- Banned
- #26
So do you think it is 'wrong' that we 'buy' houses for disabled people in this country?
Society/Culture This Country Beats France
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Is it done voluntarily? No. My answer is there BP.
However it's far down on the list of things I'd get rid of first.
- Banned
- #28
Upgrading you to paper.You're due then aren't you
If only there was an actual war about global warming, instigated by racists, then you'd be in complain-land heaven.
- Banned
- #29
So what about road maintenance , public transport, garbage collection, or any of the other things that our involuntary taxes pay for? Or are they OK because you happen to benefit from those things?
Can all be done privately and voluntarily in the long run.
Don't get me wrong BP, I'm not saying I'd want all this implemented tomorrow, or all at the same time. It'd have to be a gradual process.
- Banned
- #31
you also like a ******y band, what's up with that?
Doesn't stop them killing whales with grenade harpoons. 
It looks pretty good. I might go to Norway and murder someone.
It looks pretty good. I might go to Norway and murder someone.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #34
Doesn't stop them killing whales with grenade harpoons.
It looks pretty good. I might go to Norway and murder someone.
LOL the whales... dont get me started on that...lol.
All it took was nationalise their oil industry.
Profits stayed in their country
Were spent for the benefit of their people.
It didnt even touch on their superanuation scheme.
We have more resources per head of population than them,unfortunately there would have to be a major reprogramming of the Australian Bogan,rascist,dog in the manger,what about me mentality,for it to ever work here.(Maybe if they where sent to a Norwegian style, green, prison islands,for a few years.)
and the CIA would throw a spanner or two in the works, I would imagine.
Profits stayed in their country
Were spent for the benefit of their people.
It didnt even touch on their superanuation scheme.
We have more resources per head of population than them,unfortunately there would have to be a major reprogramming of the Australian Bogan,rascist,dog in the manger,what about me mentality,for it to ever work here.(Maybe if they where sent to a Norwegian style, green, prison islands,for a few years.)
and the CIA would throw a spanner or two in the works, I would imagine.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #36
No thats just stupid talk.... lets just dig it up flog it off to China and spend the cash now.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #37
Second largest Sovereign Wealth Fund in the world for a country of 5 Million people. It's little wonder really.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #40
Exactly.... it's our nations natural resources, we should be banking it for our future and future generations. Instead we live for today. There would just as many jobs and there would just as much tax from it but we would be banking most of the profits. We have MORE Natural resources than Norway.... Gold, Natural gas, Oil, Nickel, Uranium, etc....etc...
I think you should cease posting on matters of economics, and business, because you are clearly out of your depth.
No job losses if we stopped exporting resources to China ? Are you serious ? Why do you think we have been so well placed to avoid recession, while other nations, including those which have used substantial fiscal stimulus, are struggling ?
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #42
I never said stop selling the stuff.... did I?
So you are saying that the Norwegians lack economic and business know-how? That owning your Natural resources and having a Nationalised mining industry doesn't work??? hmmmm my point is we are letting Multi-Nationals plunder our natural resources. Sorry if I'm not clear enough.
You said we should banking it for OUR future. Easy to see how this translates into "don't sell it to foreigners".
Show me where I said anything about Norway.
Are you suggesting that we set up government owned businesses in industry, including mining ? Having nationalised industries is a thing of the past in Australia, and for very good reason.
I'll give you the names of two government owned businesses currently in operation, Australia Post and Medibank Private. Add to that the formerly government-owned Telstra, and you have three of the biggest thieving, inefficient mega-corporations you could ever imagine.
No way I want government running mining companies.
Also, I don't understand your point about profits not remaining in Australia. The two biggest mining companies with Australian operations (BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto) have substantial Australian ownership.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #44
... yes but they are privately owned, not publicaly owned. Not everyone can afford to own shares. And these shares are controlled by corporations that can also be the biggest thieving, inefficient organisations.
Surely you can see the benefits from the Norwegian system. Plenty of private companies are still making huge profits from the Oil industry there by being contracted by the government. But the majority of the profits are "banked" by the government for the future security of it's living standards for future generations.
See my earlier point about government owned businesses.
If you can't afford to own shares directly, tough. This isn't Cuba.
In any case, every person in Australia who has money in a super fund has shares, or exposure to shares.
Those private sector corporations are at least subject to competition, while government owned enterprises like Australia Post, are not. There may be rip offs, corporate scandals, but you, as the client, can change providers if you like. What options do you have if you don't like the service Australia Post gives you ? None.
Norway's wealth does not stem from having state owned private corporations, it stems from having access to an abundance of oil reserves, especially relative to the size of its population. It would not matter if the oil companies were privately or publicly owned, its involvement in the most lucrative oligopoly on the planet is the reason for its economic prosperity.
Consider the fact that Norway has a GDP per capita 50% higher than that of Sweden, then ask yourself why two close nations with similar governance systems have such a disparity in wealth, and the only answer you come to is oil. If you can show me one nation that has private ownership of industry, and is NOT significantly involved in oil production, then you might have a point.
