needs money to fund services, whether they subcontract those out to a private company or the public service does it no one is going to do it for free

See, I think currency IS relevant.

It's not barter because banks can lend out 10 times more than they borrow. No one can do that. It's called fractional reserve banking and it's destroying our society. Barting never (or rarely) happened. Promise trading was the norm for most of human history not bartering. Even gold and silver was rarely used.

Think of it like this.
Suppose you borrowed $50 and the whole world's money supply was $500. This means you're going to have to, at some point, come in contact with 1/10th of the total money supply. Now, imagine that the whole world's money supply was $5. This means you're going to have to work hard to recirculate that $5 in and out of your hand 10 times. You'll have to be very hardworking and very productive.

Banks make money when you pay your debt back. They only generate the means to make money when they generate debt. They work hand in glove with the government and have literally put us into Trillions of dollars of massive debt. You may not realize it, but, AU is going the same way as the USA.

If you want to change that, then you'll want to change the monetary system, because if you don't, things in AU will be the same as in the USA, England, Europe and Japan - deep deep debt and little if any prospects for the next generation.

 

[Michael]

actually if you know ANYTHING about Australia (which you claim to have lived in) you would know that the federal government directly provides very few services AFP, ADF, ASIS, ASIO, customs, quarantine etc.

The biggest service provision parts of government are the states and then local government. Feds really just pay for things. Health, Education, roads, water (except the Murry-darling system soon because that crosses 4 states and the ACT) and as for making things MORE local HELL NO (for the most part). When you call 000 do you want the operator to say "sorry cant give you an ambulance, the only one for your council is on the other side of the council area"? No you want the ambulance service to strategically move its resources to maintain constant coverage for the whole state. Same with the police, same with the fire service, same with the health department (though over a longer time frame and with different resources). I am constantly trying to bang into peoples heads that you cant put a trauma center in every town (let alone every council), there isn't staff in the whole WORLD for that, not to mention the lack of workload AND the cost and inefeciancy

Some things local, others States. Obviously it's a decision that's made on a case per case bases.

Also, efficiency isn't everything - it's only one parameter. Houses aren't as efficient as one large room with bunks lined row by row for hundreds of people to sleep and live. Maybe more efficient, but, no one wants to live like rats in a cage.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I suppose that one could take the position that allowing deductions for "tithing" - that is, money for church operation as opposed to direct "charitable" work - could be seen as government support of religion...(establishment of religion)

I don't know if it quite rises to the level of being unconstitutional....hhmmmmm...

Personally I view it as a benefit the government provides within the tax structure. The government itself can withdraw it if it so chooses. It would not effect my giving.

 

[Asguard]

yes but efficiency in the provision of health and emergency services is essential. As I said if you try to put a trauma center in every country town you will end up bankrupting the state, probably see a drop in service delivery because the case load to keep those staff at the peek of there skills wont be there and you wont be able to hire enough staff anyway because there aren't that many trained on the whole planet. There for you strategically place these services where they will do the most good for the most people, major cities regional cities which are focal points for transport etc. Further more when you get closer to the boarders you need to look at coordinating across boarders so that if the SA ambulances are to busy to respond to a case near say Bordertown Victoria would send a crew and vice versa. The less you have to do this the better because this is where mistakes get made. Look at the Canberra Bushfires, the reason 4 people died, the reason 70% of the ACT was destroyed, and the reason 500 homes were destroyed is that the ACT didn't coordinate its fire service (which was obviously quite small) with NSW and waited to long to call in its resources. Its the absolute perfect example of what happens when everything goes down to the local level

 

[Michael]

I agree the some services should be organized at the State level when it's works better. As I said, it's not like we can make a bunch of different roads, we need one set of roads and we all use them.

It's more about how they are paid the money. See, it really is about money. Do we tax to get it? Do we simply issue it when it's needed? Do we only allow it to come into existence through debt? Do we restrict it to one currency or multiple? Should we start one way and progress to another? Is their a cycle we need to go through?

During WWII German simply issued money debt free. It took the combined powers of the entire Western world to stop them. I'm only using Germany as an example of issuing money debt free. We did the same in the USA during the Civil War.

Actually, central banks have come and gone. Understanding currency is one of the keys to understanding why society is the way it is. In the past, debt was often wiped off the books. Jubilee it was called. Some argue the Roman Catholic Church had strict rules on usury because they understood how destroying the monetary base led to the decline of the Roman Empire.

