LDP Press Release - 10 August 2010

Keep taking our policies, Tony

The Liberal Democrats welcome Tony Abbott’s announcement that the Coalition will move toward implementing a flat tax with a high tax-free threshold.

“A flat tax and high tax-free threshold have been part of the Liberal Democrats policy for a long time now, and was part of our submission to the Henry Tax Review,”  said Terje Petersen, Liberal Democrats candidate for Bennelong.

“We’re pleased to see the Liberals finally pick up some economic reform ideas. Of course, Tony is only talking about a watered down version of the Liberal Democrats policy, which calls for a 30% flat tax on income over $30,000, but it is a good start.”

Terje went on: ”The Liberal Democrats have a lot of other policies we will be happy for the major parties to steal. For starters, they have missed out the most radical part of our tax policy, replacing the welfare system with a negative income tax and living wage. But we think it is step in the right direction. If either Julia or Tony are stuck for more policy ideas, we’ll be pleased to help.”

LDP Reform 30/30

The Liberal Democrats tax policy does not argue for incremental tax and welfare reform. Instead it offers a new template from which to consider tax and welfare issues.

Reform 30/30 includes a tax-free threshold of $30,000 and a flat tax of 30% above that. All taxes (company, capital gains,  fringe benefits) would be equal at 30%.

Welfare would be replaced by a sliding scale of payments (called a Negative Income Tax, or NIT) starting at 30% of $30,000 for those with no other income. As income was earned, NIT payments would be reduced until income reached $30,000.

For example, if you earned $0, you would receive 30% of $30,000. If you earned $10,000, you would receive 30% of $20,000. If you earned $25,000 you would receive 30% of $5,000. No tax would be paid at any of these levels.

One advantage of the NIT is that it removes the need for a minimum wage. Wages can be determined by demand and supply, with those on low incomes receiving the NIT as a supplement. This would result in a significant increase in the number of jobs available, especially benefiting the long term unemployed and those on disability support.

Probably the biggest advantage is that the effective marginal tax rate is always 30%. Under the current system the EMTR is variable and can be higher than 80%, creating a major disincentive to earn additional income.

30/30 solves the poverty trap which locks low income families into welfare. Under the policy, low income earners can climb the 'ladder of prosperity' to higher incomes and a better standard of living.

Only the Liberal Democrats offer a solution to the poverty trap whilst encouraging saving and investment in our future. The era of buying votes with welfare payments to those who have paid tax must come to an end.

The Liberal Democrat policies can be found here: www.ldp.org.au

No surprises here! Right whingers believe in regressive taxation, despite the fact that it exponentially polarises disposable income, wealth and opportunity and is therefore socio-economically counter-productive!

That said, I'd wager that the Federal Libs will also apply pressure to the States to increase the GST - as soon as they can ram the relevant legislation through...

Equitist wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 1:09pm:

No surprises here! Right whingers believe in regressive taxation, despite the fact that it exponentially polarises disposable income, wealth and opportunity and is therefore socio-economically counter-productive!

A flat tax isn't regressive. It's flat! That's point of it. It's neither regressive or progressive. It's a level playing field.

Our tax code is ridiculous. It's over-complicated and full of exemptions, rebates, penalties. It's a mess. People have to hire accountants to do their taxes. You need a big bureaucracy to run the tax system. You need to print out millions tax forms, mail them around, file them. It's a godzilla of a thing. It's the cause of so much corruption in government because you have unions, businesses, organisations lobbying to get their tax exemption, or to get a tax put on their competitors, etc. It pollutes our entire system.

Think all the time, effort, money and resources we would save with a simplified tax code. And there's nothing simpler than a flat tax. A huge burden could be lifted off Australia if we simplified our tax code. It would alleviate so much stress, confusion and corruption. The economy would take off because we'd be using a brains for more useful things than worrying about taxes. I've always believed the potential of a free and unrestrained individual is virtually limitless.

