What do you all think?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/sustainability-party.html

Kangaroo farming and breeding programs should be looked into. Kangaroos are a menace to farmers and I think we should treat them like cattle and sheep. They were a food source for indigenous people there is no reasons why they can't be a food source for us all.

I'm sure Canada chops a maple tree or two down.

Sprint could you please PM me your email address. The first thing I need to do is start an email list of everyone who is interested.

It is not an answer to everything, only a select set of problems, though it is a set which is becoming more important. It will not lead to corruption any more than arbitrary taxation does.

I want to avoid changes like a flat tax that are considered 'regressive.' That is, changes that increase the wealth gap between rich and poor (or that do the opposite). That turns it into a strongly partisan issue which would divide a lot of potential supporters. I am trying to stick to issues that traditional supporters of both major parties and both sides of politics can see the benefit of.

The idea is to keep it neutral, so that neither the wealthy nor the poor face an increased overall/average tax burden. It is a change in what is taxed, not a change in who is taxed.

No, it does not mean the wealthy are paying more tax. Shifting the tax burden from income to greenhouse emissions would increase the tax burden on the poor, unless the income tax reductions were targetted at the poor. If you increase the tax free threshhold it targets the tax reduction at the poor, but the rich also pay less income tax.

Obviously the government needs to get money from somewhere to pay for our services? maybe you plan to tax businesses higher to compensate?

I plan to tax greenhouse emissions.

Please explain how shifting the tax burden from income to greenhouse emmissions would increase the tax burden on the poor?

It's like a switch from income tax to GST. It would tend to tax everyone at closer to the same rate than income tax, where the rate increases with income.

By taxing greenhouse emmissions just adds another cost to business. Businesses who exist in an industry which is competitive on price will have to find other means to cut costs. Keeping in mind that production and increasing production is what businesses are all about and your concept would decrease production due to having an extra tax thrown at them. This would see a businesses closing, businesses relocating overseas and increase of unemployment.

Businesses would lower wages where necessary:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift-FAQ.html#Q2

Offsetting it with a reduction in company tax could be reasonable, but the income tax reduction for low income earners would be more netural in terms of the distribution of the tax burden between rich and poor. The reason is that an emissions tax is effectively a consumption tax, whereas the company tax is a tax on profit. Company taxes are not passed on to the consumer. Emissions taxes are. Company taxes reduce the return on investment for the company's investors. They cannot pass this cost on because that would make them uncompetitive. An emissions tax will be passed on. For example, if you tax petrol, it makes no difference whether you charge the tax to the fuel company or the end consumer, the end consumer pays the higher price.

Another problem is that there is a lot of interaction between company tax and income tax. If some tax has already been charged on profits, investors can count that towards the income tax which they pay on profits. If you reduce company tax, the investors just have to pay tax when they register the profit as income. I think the only people who escape this are foreigners. You would be giving them a tax break. You may end up effectively subsidising foreign owned businesses.

The first home buyers grant is another handout that should go:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Not-all-first-homeowners-need-grant/2007/04/23/1177180548064.html

Releasing its plan to make the housing market fairer, National Shelter said the grant was working against low income households by artificially pushing up house prices.

"The first homeowners' grant provides valued assistance to many younger households struggling to get a foothold in the housing market," the paper says.

"However, because it is not means tested, it also subsidises many people who don't need it, and many believe it has an overall inflationary effect on the housing market, which ultimately makes it self-defeating."

Looks like the coalition is gearing up for more handouts this election:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-cashed-up-for-election-promises/2007/04/23/1177180515111.html

The federal government has an additional $2.3 billion available for pre-election promises on top of an estimated $12 billion surplus from this year's budget.

The extra funding exists in government discretionary spending programs, which have yet to be revealed, Fairfax newspapers report.

Exactly right, businesses would lower wages to stay competitive and of course this would be the first step to the decline of that business.

Not necessarily. All businesses would face some rpessure to reduce wages. Some would become less competitive in the employee market - the ones you want to decline.

It also would make a mockery to the individual with the income tax reduction because he would be no better off and probably have even less job security.