Right now we're up to our necks in debt. Serious debt. Trillions and Trillions of dollars in debt. It's going to seriously alter, maybe not destroy, our society.

I already heard one Australian talking about cut backs that will NEED to be made to primary education to help pay the liabilities to the babyboomers. That to me, is horrible. All because people can't seem to get their minds around the concept of currency - or at least aren't inclined to do so.

Anyway, we'll see how it goes. My push for smaller central government isn't because I want LESS for the next generation, but, because I fear that's exactly what they're going to get thanks to this one.

 

[Asguard]

was that a right wing nut? because the national debt will peek at 190 BILLION, no where near trillions

Edit to add: the problems in the Australia public sector is the share of revenue vs responsibility. State government has all the service provisions and the lower ability to tax, income tax, company tax are all federal. This wouldn't be an issue if that was transferred back to the states but then you get ideology coming from the federal government about stupid things like massive surpluses and "local control" and a heap of other things which are driven by ideology which means that they withhold transferring that money back to state and local government.

 

[Michael]

was that a right wing nut? because the national debt will peek at 190 BILLION, no where near trillions

Edit to add: the problems in the Australia public sector is the share of revenue vs responsibility. State government has all the service provisions and the lower ability to tax, income tax, company tax are all federal. This wouldn't be an issue if that was transferred back to the states but then you get ideology coming from the federal government about stupid things like massive surpluses and "local control" and a heap of other things which are driven by ideology which means that they withhold transferring that money back to state and local government.

We'll have to just wait and see. Lucky for Australia there's a ton of resources and China willing to pay for them. That said, Australian personal debt is the largest in the world - over 1.2 Trillion. Even higher than personal debt in the USA.

I see this debt itself as a form of slavery.
I suppose that's another story.
Lets hope for your sake Australia doens't implement it's own version of NDAA. Big government seems all nice and dandy, until they start passing laws where they can hold you indefinitely. And AU doesn't even have a Bill of Rights.

Anyway, there's practical and philosophical arguments to be made. I'm usually arguing from a philosophical stand point. It's something to strive for. Practically, it's pretty hard to get Cattle only interested in Dancing with the Stars to think about what money is, let alone wealth. Also, History suggests governments borrow, grow, tax and devalue currency, implode and start wars. There's no reason to think that's not going to happen again and that's something I worry is going to happen.

 

[Asguard]

We'll have to just wait and see. Lucky for Australia there's a ton of resources and China willing to pay for them. That said, Australian personal debt is the largest in the world - over 1.2 Trillion. Even higher than personal debt in the USA.

I see this debt itself as a form of slavery.
I suppose that's another story.
Lets hope for your sake Australia doens't implement it's own version of NDAA. Big government seems all nice and dandy, until they start passing laws where they can hold you indefinitely. And AU doesn't even have a Bill of Rights.

Anyway, there's practical and philosophical arguments to be made. I'm usually arguing from a philosophical stand point. It's something to strive for. Practically, it's pretty hard to get Cattle only interested in Dancing with the Stars to think about what money is, let alone wealth.

Actually the bill of rights argument is an interesting one, I used to support a constitutional bill of rights, now I'm more in favor of a legislative one where a parliament has to PROVE to the electorate that there is a reason to change one but it does still give flexibility. Look at the US bill of rights and you will see why a fair percentage of people are concerned with implementing one. The second amendment is an obvious one which goes against Australian values (and its fucking stupid to boot, the idea that a few people with hunting rifles could take on the federal government with the whole Defence force against you AND the idea that it could get to that stage and this hypothetical government would actually be restrained by the constitution, its laughable) but its the first amendment which concerns me more.

You have a right to free speech as a person, a company is a person, therefore restricting tobacco advertising, advertising of a LETHAL substance, is outside the power of the government. That's ridiculous (though I suppose they could legislate against companies being considered PEOPLE if they were smart). That's the problem with the constitutional route, its even harder to change OURS than it is to change YOURS so its not reactive if there is a problem which needs to be changed. An Act which "Binds the crown" is a much better solution and that's what it looks like we will eventually have. The states have started legislating these and the federal government is also taking steps along these lines when it outlawed for good the death penalty.

As for the debt, if its PERSONAL debt your talking about isn't that a GOOD thing for a libertarian? don't libertarians think that if you over extend yourself well that's too bad and if it means you stave or die of exposure well you were a waste of space? When you bring up "big government" and debt its PUBLIC sector debt that you should be referring to