Where it's been tried, who see more revenue come in because tax compliance goes up. There's also more money to collect because the low rate with no increase as you earn more incentives people to be more productive. You look at countries that have adopted the flat tax or some form of it, Hong Kong, Estonia, Russia, Slovakia (all of which used to be very poverty stricken), they've generally experienced increased economic growth, lower unemployment, and (despite your nonsense) more wealth equality.

Quote:

A flat tax isn't regressive. It's flat! That's point of it. It's neither regressive or progressive. It's a level playing field.

Are you attempting to redefine regressive to avoid the label?

freediver wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 6:20pm:

Quote: A flat tax isn't regressive. It's flat! That's point of it. It's neither regressive or progressive. It's a level playing field. Are you attempting to redefine regressive to avoid the label?

Nah, more likely just the inherent far-right incapacity to appreciate and/or care about the real world ramifications of ostensibly fair and simple 'flat' taxes...

BobH wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 3:04pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 1:09pm: No surprises here! Right whingers believe in regressive taxation, despite the fact that it exponentially polarises disposable income, wealth and opportunity and is therefore socio-economically counter-productive! A flat tax isn't regressive. It's flat! That's point of it. It's neither regressive or progressive. It's a level playing field. Our tax code is ridiculous. It's over-complicated and full of exemptions, rebates, penalties. It's a mess. People have to hire accountants to do their taxes. You need a big bureaucracy to run the tax system. You need to print out millions tax forms, mail them around, file them. It's a godzilla of a thing. It's the cause of so much corruption in government because you have unions, businesses, organisations lobbying to get their tax exemption, or to get a tax put on their competitors, etc. It pollutes our entire system. Think all the time, effort, money and resources we would save with a simplified tax code. And there's nothing simpler than a flat tax. A huge burden could be lifted off Australia if we simplified our tax code. It would alleviate so much stress, confusion and corruption. The economy would take off because we'd be using a brains for more useful things than worrying about taxes. I've always believed the potential of a free and unrestrained individual is virtually limitless. Where it's been tried, who see more revenue come in because tax compliance goes up. There's also more money to collect because the low rate with no increase as you earn more incentives people to be more productive. You look at countries that have adopted the flat tax or some form of it, Hong Kong, Estonia, Russia, Slovakia (all of which used to be very poverty stricken), they've generally experienced increased economic growth, lower unemployment, and (despite your nonsense) more wealth equality.

A flat tax is not a panacea for eliminating corruption - nor is it fair in practice...

I'm all for removing tokenistic and effectively-exclusive exceptions and exemptions - but this can be done without flattening the income tax base...

There are very good reasons for having tiered income taxation - not least because unbridled individualism and corporativism are socio-economically counter-productive...

Come to think of it, there is no valid reason why progressive taxation should not apply to both individual and corporate taxation...

Moreover, we ought to be reviewing the bizarre notion of attracting foreign ownership (which is really what so-called foreign 'investment' is) through preferential taxation regimes...

Equitist wrote on Aug 12^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

A flat tax is not a panacea for eliminating corruption - nor is it fair in practice... I'm all for removing tokenistic and effectively-exclusive exceptions and exemptions - but this can be done without flattening the income tax base... There are very good reasons for having tiered income taxation - not least because unbridled individualism and corporativism are socio-economically counter-productive... Come to think of it, there is no valid reason why progressive taxation should not apply to both individual and corporate taxation... Moreover, we ought to be reviewing the bizarre notion of attracting foreign ownership (which is really what so-called foreign 'investment' is) through preferential taxation regimes...

I never said a flat tax would eliminate corruption, just that it would alleviate it. Which it would, obviously. If you have 150 representatives, each representing a different part of Australia, and each representing the special interests of their constituents, then you are going to have at least 150 different tax exemptions put in the tax code. It's easy to slot a tax exemption in amongst the mass amounts of exemptions, exceptions, rebates, rates, fees, penalties, in the Australian tax code.

How do you propose doing this without flattening the income tax? You need to simplify the tax code somehow. How are you going to do that while still maintaining "fairness" and "progressivism"? You can't. Progressive taxation leads to complication, leads to tax avoidance, leads to tax corruptions, leads to wealth disparity. To suggest applying it to corporate tax is ridiculous. You want to punish corporations for growing? How is that economically smart?