The goal is not to make people better off. People won't have more to spend because income taxes are reduced. It will be offset by an increase in price in some goods and some decrease in wages. As some industries shrink and some grow there would obviously be less job security in the shrinking industries and more in the growing ones.

If company tax was reduced to the same percentage as income tax

It's 30% isn't it? That is, less than the marginal rate for most investors.

By taxing the fuel company you force them to cut costs, cut wages, increase production or increasing prices.

No, production decreases. Competition forces them to cut costs. There will be competiton before and after the new tax.

Generally they will do all 4, this way dispursing the extra burden right throughout their business model with minimum noticeable effect to the end consumer. By taxing the end consumer direct doesn't allow dispursement of the tax. It is 100% payed by the end consumer. The end consumers only option is to buy less.

Wrong. Ask an economist about this if you don't believe me. Please.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2007 at 4:19pm:


An overall inflation rate effect? If it wasn't for the first home owners grant the building industry would not have taken off in the first place. A bit like the baby bonus. As soon as people were given an opportunity they embraced it creating activity within the sectors. Activity creates activity.

Freediver you seem to be attacking all the good things that the Howard government has implemented which has worked beyond a doubt under their good economic management. People just don't know when they have it good. While you spend the next decade waiting for a bust in the boom cycle I'll be taking advantage of today.

I feel your policies will be better supported when people are looking for economic change. The time is not right. 15 years ago people would listen to you en mass  but not today. Howard has already set us on a road of protecting our future as well as giving benefit for today. His focus has been on Increasing our birthrate, reducing immigration (allowing time for assimilation), giving everyone the opportunity of home ownership (giving our children security), advocating nuclear power (creating a new industry (more jobs available for our children as they come of age from the baby boom), advocating principles in education (all to have same curriculum, teachings of Shakespear etc.), Murray Darling Control, AWA (which has given Australia the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever seen). Pretty much he has led this country by listening to the peoples concerns and has adopted policies to benefit all Australians.

In your mind they are bad, and yet you still cannot show evidence to back that up, in my mind they are good and evidence is already there.

Quote:

Howard has already set us on a road of protecting our future as well as giving benefit for today. His focus has been on Increasing our birthrate, reducing immigration (allowing time for assimilation), giving everyone the opportunity of home ownership (giving our children security), advocating nuclear power (creating a new industry (more jobs available for our children as they come of age from the baby boom), advocating principles in education (all to have same curriculum, teachings of Shakespear etc.), Murray Darling Control, AWA (which has given Australia the lowest unemployment rate this country has ever seen). Pretty much he has led this country by listening to the peoples concerns and has adopted policies to benefit all Australians.

This is all based on evidence. Open your eyes up and look at things logically and you too might see what I see. read a 12 books on microeconomics concerning these issues and I'll get 12 opinions, not one will be the same and they'll all have an sometype of workable solution.

Costello knows what he is talking about and I believe he is a lot more switched on than Keating.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2007 at 7:11pm:


Not all handouts can justify the cost to taxpayers but the aforementioned handouts do justify the cost, not in immediate financial cost but something more important e.g.

Social Benefits

Baby boomer bonus has many social benefits for example;

Keeping our birthrate above our death rate, considering we are still an aging society.
Immigration reduction allowing assimilation of all the current ethnics reducing tension and possibility of terrorism from rascism.

Financial Benefits

Financial benefits can be gained in the future. If we have a decline in births, which was happening before the baby boomer bonus our current infrastructure would still have to be paid for, our housing development would be reduced (long term), cost of terrorist attacks due to increasing immigration to a non assimilation point etc.

I could list benefits for all Howards policy with the big picture in mind. I understand that you would prefer to means test all policies but means testing is an attack on equal rights. If you work hard all your life for your country and are successful why should you be consistently penalised by your country.

I come from a low socio economic background and it is hard work digging yourself out of the gutter to achieve. Those people that do should not be penalised by your policies.

