freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2022 at 5:51pm:


John Smith wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2022 at 7:47pm:


John can you see any flaws in your system? It's OK if you did not think of them yourself, I am merely asking if you can see them yet.

I'm not sure why you started another thread. I thought it'd be embarrassing enough for you not being able to explain how you avoid it in one thread ....


now you want to fail to explain how you avoid it in another one? knock yourself out.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 9:18pm:



It's only a terrible idea for those who have too much money & are averse to paying tax.

If all PAYE tax was abolished on PAYE wages/salary tax payers & they paid a small tax on every transaction or on monies withdrawn from their accounts ..... there would be more money flowing throughout the community benefitting those with a bigger take home pay & the businesses they spend their money with.

Here's a basic economic theory for you Fleadriver

Money is made round to go round ......

not flat to stack.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 5:48pm:


Why discuss it or take any notice of your input?

You're a multi- subject all round idiot. 

So, freed - your cartel is going 'black money'?  We'll recoup that the moment they start to spend it..... told yez - 'black money' is only one step removed from the tax cycle... even drug dealers pay taxes eventually... but someone needs to be asking how they got all those assets without ever holding a job...  many good days at the races?

John Smith wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 6:16pm:




Organising your mates to paint a few kitchens and some dunny doors
does not qualify you to guide us on economics.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 10:14pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2022 at 9:18pm:


freediver wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 8:38am:


All I see is Freediver doing lees trick of thinking that asking a question that demands the other person does all the work is some sort of brilliant rebuttal.


The truth is though that we will never have a transaction tax. that would encourage people onto the cash economy which the government and big business hate.
Governments and Big Business want us all to use electronic transactions so that the data can be harvested

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 10:11pm:


It's beyond your capabilities

John Smith wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 5:33pm:

being cheeky again- no hope for you is there? dont let the extra sss's fool you - yes its me stupid- stop being an idoit!!!

0ktema wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 11:34pm:


Good point.... that's why a tax system needs to be overhauled...

0ktema wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 11:34pm:


The formation of the ACCC based on the recommendations of the Hilmer Report  (plagiarised from the US) on competition policy
has hardly seen this adequately monitored.

Verticle Integration & monopoly is the dream achievement of most corporations .... the trouble is that most of it still happening in Australia is by foreign companies or foreign state owned companies(CCP).

Even Brazillians have got in on the act with JBS meat processors.

0ktema wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 11:34pm:



no it's not. If you buy the farm, mill the corn, make the flour, market the end product then there are still transactions at every step of the way. It's not like coles isn't going to pay the farmer, rent, the truck drivers, the miller, the storemen, the forklift drivers, the board of directors, the shareholders etc etc. EVERY transaction incurs a tax. Thats why its called a transaction tax

0ktema wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 12:34pm:


no. No matter how creative their accounting gets, they have to pay each and every person at each and every stage of the process, and they have to receive payment in exchange. There is no avoiding it.

and lets not pretend that big corporations avoiding tax have no effect on smaller outfits under our current system.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 29^th, 2022 at 5:48pm:


And Gaylord can serve a mean cup of tea but that is the end of his talents.

0ktema wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 3:01pm:



if they're the same company there is no sale. and? all you are doing is going from a farmer and a distributor pretending they aren't making a loss, to one company paying tax at each and every step of the process. There will be VERY FEW companies to will be able to go to those extremes and tightening up of anti competition laws can stop most of those.

But hows that different from avoiding tax by setting up a pretend office in a tax free haven who then give out pretend loans to their offices in other countries?

The only reason big business and the rich argue against a transaction tax is because the end result will be that those who do more transactions (big business) will pay more tax. If they thought they would pay less tax all the multinationals would be arguing for it ... and FD would be right there with them like the nodding head he is

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 5:13pm:



You could be right about the anti-competition laws, however we would need a well funded ACCC to enforce them.

Upon briefly looking at countries that currently apply an FTT, they seem to concentrate their focus on the financial sector.   

Here in Australia the Citizens Party propose a 0.1 percent tax on financial speculation. Quote:


* When considering %levels and where or not it should be applied, can you point to your preferred model of FTT ?

John Smith wrote on Apr 30^th, 2022 at 7:57pm:


Can you see how your tax would be avoided?

Gnads wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 9:10am:


Vertical integration is the opposite of seeking monopoly. Unless their plan is to expand in every direction and take over the world.