Finally, this has a lot to do with individualism, but very little to do with corporatism. Corporatism is when the government actively assists or somehow controls and manages (but doesn't own) corporations. That's the opposite of free market economics. To be truly corporatist, you have to actively be turning taxpayer money over to corporations, like how the leftists around the world encouraged government to give billions to failed banks and companies after the GFC. That's corporatism. It is not individualism.

Individualism is something I embrace and I reject that it is socio-economically counterproductive. Society benefits most when individual cooperate together voluntarily through pursuing their own economic self interest. Societies falls when they become a forced collective, forced to work together and share the wealth as it dwindles away like all wealth does in collectivist societies.

You appear to be confusing tax rates with tax exemptions.

Are you also suggesting we eliminate tax exemptions?

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

You appear to be confusing tax rates with tax exemptions. Are you also suggesting we eliminate tax exemptions?

Well, if we are expected to believe the Liberal party savings list, then the Libs are set to remove deductions for work related expenses?

http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Coalition%20Savings%20Table%2020072010.ashx

Honestly I do not know enough about these systems but why not dump all tax altogether except for a gst and a tax on any moneies leaving the country.

Everyone and every company and organisation is a consumer and service provider. No exemptions. No lease and tax rebates for compannies.

High earners spend high, doesn't matter if a company buys a house or unit for their executives they pay a same flat gst as anyone else.

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 12:58pm:

You appear to be confusing tax rates with tax exemptions. Are you also suggesting we eliminate tax exemptions?

How am I confusing tax rates with exemptions? I'm making the point that progressive tax rates incentivise people to seek exemptions. I don't know that it's necessary to eliminate tax exemptions. There are some exemptions in our tax plan, for example no tax on your first $30,000. That's an exemption. It exempts income under $30,000 from the 30% tax rate. The 30% tax rate would only apply to income over $30,000. Now we could look at exemptions for families, write offs for capital investments, but we have to KISS.

I mean exemptions for business expenses. Do you want to get rid of those?


Quote:

I'm making the point that progressive tax rates incentivise people to seek exemptions.

Can you explain how please?

BobH wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 12:39pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 12th, 2010 at 6:50pm: A flat tax is not a panacea for eliminating corruption - nor is it fair in practice... I'm all for removing tokenistic and effectively-exclusive exceptions and exemptions - but this can be done without flattening the income tax base... There are very good reasons for having tiered income taxation - not least because unbridled individualism and corporativism are socio-economically counter-productive... Come to think of it, there is no valid reason why progressive taxation should not apply to both individual and corporate taxation... Moreover, we ought to be reviewing the bizarre notion of attracting foreign ownership (which is really what so-called foreign 'investment' is) through preferential taxation regimes... I never said a flat tax would eliminate corruption, just that it would alleviate it. Which it would, obviously. If you have 150 representatives, each representing a different part of Australia, and each representing the special interests of their constituents, then you are going to have at least 150 different tax exemptions put in the tax code. It's easy to slot a tax exemption in amongst the mass amounts of exemptions, exceptions, rebates, rates, fees, penalties, in the Australian tax code. How do you propose doing this without flattening the income tax? You need to simplify the tax code somehow. How are you going to do that while still maintaining "fairness" and "progressivism"? You can't. Progressive taxation leads to complication, leads to tax avoidance, leads to tax corruptions, leads to wealth disparity. To suggest applying it to corporate tax is ridiculous. You want to punish corporations for growing? How is that economically smart? Finally, this has a lot to do with individualism, but very little to do with corporatism. Corporatism is when the government actively assists or somehow controls and manages (but doesn't own) corporations. That's the opposite of free market economics. To be truly corporatist, you have to actively be turning taxpayer money over to corporations, like how the leftists around the world encouraged government to give billions to failed banks and companies after the GFC. That's corporatism. It is not individualism. Individualism is something I embrace and I reject that it is socio-economically counterproductive. Society benefits most when individual cooperate together voluntarily through pursuing their own economic self interest. Societies falls when they become a forced collective, forced to work together and share the wealth as it dwindles away like all wealth does in collectivist societies.