As for reading a book, I have built two successful businesses up from nothing to lead in their industries over the last 8 years and the industries I talk about have plenty of competition. I didn't read a book to do this I listened to people on what their needs were, I listened to the market, I listened and took action.

If you think you can learn everything out of a book I've got news for you. If you havn't got natural talent in that particular area you are wasting your time. Reading a few books does not make you an expert it just makes you the carrier of someone elses ideas and opinions.

So what your saying is vote for Freedivers policies but read a book first. Do you have any argument at all that supports your policies? I have given you plenty of factual evidence, which you have not nullified and you still give no evidence to why your policies are of benefit.

You cannot just tell your constituents to go and read a book. How do you ever expect to get support for your policies if you cannot highlight the benefits. Your tactics seem to be to ridicule anyone with an opposing voice.

Quote:


Isn't this called fair distribution of funds?

Quote:


Your views are extreme;

The abolishment of the Baby Bonus
The abolishment of First Home Owners grant
Reduction of income tax or increasing tax free threshold (I'm still not sure what you are advocating in this area).

Have you atleast looked at the negative impact of these extremes?

I wouldn't trust an economist to get it right.   Generally I hear what they have to say and then conclude the opposite will be the result.   They're a little like the weather forecaster for reliability.

I agree that real experience counts in understanding an economy.  If you understand a little one (like your profit and loss) you'll understand a big one.   Not necessarily be able too manage it but the concept is the same.   Money in, minus costs = profit.

I haven't read the section on this new party freediver but I did say over at D & R where I found your link the name needs to go.  How attached are you to it?

I thought it was going to be "economic literate enviro"

Deepthought is right. You have to understand your audience and don't make the mistake of thinking you are only speaking to academics. Everything you write and the image you protrude has to be understood by the uneducated or you won't go very far. As for your slogan, I personally have no idea what it means but i am sure an academic will.

Don't give up trying freediver as I admire people who strive to achieve. Remember the secret is listening, not dictating and you will go a long way. It is also how we do things, not what we do.

A good party needs to work and debate between themselves and be open to change when their policies are wrong. No matter how much you believe in them you have to approach it constantly with an open mind. That is the most difficult for anyone to do. The people that can achieve this go on to bigger and better things. We generally call these people wise.

Thanks for popping in DeepThought I hope you pay us a visit from time to time as your views and opinions are important to all of us.

See I'm new to this so I still haven't got my head around freediver's plan.    If in fact it is some kind of handbag bashing Greens type of Party forget it.    At least as far as I'm concerned, though good luck to you.   But all you need do is see how the Greens willingly stay at the sidelines with policies which are economically unsustainable and mostly sheer lunacy.  Though they do get more than their fair share of news time so I suspect they are more about exposure for their members than about substance.

It's not enough to say we should have (anyone should have) environmentally sustainable policies, you have to ask if they are viable.  Will they work?

An economy comes first.   Not an environment.    Humans (like every other species on earth) consumes - if we don't we die.   What we need to ensure is that we do so cleanly, and without damage.

Build the economy first and consider the by-product of it.   People don't give a fecal matter for a tree if their family is hungry.

Forget economics majors and other bookish types.   If you want to be successful listen to the people when they speak.   The silent people - not the noisy rabble.    You could actually use the noisy rabble as a gauge of a policy success because they are usually opposed to the success of the nation because they don't feel a part of it.   I have no understanding of it but they seem to hate their country.   So if they protest it must be good for the nation.

I'm sure World Leaders know they're on the right track when buttheads throw (figurative) eggs.    George Bush would have been ecstatic when Bob Brown squawked in the Australian Parliament during his address in 2003.   That would have told him his ideology was mainstream Australian as only the rabble barfed up their vitriol.

The same Bob Brown who so opposes George Bush was also quick to rush up and shake his hand so he could get his mug on the telly though - thereby demonstrating the fame over substance style of political lightweights like himself.

Steer well clear of any association, naming or otherwise, unless that is what you are aiming for.   It is certain doom.

Now there's a thought for a name.   'Doom For The Green's' Party - DFTG.   But that gives me an idea for another name.   The 'Liberty Or Lunacy' Party  - LOL.    Sounds like a hoot.