John Smith wrote on May 1^st, 2022 at 10:48am:


Except you aren't buying the corn from the mill, and the mill is not buying the corn from the farmer. And yes, that is exactly what vertical integration means. Obviously they avoid doing it these days, but if given a massive tax incentive, they would leap back into it.

Quote:


They only have to do it once John. Under the current system, there are several transactions along the way. I am not sure why you still struggle with the concept. Let me try to dumb it down for you.

Without a transaction tax: You pay for the corn bread, the supermarket pays the mill, the mill pays it's employees.

With a transaction tax: You pay for the corn bread, the supermarket pays the mill employees directly. If they were creative enough with the accounting, you would pay the employees directly, bringing it down to one transaction. If they were even more creative, they might discover that the mill employee pays you to cut his hair, so they could cut it back to zero transactions.

Can you see the difference yet John, or do you need us to draw you a picture?

Quote:


Discarding it in favour of one that is 100 times worse is not going to solve anything John. If you cannot understand how vertical integration would reduce the number of transactions, you have no hope of making a reasoned judgement on which system is best. That you cannot see how this would harm the poor and the smaller businesses in favour of the rich and the big businesses just shows how myopic you are.

Quote:


Try to keep up John. They are reducing the number of transactions. They are avoiding the tax. You would make it very easy for them to do this, and wipe out smaller competitors in the process.

Quote:


Indeed, it will favour big business over small business.

Quote: Fleadriver Quote:


Rubbish - QLD Rail was a vertically integrated Rail Company ..... they owned every Rail asset from below rail to above rail across the whole state.

Buildings & administration & control.

They owned all the locomotives & rollingstock for freight and passenger services.

They were the only rail company so they had the monopoly on everything to do with rail operations in this state.

The Hilmer Report & subsequent Competition policy put paid to that.

But one of the 3rd party operators who came in in  2005 now has the majority of all container freight in QLD and on the east coast of Australia.

Those with the most money end up with majorities or monopolies because the ACCC isn't worth 2 bob.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 8:57pm:


no, I'm still waiting for you to show me. I know you think parroting vertical integration is doing something, but so far all it's doing is failing for you

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 9:23pm:


and incur the tax in the process.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 8:57pm:



YEAH ... cause the only transaction in mills are wages  and you pretend to understand economics 

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 8:57pm:


only if you're a moron FD

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2022 at 8:57pm:



I don't particularly care about any reduction in the total number of transactions, I care that everyone pays their share of tax.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 9:35pm:


crap. You need to move out of Narnia and into reality. Anytime there is an exchange of goods, services or money, there is a transaction. It doesn't matter if you want to call all the service providers by the one name or not.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 9:35pm:


you can be as creative as you like, I prefer reality. Perhaps that is the problem, you should be making your case at play centers and leave the forums for the adults.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2022 at 9:35pm:


you know you repeatedly claiming that it helps them avoid tax doesn't make it so, right? No matter how often you repeat it.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 6:00pm:



who said they can't?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 6:00pm:


no, I think that in Narnia everyone will work for free on the basis that they will eventually be paid for their services as part of a lump sum payment just because their bosses want to limit transactions 

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 6:00pm:

actually you're the only one arguing that it is ... you ever wonder why?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 6:00pm:

do I? Evidence?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 6:00pm:

you mean like policy where companies that make billions pay zero tax? Perhaps those economic illiterates went to the same economics classes you did?

Bobby. wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 7:40pm:



haven't you a glory hole to go and visit?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:18pm:


keep lying FD.


This is now 4 pages and you've failed to show any substantive evidence for your claims, instead opting to repeating some vague comment about vertical integration whilst ignoring reality

You are out of your depth.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:23pm:



you've done no such thing. No matter how many pats you give yourself. Repeating the words 'vertical integration' over and over does not make much of an argument. It's almost like you think that if you repeat it often enough, I'll eventually get sick of it and you won't have to try and get into any more detail. () Which is perfectly understandable given that you are unable to get into any detail. Fake it ill you make it ehh FD.


freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:23pm:

So you think that because i'm the only one here who bothers with your stupidity, that must mean that everyone else agrees with you?    Have you been snorting Lisa's drugs?

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:30pm:


Baby steps John. Now, why is it crap?

Quote:


Everyone agrees with me that your idea is stupid, because it is stupid.

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:35pm:


Yes, they are all involved John. I did not say otherwise. I am not sure why this is so confusing for you.