Sorry, Bob but that is a dogmatic croc - either you don't understand human nature and/or you have a hidden agenda!

Firstly, exemptions and progressive tax scales can be mutually exclusive - and self-serving people such as yourself, will still go to great lengths to minimise/evade tax where and when possible, regardless of what the applicable marginal tax rate is. What they may do a little less of, is invest in tax-deduction/concession driven schemes - but proper regulation and apropriately punitive fines are still necessary to deter determined rorters anyway!

Secondly, you seem to be very out of touch with human nature - as if mutual competition means mutual prosperity!? On this planet, it is untenable that: "Society benefits most when individual cooperate together voluntarily through pursuing their own economic self interest"!?

LDP policy is a recipe for total anarchy - and in times of crisis and hardship, I guarantee you that mountains of money are the last thing on a normal/sane individual's mind - because Maslov's hierarchy kicks in instantly!

BobH wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 1:39pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 13th, 2010 at 12:58pm: You appear to be confusing tax rates with tax exemptions. Are you also suggesting we eliminate tax exemptions? How am I confusing tax rates with exemptions? I'm making the point that progressive tax rates incentivise people to seek exemptions. I don't know that it's necessary to eliminate tax exemptions. There are some exemptions in our tax plan, for example no tax on your first $30,000. That's an exemption. It exempts income under $30,000 from the 30% tax rate. The 30% tax rate would only apply to income over $30,000. Now we could look at exemptions for families, write offs for capital investments, but we have to KISS.

There are practical limits to simplifying taxation, beyond which inequity leads to socio-economically unhealthy polarisation of income, wealth, opportunity and power!

Clearly, that is the alien and counter-intuitive feudal agenda of the LDP!?

What those of your ilk seem incapable of appreciating, is how quickly the inevitable deprivation and anarchy would transpire...

To gain a first-hand appreciation of my point, I'd suggest that you organise an evening of playing a 30/30-modified version of the game of Monopoly - with, say, 2 of the most ruthless, 2 of the most honourable and 2 of the most passive people you can conscript!

If it still doesn't compute, then I suggest that you and your fellow amoral LDP aliens pool together your resources and buy up an isolated island somewhere - and mutually-compete amonst yourselves until you earn real world Darwin Awards...

Oh, BTW: in the real world that I live in: both tax rates and exemptions can jointly and severally result in incentives!

Meantime, I've been wondering how the LDP think their 30/03 policy could possibly be implemented...

Would they set up a 'level playing field' - by equally dividing the ownership of the nation's total private and public assets (including money, shares, stock, real estate, land, infrastructure, mineral resources) amongst existing citizens, then allowing open slather from that point on - or would the day 1 starting point be the current level of gross inequity!?

Seriously, even if the first theoretical option was chosen, how long before total anarchy would transpire in the real world!?

Hey Bob, after the 2010 election, you might have a buyer for your oxymoronic party's name: -

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281658427/18#18


shampain socialist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 2:51pm:

it's a pity you didn't start a political party and called it something like the "Liberal Democrats" before someone else grabbed the name. You cannot change these things on your own, mellie, it takes a national political movement. You certainly sound like you have ample intellectual capacity to do just that. I have very good contacts on the ins and outs of doing that if you want to, and I'd be glad to facilitate that for you. Talking about it won't really change anything, only action can. We both know what the Australian electorate is concerned about as the big issues, and how to communicate with them about it. Why don't you consider it?

Equitist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

Secondly, you seem to be very out of touch with human nature - as if mutual competition means mutual prosperity!? On this planet, it is untenable that: "Society benefits most when individual cooperate together voluntarily through pursuing their own economic self interest"!?

Let me address this right now as I have things to do and this is the easiest to respond to now. I'll get back to everything you and others have raised later.

It's more about trade than competition. Mutual trade means mutual prosperity. A voluntary trade can't happen unless both parties will be better off. An easy example is this:

Adam takes 4 hours to make a spear and 3 hours to make an axe. Oz takes 1 hour to make a spear and 2 hours to make an axe. It would seem Oz couldn't use Adam's help because Oz makes a spear and an axe quicker than Adam can. But if Oz makes 2 spears and Adam makes 2 axes, then they trade an axe for a spear, they will each save an hour of work. The more they do this, the more true it will be.