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 10:17am:


It's a policewoman (from behind) and she is fiddling about in her back passage for some inexplicable reason.   It is of course possible she has a golf ball lodged in there.

I disagree.   The environment depends on an economy.   You can't buy stuff with inedible branches and leaves.

Third world nations log at an extraordinary rate to get money to buy stuff because they don't have an economy.   They sell their trees to nations with economies.    Take a look at Africa and or the Middle East.    See many trees where all those refugees and desert folk are?

You have to start with a structure that sustains people first, then consider the by product.   If you plan on attempting it the other way around good luck to you.   I'll see you and Bob Brown shaking hands with real leaders some time.  

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 10:33am:


Jared Diamond's examples show exactly what I'm talking about.   Those societies had no sustainable economies.

So they sold nothing, bought nothing, made nothing (but stone statues or boats) and raped the environment until there was nothing left.

That is what is the result of no economy.    Eventually you just use all your resources.

But they lived (and died) in quite different times from today's global environemt and marketplace.    The nations which built sustainable economies also protected their resources as they knew they needed them for a sustainable economy.

If we were to go back in time and apply sustainability and the precautionary principle, would we still be mapping out which stones we are allowed to chip pieces off to make a basic tomahawk?

Let's say those same people built fish farms.

Have you ever seen Easter Island? And it wasn't boat building that caused them to loose all their trees.

It was Diamond's conclusion as I recall as he speaks of the desperate times that must have been faced at the end as people starved to death after chopping down all their trees to make boats to plunder more resources.

That doesn't mean that lack of an economy results in consumption of all your resources. With the exception of small islands, people only ever began to live unsustainably when they tried to feed a large economy.

But the industry (the economy) must come first to justify keeping the environment (trees).

That's absurd. You don't need an economy to justify keeping the trees. It's like you think people are happy to die, but won't tolerate damage to their economy. Diamond gave an example of another island in a similar situation where they did make a conscious choice to live sustainably. It had nothing at all to do with protecting their economy.

No.

So definitive! Perhaps we'd be struggling to get through the bronze age? No way we'd be anywhere near the industrial revolution.

Sustainability is not about living in caves.

No, but when applied with the precautionary principle it restricts access to resources which may or may not be a good thing with respect to the human race. If there was a definitive way of measuring sustainability of all resources?...but there isn't AFAIK

However, just because we can't pin it down exactly does not mean we shouldn't make it a priority.

That's precisely why it shouldn't be a priority, but that's not to say it's something that shouldn't be worked towards

The alternative is the collapse of our society.

How dramatic.

Our society already does what it needs to in order to survive- sometimes that's at the expense of the environment and until there is a definitive way of measure the sustainability of all resources, that's the only way the human race can continue to advance (and with advancement comes knowledge of sustainability issues and environmental protection) without having one hand tied behind it's back.

That is true, but it is something govts are already tackling with ESD and biodiversity measures. Change is happening already, it's just the rate of change that seems to be the source of angst between conflicting ideals

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 11:33am:


I think we are having trouble with definitions.    You don't feed a large economy - as far as I am aware the collapsing societies had no economies    You feed a large population (people).   

So let's assume we have a lot of people.   No economy (industry/production/financial system) and basic resources.    Where do you start?

Your kidding right? Emission reductions of 60-80% by 2050 but with no idea on how to achieve it?

They just don't have firm policies on how to achieve it. I do.

You don't feed a large economy

I was being loose with my terms.

So let's assume we have a lot of people.   No economy (industry/production/financial system) and basic resources.    Where do you start?

You can't have one without the other. You can't get a lot of people without whatever it is you need to support them. I am not going to desribe how to build an entire economy from scratch. Peter Jay gives a good description of how modern economies 'evolved' in 'The Wealth of Man.'