Try reading it real slow. With vertical integration, the supermarket pays the vet bill directly. They avoid a lot of the transaction taxes, because the money does not get transferred from the supermarket to the mill and from the mill to the farmer in between.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:39pm:



sure you did. You said that you would get from supermarket to vet with one transaction. How does ONE transaction account for all those people FD?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:39pm:


I don't give a crap who pays the bill. freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:39pm:


Crap. They are still captured in thousands of  transactions regardless of whose name they operate under. If FD's corner store buys meat from a wholesaler it's one transaction. If coles has to run a farm, trucks, an abattoir, butchers, distributors etc etc, they pay tax on each and every transaction involved in running of those processes.

They avoid far less taxes than they do now buy creating fake loans in tax free havens which they then spend the next 20 years repaying and not paying any tax any income.

John Smith wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 8:57pm:


It doesn't John. I never claimed it did. What is it you are struggling to understand John? Why can't the supermarket just pay the vet based on the work the vet does?

Quote:


You are confused John. The tax revenue simply disappears when the company vertically integrates. The mill does not get paid for the value of the product it buys. The farmer does not get paid for the value of all his expenses. The money for the vets goes directly from the supermarket to the vet, instead of through all those other bank accounts. The mill employees get paid directly by the supermarket instead of the mill, but that is far less money than paying the mill owner to cover the cost of wages, farm produce, other expenses, profit etc.

I've not followed this topic (it's difficult watching John struggling to grasp simple concepts because he's never finished school) but I'll SIMPLY state this (1st year Economics at Uni being brought up here lol) :

A transaction tax can be very dangerous for an economy because it can be avoided by firms who restructure themselves along vertical integration arrangements. Over time these entities are recognised as stand alone institutions and monopolies. Bottom line? They kill competition.

Bobby. wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 9:04pm:



shut up stupid

Lisa Jones wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 9:15pm:



Because he's not playing with a full deck.

We're nervously crossing our fingers here ...will the penny drop now?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2022 at 9:18pm:



crap

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 7:25pm:


yes, you are

Quote:


freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 7:25pm:


your claims are deal with fantasy whist ignoring reality

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 7:59pm:


You making up numbers pretending they mean something is crap FD. You'll need to do better than that

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 8:18pm:



Why don't you try something new and use some logic. Then we can see if I'm impervious or not

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 8:18pm:


Do you think companies don't reduce their tax bills under our current system?

You're a typical neoliberal ... one rule for your cockamamie schemes and another for anything else.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 9:38pm:



not the answer you want maybe. 

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2022 at 9:38pm:


No

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 10:34am:


no

John Smith wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 10:27am:


Do you think they would have no incentive to do so?

That's OK. I would not expect a communist stooge to understand incentives.

Quote:


Can you quote me?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 3:46pm:


So you know I am good at something, even though you haven't seen me do it?

Is this like how the CCP is good at equally distributing food to the Chinese people?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 2:51pm:



no more so than they have under any system

John Smith wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 5:58pm:


Even though it would reduce the total tax bill?

John Smith wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 6:46pm:


Yes it will John. I come to that conclusion by not being a complete moron.

If coles and it's suppliers all become one company, what happens to the taxes that would otherwise have been paid on the payments between them?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 9:02pm:


Dear God Freediver! In the last 48 hrs I've given John Smith a few hints ... now you're giving him the actual answers? 😮

Lisa Jones wrote on May 7^th, 2022 at 10:45pm:


And freediver  is saying "no" , without offering any alternative taxation  proposals.

Quote:


You certainly haven't sufficient knowledge to offer anything meaningful on the topic.
Hence the RW mantra: reduce government spending, lower taxes, and balanced budgets. 

Quote:


You have to be able to offer alternatives, if you reject the transaction tax, Mrs Thatcher.   

Quote:


And if you reject it, you need to come up with an alternative. 

Quote:


Freediver is fraudulent by his own admission; see the 'privatization' thread post #24 ....in which he admits high-jacking the MMT thread 'FTW'.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1649572754/15

Not surprised to see you backing a self-confessed fraud....

John Smith wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 8:47am:


Your idiotic transaction tax.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2022 at 9:07am:


Again, I've already told you that I don't believe they would all become one company so there are no taxes that would have otherwise been paid.

Like I said, you need to step into reality and leave the Narnia for the movies.