Where competition comes in is in improving trade. If someone comes alongs with a quicker way to build a axe than Oz, he's incentivised to find an even quicker way or to invent a tool better than the axe.

Now, I'd really like you to tell me how exactly I'm wrong to state that society benefits most when individuals cooperate voluntarily through pursuing their own economic self interest. This has always been true. When treated as individuals, the collective benefits. When forced into a collective, they all fall down together. They never rise up together, notice that. There haven't been any success stories of communist prosperity and progress. But there have been many success stories of individuals working cooperatively and voluntarily to increase prosperity and progress.

Equitist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 2:57pm:

Hey Bob, after the 2010 election, you might have a buyer for your oxymoronic party's name: - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281658427/18#18 shampain socialist wrote on Aug 13th, 2010 at 2:51pm: it's a pity you didn't start a political party and called it something like the "Liberal Democrats" before someone else grabbed the name. You cannot change these things on your own, mellie, it takes a national political movement. You certainly sound like you have ample intellectual capacity to do just that. I have very good contacts on the ins and outs of doing that if you want to, and I'd be glad to facilitate that for you. Talking about it won't really change anything, only action can. We both know what the Australian electorate is concerned about as the big issues, and how to communicate with them about it. Why don't you consider it?

What's oxymoronic about it? Don't tell me you've been Americanised into thinking the term "liberal" refers to left-wing progressivism or something. We are an Australian party, therefore in Australia our name "liberal democrats" makes perfect sense. While "democrat" by itself could refer to a believe in direct democracy, everything up for a vote (including individual rights), democratic ownership etc. Put with the word "liberal" it refers to a completely different ideology of a liberal democracy. That's what we stand for. We're the most liberal political party in Australia.

Equitist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

Meantime, I've been wondering how the LDP think their 30/03 policy could possibly be implemented... Would they set up a 'level playing field' - by equally dividing the ownership of the nation's total private and public assets (including money, shares, stock, real estate, land, infrastructure, mineral resources) amongst existing citizens, then allowing open slather from that point on - or would the day 1 starting point be the current level of gross inequity!? Seriously, even if the first theoretical option was chosen, how long before total anarchy would transpire in the real world!?

We would implement as things are now. There's no need to divide up ownership equally because our tax plan would achieve the same equality you seek over time. Flatter tax rates always do.

I've always found it interesting that those societies who have sought to achieve equality, via the use of force, have experienced less of it, whereas societies who have sought to achieve freedom have experienced a great amount of both freedom and equality.

your platform sounds out of touch with the sector of Australian society that decides elections, Bob.
To me, that says that you (collectively) are not very good politicians.

I don't think they'll be any "buyers", equitist, it's too hard to reinvent a name once the party has taken it in a certain direction. You only get one chance, if you blow it, you're gone.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 3:15pm:

your platform sounds out of touch with the sector of Australian society that decides elections, Bob. To me, that says that you (collectively) are not very good politicians.

We don't try to be good politicians. What's good for a politician politically is almost always bad for the people those politicians are supposed to represent.

I think you might be a little out of touch with mainstream Australia yourself. I think most Australians want more freedom, less government and more personal responsibility. They sure as hell want lower taxes.

I think for the most part Australians want to be left alone to do their thing. That's all. It's not a big ask. Don't pretend we have a hidden "feudal" agenda or something. Don't be silly. We just want government out of our face and out of our pockets. Leave people the hell alone. That's all we want.