But if you don't then build an economy (trade, industry etc) to suppport it eventually the resources will run out

The economy is to a large extent inevitable, wich is why I used the term evolve. It's the political structure that is built in the sense that it involves conscious decisions about what should be done by the other people. The economy does not guarantee that the resources will run out. The more organised it is, the more likely that the resources will be overexploited. It is the political structure that prevents the resources from being overexploited. I suspect you are confusing the economy with the well the established principles that support it like private ownership.

No one thinks a tree is more important than a family

Where did anyone suggest that?

Not that either. I don't like the term 'build' applied to the economy. That's what the communists tried to do. I think manage is a better term. While the economy isn't causing any problems let it take care of itself, but where it risks becoming self destructive or fails in some way intervene for the good of society. Of course, all the major parties would support this principle. It's the details they differ on. Also, when it comes to interference government should meddle at little as is possible to achieve their goal. This is the idea behind the green tax shift as an alternative to crabon trading or 'grand' schemes.

Government has no role in the building of the economy, only in managing it.

I simply can not accept that economies just happen and we look after the stuff in the ground first.   It really is secondary to survival - like it or not.

Economies do just happen. It starts with primitive people bartering goods. From this historical erspective we do not look after what is in the ground first. It only becomes necessary to consciously look after the environment when population goes up. When I talk about putting the environment first, I do not mean from a historical perspective, as we are given the environment for free from that perspective.

The core policy of the party would reduce taxes and increase wages. Many of the coalitions policies increase taxes and decrease wages for very little benefit.

If we have higher wages making us more comfortable than what we are wouldn't our personal production rate reduce due to laziness?

That is already happening to some extent. It's no reason to make us poor. Luckily, many people seem to be fuelled by greed, which knows no limits.

If this was the case our work rate within companies would also reduce giving a reduction of global production.

There are plenty of dirt poor people left who are willing to work for almost nothing.

I meant globally. I was responding to a comment in which you used that term.

Many people is nowhere near the majority.

What is this in response to?

Just look at what the housing commision figures were ten years ago.

What do the housing commission figures indicate to you?

I usually put it together in notepade - much simpler. Then I add the italics after I paste into here. I've nver had it delete bits of my posts. Sometimes it doens't put the italics where I want it.

It is to do with IE7:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1165368968

Apolpogies SprintCyclist did and his simple philosophy is always welcolm.

Sprint: God Bless you and sleep well.

I think the easiest way to handle it is to start a new thread if one theme starts to dominate, like you did with the tax issue. A general thread about a bunch of policies is always going to wander a bit.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2007 at 9:09am:


I am interested in your Sustainability Party. Email address is gregsplants@eftel.net.au

Quote:


I am interested in their being a voice in parliament that draws the links between the issues of the day.

We have the Greens who are strong on environment but fail to see the impact of an unrestricted immigration policy on the environment and ustainability.

We have the Liberals who don't want to have open slather on immigration but think that the economy and business are the only important issues.

We have labour who also don't want to have open slather on immigration. They are stronger on environmental issues but still see it as a secondary issue to the economy and jobs. Their mantra of sustainable growth is utter bullshit as the two terms 'growth' and 'sustainable' are mutually exclusive.

None of the current political parties see growth (economy and population) as the root cause of all our environmental problems and developing social problems like housing affordability.

Thanks Greg, you're on the list. Might be a while till I send anything out. Oh, and welcome to OzPolitic. What state are you from, if you don't mind me asking? I may need this for registering with the electoral commission. I think it is done on a state by state basis.

Policies are issues, issues need discussion and then they need a decision!

Party's take issues, make issues then distort them to their own ends.  Sure the nobility of appealing to sustainability makes the party premise appealing. It also makes it an issue based block with a particular focus and bias in it's approach.

Who knows, perhaps war, violence, mayhem and murder may in fact be necessary human traits for the long term sustainability of this planet?  Not particularly sustainable practices for us humans but crikey wouldn't the planet love a few million less of us!

Sustainability is a great issue, it needs discussion, it needs action; not a party!

If you want to do something really useful help change the entire parliamentary system, it's possible.

Me, I'd love to.

meow.