You also can't ignore the cost of living considerations for Norway, which is one of the most expensive countries to live in, anywhere in the world. High cost of living plus high taxation places significant stress on the working population to keep up, even with high incomes.
In the end, this is a philosophical debate. You seem to think that corporates are self-interested groups, which do little for society, while government does its best to look after the people. In my opinion, you place a lot more faith in government having your interests at heart than the evidence shows.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,726
- 13,437
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #46
That is the point. I want our government to work for all of us. In Norway the people are proud of their system and are proud of the governments social justice policies. They are proud to work and pay tax to have a better life.
In Australia we hate paying Tax... we hate the government... and trust only ourselves to look after us, which leads us to a very selfish society, one that has a "whats in it for me " philosophy. Something the previous government promoted to it's dying day and the present government does very little to address.
Side point.
The Norwegian Government doesn't control the future fund. The Norge Bank does under strict government rules. It's a very interesting read. Apparently they invested in KMART... but pulled all it's shares when they realised how poor the working conditions it's staff had and this was part of the guidelines set by the government. Numerous other examples.
We could do far worse than to follow Norway lead economics, environment, social justice and investing in it's future.
You could do with some economics training, because wealth NEVER stems from taxation. Tax revenue stems from economic wealth, not the other way round. If you have no resources, no industry, and no economy, then there is no tax revenue to pay for social services.
If Norway had the same economy, the same resources, the same government systems, and the same oil reserves, do you think it would perform poorly if it had a low tax, low government spending environment ? It wouldn't. It may have higher income inequality, but the economy as a whole would not be worse off. Its economic wealth is determined by its resources, its democracy, its low corruption levels, etc, not a high tax, high government spend environment.
What it comes down to for you is you like the fact that the Norwegian government takes care of all your life's stresses, i.e. funding health, education on your behalf. You also like that the income inequality levels are comparitively low when compared to that of Australia or the US. This is an argument for socialism, for treating all as equals. That is fine, you prefer an environment where there is little difference in economic wealth among individuals.
But it has nothing to do with generating and maintaining a successful economy.
Now you are being foolish. NO STRESS AT ALL ? Then why does Norway have one of the highest rates of suicide in the developed world ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_rate
And don't pretend for a minute that the welfare levels in Norway are sufficient to meet day to day living standards, because they don't.
High tax does not equal higher standard of living for all. It just means that wealth is redistributed from high income earners to low income earners. That is all well and good for low income earners, but I can tell you that I am not happy to fund the lifestyles of unproductive members of society.
We all want the government to have our best interests at heart. What we want, and what we actually get are more often than not two different things.
We all know that both sides of politics are more concerned about being re-elected, than making the best choices for the people they represent. If we had better quality politicians/governments, maybe we would have a bit more respect for their efforts, and wouldn't begrudge the tax that I pay. Given that is not the case, I would rather my tax money being in my hands, allowing me to make a decision about how my money is spent, rather than handing it over to incompetent governments to decide on my behalf how it is spent.
You sure know how to make rash generalisations. Norwegians are happy to have free and universal health care and education, but they are not happy to pay the levels of tax they pay.
Read the link below, many Norwegians are dissatisfied with the high levels of taxes they pay.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1891543.ece
A person's philosophy comes down to either "design a government system which looks after all, regardless of their respective contribution, and accept that some will be paid more than they contribute (welfare)", or "pay people according to their productivity, rather than their needs, recognising that the most productive in society will be paid more than those who contribute little". Which system you prefer generally comes down to which category you see yourself belonging to, and how this affects you personally.
Australia has long had a system of "give everyone a fair go" meaning that we have expensive health, education, and welfare systems. These system will become unsustainable in the next 20 years, due to the ageing population profile of this country, and we will need to start rationing to make ends meet. Australians are also rightly tired of paying high taxes, and having very little to show for it in terms of quality public health and education. They are also tired of those who contribute nothing, remain unemployed for long periods and expect working people to fund their choice not to work.
Norway has its own problems to think about in future. It knows its oil will run out in future, and has already commenced selling off parts of its state-owned oil business.
Currently, Norway's economic prosperity is largely dependent upon its oil reserves, hence its better economic performance to its Nordic neighbours. When their oil reserves run out, they will be no better off than their neighbours no matter what system of industry they have. Yet they will have cultivated an expectation of free government services for life, which may or may not be affordable. And as many countries, Norway included, are going to find out, it is very hard to take away government services previously provided for free, no matter how much economic sense it may make to do so.
I also find it interesting that you give Norway a tick on the environment when a large proportion of their economy comes from oil and fishing.
- Banned
- #49
Yeah, but all that tax is probably going to compensate for the ridiculous medical bills you'll foist on the rest of us when you get skin cancer, or bashed into a vegetative state, or catch some STD from all of those used Picture magazines you're humping...
Lol. Nah, euthenasia. Good to see that you're adding to your list though.
Similar threads