BobH wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

Equitist wrote on Aug 13th, 2010 at 2:09pm: Secondly, you seem to be very out of touch with human nature - as if mutual competition means mutual prosperity!? On this planet, it is untenable that: "Society benefits most when individual cooperate together voluntarily through pursuing their own economic self interest"!? Let me address this right now as I have things to do and this is the easiest to respond to now. I'll get back to everything you and others have raised later. It's more about trade than competition. Mutual trade means mutual prosperity. A voluntary trade can't happen unless both parties will be better off. An easy example is this: Adam takes 4 hours to make a spear and 3 hours to make an axe. Oz takes 1 hour to make a spear and 2 hours to make an axe. It would seem Oz couldn't use Adam's help because Oz makes a spear and an axe quicker than Adam can. But if Oz makes 2 spears and Adam makes 2 axes, then they trade an axe for a spear, they will each save an hour of work. The more they do this, the more true it will be. Where competition comes in is in improving trade. If someone comes alongs with a quicker way to build a axe than Oz, he's incentivised to find an even quicker way or to invent a tool better than the axe. Now, I'd really like you to tell me how exactly I'm wrong to state that society benefits most when individuals cooperate voluntarily through pursuing their own economic self interest. This has always been true. When treated as individuals, the collective benefits. When forced into a collective, they all fall down together. They never rise up together, notice that. There haven't been any success stories of communist prosperity and progress. But there have been many success stories of individuals working cooperatively and voluntarily to increase prosperity and progress.

I note that your over-simplified example naively suggests that every individual human unit of production is highly-specialised and self-employed (and healthy and well-resourced?) - and that each trades directly with each other, on a 'level playing field' and without fear or favour...and despite not having a semblance of objective and independent regulation of individual income-producing and trading activities...

However, the real world requires a degree of flexibility and an hierarchy of 'middlemen' individuals, who skim off a premium at each step of the indirect transaction...

Even in the ideal alien world according to the LDP, some of those individuals would still be totally unproductive in their own right and will primarily trade an arbitrary means of exchange (capital/money - loaned with an interest premium) and/or in their ability to co-ordinate/enslave/control (i.e. exploit) the activities and resources of other individuals - whilst other individuals would be involved in transport, prostituting themselves for legal and other personal services, etc...

Moreover, some individuals would be involved in Government bureaucracies (with unprecedented opportunities for corruption and incarceration and other abuses of troublesome impoverised and disadvantaged citizens)...

Hence, just as 'Communism' only works on a small and isolated scale, I maintain that LDP policy cannot be self-sustaining on a medium-large scale - and that: at the medium-large scale, both extreme 'systems' eventually come full-circle on the socio-econo-political continuum, at the point of Fascism - which is the inevitable precursor to anarchy and revolution!

BobH wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 13th, 2010 at 3:15pm: your platform sounds out of touch with the sector of Australian society that decides elections, Bob. To me, that says that you (collectively) are not very good politicians. We don't try to be good politicians. What's good for a politician politically is almost always bad for the people those politicians are supposed to represent. I think you might be a little out of touch with mainstream Australia yourself. I think most Australians want more freedom, less government and more personal responsibility. They sure as hell want lower taxes. I think for the most part Australians want to be left alone to do their thing. That's all. It's not a big ask. Don't pretend we have a hidden "feudal" agenda or something. Don't be silly. We just want government out of our face and out of our pockets. Leave people the hell alone. That's all we want.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that: the individuals in the LDP lack the fundamental capacity to appreciate the complex and dynamic real-world large-scale implications of your overly-simplified, dogmatic, egocentric and amoral policies...

As I suggested before: you lot need to play a game of 30/30-modified Monopoly...

"that's all *we* want", is it, Bob. Who? You and the party? That's how you're coming across.
I don't know of one single political party in Australia that has got anywhere by proferring generalities like the ones you have posted:
"freedom, less government and more personal responsibility. They sure as hell want lower taxes.:
*All* of that is subjective, and as a voter you would have to trust that your party would interpret that in the way in which you (the voter) would want. Not good enough, Bob. Most people don't want to vote like that.
We will see what happens to your party, Bob, obviously, in the upcoming election, but I predict that you will be gone with the wind.
If you cannot see that coming, you are truly not a politician.
Presumably, as you are a chief public spokesperson for your party, I have to assume you are one of the best they have, so that, in itself, underscores my perceptions as a voter of your party.
How much would you like to sell the name for?