In response to this on the other thread. I didn't want to sidetrack the name discussion:

freediver, you have to listen or you freak people out mate.   It's pointless talking to a wall.

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177562543/10#10

It's not that I don't listen to people, it's that I think they are wrong. I don't expect the party to appeal to more than a minority of citizens. Anything more would be naive. I don't expect to change people's minds either. At least, not personally. I expect most supporters to find the party appealing based on it's core themes alone: lower total taxes, green tax shift and electoral reform. Most potential supporters will intuitively see the benefit in lowering taxes and getting rid of the more wasteful handouts. This should especially appeal to traditional coalition supporters. The green tax shift may take a bit more convincing. The electoral reform stuff is very far off and the party will probably only play a role in publicity for the idea for many years. Everything else just details and I am open to suggestions that fit in with the broader goals. While I will argue the merits of the goals, I am obviously not going to seriously entertain the idea that they are not good for the country. That's like asking the greens to entertain the idea that the environment really isn't worth protecting. This is not a 'hey come and join because we need some policy ideas' party. This is not a 'voice of the regular people' party. This is a party with a firm 'ideological' territory already staked out. It is a slightly unusual combination of economic rationalism and environmental protection, but i think it's time has come.

Yes this will freak out people who don't support the core goals of the party, but they are not the target audience anyway. I am not going to personall 'create' supporters, I am just going to give the supporters who already exist a strong voice. I do not want it to be a 'one man band.' I expect that once you get these people together it will have enough momentum so that just about anyone with a few basic skills could keep it going. Given the appeal across the political spectrum, it will only take a small minority to get the major parties to pay attention.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21650439-601,00.html

TWO-THIRDS of Australians want a tax cut in next week's budget, but half would forgo the tax cut if it threatened to push up interest rates.

Interesting concept SprintCyclist. I'll wait to see what freediver has to say about it. The only negative side I could see is that people stop using banks but, probably unlikely. I suppose it is a good way to promote savings into the country. Would this tax make all other taxes void?

When you say eradicating first home loan grants and compensating with the reduction of other taxes. How long will it take for the average person to save up $14,000 from your tax cuts before they can go and buy a home? Otherwords, how much money are you going to put back into the average persons pocket? If it is $100 a week then that's another 2 1/2 years before people can afford to buy a home isn't it?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2007 at 10:27am:


So what your saying is that people are given $14000 interest free loan by the government for their first home which is paid back by taxes? Gee, that was a very smart move by Howard.

From recollection the wealthy pay higher taxes so they are actually paying for the poor to have homes, great stuff...

Oh dear, I didn't realise Howard was considering this. Good thing he came to his senses:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-backs-away-from-helping-with-the-rent/2007/04/24/1177180617911.html

Prime Minister John Howard has backed away from a plan to provide assistance to tenants struggling with rising rents.

Two months ago, Mr Howard said the government was considering measures to help the rental crisis.

But on Tuesday he said rental assistance would just deal with the symptoms, while the solution was for the states to release more land.

Mr Howard said any economist would agree that if you released more land, the cost of housing would fall in time.

---

What he fails to mention is that cheap land is not the only goal of town planning and the zone schemes. It is also to ensure that there is some land left over for conservation, recreation etc. Typical of Howard to take such a one-eyed approach to the problem. There is not an infinite supply of land. There is plenty of dirt cheap land available. It's just not near the big CBD's.

If value of land has gone up commonsense says rents will go up. It's all pushed along by supply and demand. Obviously Howard understands you need to create more supply so that it outstrips demand and that will bring prices down.

I think we need to look at relocation processes. Not just populace but businesses. the only way i can see to do this is with incentives to businesses which will then give higher wages becoming an incentive for people to move to country areas. Lower company tax to 15% rural sectors 300 km outside CBD and to 8% 600km outside CBD. Just a thought. It would also take a lot of polution out of the CBD from transport and push growth for housing in rural areas. Water may be an issue though.

What do you all think?

Another thing, std business phone calls for country areas charged at the local rate, this way call centres can be established outside the CBD but still have a target market, cost effectively, in the CBD.

You're dribbling now freediver and taking the discussion completely out of context (one track mind you've got).

Let me try again;

The option of using more land, which we both don't want him to do, meaning more homes, meaning flodded market bring rents and possibly home prices down.

No, it is the market that creates the demand and in this case available homes that makes up the supply. You obviously need land to build homes on.

Tell me freediver what are the good reasons why businesses gather themselves together? let me help you. LOGISTICALLY.

By reducing the company tax would compensate businesses for, especially in the industrial sector (manufacturing etc.), extra costs involved for transporting and employment.

Environmentally this has great benefits and economically for rural areas. After the businesses have been established and these country towns grow to city status the taxes can then begin to climb back to normal areas. Obviously it won't happen overnight.

Howard is still looking for solutions but he will consider all then make a decision. Maybe you know how to bring the rents down in the CBD? Please share it with us.

That's a great idea enviro. I would LOVE to live in a country town.
have had enough of brisbane, just been here long enough .
I like Monto or Theodore.

Lots of businesses are "intellectually" based and can be situated anywhere.

The country towns would love more people.

I think the topside of rents is limited by wages. Us tenants are  very flexible also.
Big rent rises would see more people living in shared houses, with people they know.
Houses would become vacant, rents would drop.

See how simple I am ?

Hi SprintCyclist

Simplicity sometimes can be the best way of looking at things and what you point out is probably true but what about the social impact of mass density?

What do you think LOGISTICALLY means? I already said that transport was the major factor how about giving us your number two reason.

As far as I can tell it's all about transport. Do we need a second reason?

Taking bits and pieces from my last post loses meaning of what I was talking about to the reader that only reads your post.

Relax. No-one is only going to read only my post. I'm not that popular.

He would still have to transport goods to Sydney but he would not have to transport out of Sydney to other cities in Australia hence taking transport out of the CBD which causes polution.

Transport between Marrickville and Dubbo also causes pollution. There are probably a lot of things in Sydney which such a business needs access to. Plus, it is probably possible to transport goods to Melbourne and Brisbane from Sydney far more efficiently than from Dubbo. The beauty of the free market is that you don't have to understand all the minor details. You can leave that up to each individual business.

Dispursed polution is better than concentrated pollution.

Not in terms of the greenhouse effect.

So you acknowledge that the rents in the CBD are high but come accross as an advocate for high rents?

No, I just don't see it as inherently bad.

Or you don't have a solution to solve the problem except maybe your Tax ideas will put more money in their pockets to make the rents affordable

How does taxing someone put money in their pockets?

The people of Sydney have sent a message to our government that they are not happy about their high rents.

They should quit complaining to the government and move out of Sydney. The fact that they stay in Sydney speaks far louder than anything they say.

How can you start a party and yet not listen to the voice of the people?

I am. I just don't think you speak on their behalf.

It is apparent freediver you have no knowledge whatsoever in running a business, in particular an industrial business.

How can you gather that, when we have not been discussing the running of a business?

If you plan to propose economic changes you need to get a grasp on how businesses are run. Like you said to me "go read a book on economics" back at you, "go read a book on the economics of business".

If you want to run an economy you start by looking at how to run an economy. If you want to run a business you look into that. They are not the same thing.

I gave you a second reason earlier. Businesses need to be near employment.

That's a transport issue.

If a manufacturing plant started in my town, Brewarrina, It would be able to take advantage of backloading rates to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and possibly Perth.

If you think that is such a great idea, go ahead and do it and you will make your fortune. You don't need the government to subsidise it. If that is what it takes, it means it isn't such a good idea.

Yes, you do need to understand all the minor details before you set up a structure for these businesses to work off.

Structures like private ownership and zoning regulations. Not subsidies. And no, you do not need the details. That's the whole point of capitalism.

If you plan to make any changes with your Sustainability Party obviously those changes will be made without taking all the minor details into account. Definately a recipe for disaster.

No government has ever taken all the minor details into account. Governments have tried, but communism failed. That was a disaster.