That's not to suggest there might be a buyer, Bob, there might obviously a big difference between what you think you'd get, and whether or not there'd be any buyer at all.  I'm just wondering how realistic you are, it seems to be a good test, but I think I can predict the answer.

Bob, political leaders need to have a sufficient degree of introspection to see that egotism does not substitute for one's own analysis of what the public want. In my experience, effective "politicians" can do that. Frankly, I don't think you can, and unless I could be convinced that you (and your party) can, no way would it be safe to have that sort of perspective running the country. Sorry, but that's the fact.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 3:45pm:

"that's all *we* want", is it, Bob. Who? You and the party? That's how you're coming across. I don't know of one single political party in Australia that has got anywhere by proferring generalities like the ones you have posted: "freedom, less government and more personal responsibility. They sure as hell want lower taxes.: *All* of that is subjective, and as a voter you would have to trust that your party would interpret that in the way in which you (the voter) would want. Not good enough, Bob. Most people don't want to vote like that. We will see what happens to your party, Bob, obviously, in the upcoming election, but I predict that you will be gone with the wind. If you cannot see that coming, you are truly not a politician. Presumably, as you are a chief public spokesperson for your party, I have to assume you are one of the best they have, so that, in itself, underscores my perceptions as a voter of your party. How much would you like to sell the name for? That's not to suggest there might be a buyer, Bob, there might obviously a big difference between what you think you'd get, and whether or not there'd be any buyer at all.  I'm just wondering how realistic you are, it seems to be a good test, but I think I can predict the answer. Bob, political leaders need to have a sufficient degree of introspection to see that egotism does not substitute for one's own analysis of what the public want. In my experience, effective "politicians" can do that. Frankly, I don't think you can, and unless I could be convinced that you (and your party) can, no way would it be safe to have that sort of perspective running the country. Sorry, but that's the fact.

Surprisingly, I think I basically agree with the gist of most of that!?

That said, are we to believe that the LDP 'pollies' don't regard themselves as superior individual born-to-rule specimens with a monopoly on ideas of what the 'public' (as they call the citizens/electorate/community/society) needs and wants - and that they are jointly and severally seeking election in order to make pollies (themselves) redundant ASAP!?

If so, Bob: -

How long is the whole transition process supposed to take - one Govt term!? 2-3 terms!? Maybe a generation!? Perhaps an age!?

How long will it take, in a truly democratic process, to thrash out the constitutional and other legislative changes to ensure that each and every individual has exactly the same rights and responsibilities on a truly 'level playing field'!? Or, do you think that your KISS policy manifesto would suffice without futher clarification and embellishment!?

Oh, and when/how do we know that socio-econo-political perfection has been achieved!?

Seriously, what is the LDP's political end game - or is your cult leader's whole fanciful policy platform just a means to an ulterior Fascist end!?

Yes, and I would think you would agree with most of that, equitist. Most Australians would regardless of whether they are left or right. It is because it is a middle ground perspective and apolitical.
You are in fact fairly middle ground yourself, but you think you have to be an extreme leftist to validate your views. No; you don't.

I don't think the LDP are a bunch of superior, born to rule types really; I think they are just pretty naive and severely blinkered, but it doesn't matter. They'll be talking about *why* their election annihilation happened at their sombre, inward looking election after-parties, but they'll find a scapegoat, or more likely just rationalise it that it is a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll, and roll on the next election. Then they'll probably sack Bob.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 13^th, 2010 at 4:09pm:

Yes, and I would think you would agree with most of that, equitist. Most Australians would regardless of whether they are left or right. It is because it is a middle ground perspective and apolitical. You are in fact fairly middle ground yourself, but you think you have to be an extreme leftist to validate your views. No; you don't. I don't think the LDP are a bunch of superior, born to rule types really; I think they are just pretty naive and severely blinkered, but it doesn't matter. They'll be talking about *why* their election annihilation happened at their sombre, inward looking election after-parties, but they'll find a scapegoat, or more likely just rationalise it that it is a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll, and roll on the next election. Then they'll probably sack Bob.