Have you ever thought about writing something constructive about your beliefs instead of destructive about others?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/

This is what you have been attacking since. The concept of incentives for businesses to move to country locations.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I oppose subsidies for businesses to move to the bush. If it is really more efficient for them to do so, they will do it. they aren't stupid.

Look at businesses as an individual because they are their own entity (they all have individual thought and their own business models).

That is not the role of government.

Councils force them to do this freediver

There is plenty of competition between cities and towns for business. Zoning regulation actually addresses a key market failure.

Well, employment is the problem so, back to what I said much previously, if the government gave incentives allowing increase wages would entice people to move here for work.

So, you want the government to pay people to leave the city because they would prefer not to live in the bush? Why not just let them live in the city? I think you need to ask yourself what your goals are. You appear to think that decentralisation is inherently good and more efficient. This is not that case.

I have to spend the next 6 hours going through your rubbish highlighting the concept that you argue for the sake of arguing out of your backside. I know you do this to keep debate happening but it is getting very close to a stage where i may just leave the site.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. Handouts require taxes and are bad for the economy. If you are sick of this topic, just move on to something else. I would certainly recommend against spending 6 hours on this.

I would prefer to work to a beneficial solution for all of Australia rather than promote a selfish one sided dictatorial style party that you obviously are going to be head of.

That's OK. I am not anticipating that you will join.

So you are ok with increasing emissions to allow for services to remote areas? What about education services to remote communities? Is providing subsidies for teachers ok, or is that a no-no too?

All public school teachers are paid by the government. I am fine with that.

Centralisation puts pressure on natural resources within the vicinity as well as increases emissions with regards to transport. Spreading the load has merits, unless you advocate forced sterilisation....

No centralisation decreases transport emissions. It decreases transport costs. That's why businesses gather together in cities. Provided the government doesn't skew the market towards centralsiation or decentralisation, it will do a far better job at reducing transport costs and emissions than direct government intervention. It will achieve the right balance of centralisation and decentralisation. There is absolutely no merit to the government trying to encourage decentralisation to reduce emissions or transport costs.

No but you are! This is why businesses don't move to the bush.

What am I doing? Why do businesses not move to the bush?

By subsidising you make it more efficient.

No, you make it less efficient.

What, listening to their constituents?

No, investigating the details about how every single business is run in order to make laws is not the role of government. The government does not micromanage, it macromanages.

For one, think of the environmental impact from high populations in cities

It's actually less than the impact of the same high population distributed thinly.

For two, people generally don't live in the bush because there is no work.

There is little work and little business because both can usually be done more efficiently in the cities.

the only way i can see to do this is with incentives to businesses which will then give higher wages becoming an incentive for people to move to country areas

that would get more businesses into the bush, but it wouldn't achieve anything else. It would harm the economy and the environment. Unless of course it really harmed the economy in a bad way, then our greenhouse emissions might go down like they did in Russia.

Freediver, don't you ever worry about what people think about your ridiculous comments? I know your all about rebuff to keep the debate happening and I am a sucker for falling for it. This I don't really mind because it allows people to knock what I am saying. I havn't had that yet (apart from you of course), which doesn't seem to matter.

I'm sure other readers will understand where I'm coming from. Your party get no support from me and I hope this political stance doesn't become the over riding theme or you will lose people from your site which seems to be happening.

At this stage I am intersted in what other people have to say not you.

The low cost living, which I presume you mean rents, are counteracted by higher services and food costs.

Good point deepthought, i believe this is what Freediver is also advocating with his Sustainability Party.

I would most definitely support this party over the Greens.

We need a few hundred members to register with the electoral commission, which means we get our party name listed beside any candidates on the ballot. Once I get enough supporters (maybe 100 or so), I will launch the organisation officially, ask members to join and pay a small fee, then do up a constitution etc. Then I will set up an official web site and start advertising the party. Until then I am just collecting email addresses of interested people, so if you want to keep up to date please either email or PM it to me. For the moment we are just focussing on spreading the word by whatever means you can think of. We will also try to do up a 'how to vote' thing for the next federal election, even if we don't have any candidates.