LOL...for obvious reasons, I don't think I need to clarify which parts of that I do and don't agree with...  ::)

BTW, they're not a totally new party - Ivan Milat's sister-in-law was one notable individual that they put up as a candidate in 2007...

Bob, do you now know what it was like to be the Captain of the Titanic.
You have heard of the Titanic, haven't you.

It looks like a couple of you on the far left have been talking it up while I've been busy over the weekend. Let me address a few things.

Firstly, I'm not by any appointment by the party a "chief spokesperson" for the Liberal Democrats. Me making a few posts on a relatively small forum as an individual who also happens to be an LDP candidate, and using those posts to help promote the principles I share with the party, does not make me a "chief spokesperson" for the Liberal Democrats. I have been relatively quite online and in the media compared to other candidates who have way more energy to dedicate their time to promoting the Liberal Democrats.

Secondly, it has been correctly stated that we are not a totally new party. But we are older that 2007. We were actually founded in 2001, but were mainly just based in the ACT back then. As pointed out we ran candidates in the 2007 federal election, one of which was Lisa Milat a relative of Ivan Milat. I have a lot of respect for her. She's very brave to face the scrutiny of the media over her relation to Ivan Milat. But you can't choose your relatives. I was actually just recently sent a link to a poll conducted by a newspaper that's local to where she's running, where she came out on top out of the seven candidates in her electorate. Good on her. I hope she can pull similar results off on Saturday.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats are not hedging their bets on winning this election. You can call it a titanic tragedy if a young, small party doesn't beat established major and minor parties like the Liberals, Labor, Greens and Family First. But any win for the Liberal Democrats in either the House of Reps or the Senate would be historical for minor parties. Our goal is just to promote our ideas and influence the political environment a bit. We've already done that to some extent, as seen by the Coalition talking about introducing a low-rate flat tax with a high tax-free threshold, part of the tax policy we submitted to the Henry Tax Review. Which brings us back to the topic.

The question was raised earlier about whether the tax policy had been properly assessed. To give you some background information, our tax policy was formulated by the economist John Humphreys who founded the LDP back in 2001. As an economist I'm sure he personally assessed the 30/30 plan. On a side note, John Humphreys was lined up to be the LNP candidate for Griffith in this federal election. (We allow Liberal Democrats to be members of other parties as well. There are some Liberal members and supporters who are small "l" liberals at heart and have joined or voiced support for the LDP, and some Liberal Democrats who think it would be effective for themselves to join the Liberal Party and make it lean libertarian). But when Kevin Rudd was ousted as Prime Minister, and the seat of Griffith became attainable for the LNP, they suddenly decided John Humphreys was too liberal for the Liberal party and nominated a "safer", more conservative candidate. But back to the 30/30 tax policy which he formulated.

The 30/30 tax policy has been published by the Centre for Independent Studies. As an organisation with a respectable level of credibility, I doubt they'd risk damaging their credibility by publishing a tax policy that hadn't been assessed for its effects on productivity and the budget. Then when the idea was submitted to Henry Tax Review, it was of course assessed it further and Henry ended up recommending a flat tax with a high tax-free threshold. So we're to assume at least that they think that part of our tax policy is good for the economy and at least budget neutral.

The Coalition then announced they were considering it with the adjusted figures of 35% with a tax-free threshold of $25,000. Which I think were Henry's figures. Our figures are 30% with a tax-free threshold of $30000, that's why we call it 30/30. So we can also assume that the Coalition have had those figures assessed and think it would be at least budget neutral. But they have omitted the part of our tax policy which includes welfare reform. We want to replace welfare entitlements with a negative income tax. So if 35% with a tax-free threshold of $25,000 has been assessed to be budget neutral under this economic climate and with the federal government's level of expenditure, then we can make an assumption that with the savings made by cutting welfare entitlements in favour of a negative income tax, 30% with a tax-free threshold of $30,000 could also be budget neutral.

On Brisbane local ABC today they had a guy talk about community planning. The funny thing was that those neighborhoods that were most free to step up there own housing and trade turned out 50 or so years later to be the examples of society (low crime high employment). So I have to believe empowering Australians to decide for themselves can over be a good thing.