Australian Politics Forum - No Kings Protest

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › America › No Kings Protest

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13

No Kings Protest (Read 3728 times)

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 99281	Re: No Kings Protest Reply #165 - Oct 26^th, 2025 at 11:17pm He's got you there, Great. Nobody can out-quote bomb Lee, not even you, dear.
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14150
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #166 - Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm

lee wrote on Oct 26^th, 2025 at 4:20pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 26^th, 2025 at 2:36pm:

And who determines what is your "fair share", while poverty in increasing, and inequality is soaring?

And what do you think is my fair share based on 38k pa? ;

The "fair share" of taxation is that which eradicates systemic poverty.

Workers on an income of 38K, who are renters, should possibly be paying no tax.....but here's problem - resulting from Conservative greed (love of money...)

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1645944963/1260#1266

The gruesome mainstream Conservative view on taxation, continuing Thatcher's dictum "there is no such thing as government money":

(Daily Mail)

Ex-Bank governor Mervyn King slaps down Rachel Reeves' incoherent' mansion tax plot

Under the proposals, the owners of properties worth £2million and above would face a charge of 1 per cent of the amount by which the property exceeds that value – meaning that owners of a £3million property would face a bill of £10,000 every year.

Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said: 'Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves promised not to raise taxes, now we know they are planning to do just that. If Starmer and Reeves introduce a so-called mansion tax, they will be punishing aspiration and hitting hard-working people. This isn't fairness, it's class war.

'If Rachel Reeves had a backbone, she'd get a grip of spending – including the welfare bill – instead of raising taxes again and chasing out the very wealth creators our economy depends on.

'Under Labour, nothing is safe – not your job, your home, your savings or your pension. Rachel Reeves will tax your children's future to pay for her failure.'

The plans come as exclusive new polling reveals the collapse in public confidence over the state of the economy.

......

Not "fair" for the "aspiration" of "hard-working" people who OWN properties worth more than 2 million UK pounds (more than 4 million Oz dollars)?

They are obviously failing to 'create' enough 'wealth' to eradicate poverty and fund essential public services, while systemic poverty is rife.

Greedy, blind, mansion-owning bastards......

Quote:

TGD: Not an 'assumption"; as noted above: people experiencing systemic poverty cannot and should not depend on private charity.

Ah , we should all live on public charity. Grin

Crippled-brain lee: no, we should all be ensured above poverty employment and access to affordable housing.

Quote:

39% is not strong, therefore it has no support as a call to action. Roll Eyes

Fraud - the Dems polled stronger than the Repubs, who will wear the blame for the shutdown.

(Raw Story)

Republican lawmakers are becoming "increasingly worried" that they will face "political consequences" in 2026 for failing to address Democratic concerns about health subsidies, according to new reporting.

Quote:

Wrong again. You mistake "wants" for "needs" the spending Roll Eyes

No mistake: people NEED housing and employment; the rich can look after themselves - and don't NEED the government spending.

Quote:

ah low inflation and increased spending above the resources available.

No dummy (you've been told many times): spending limited to purchasing of available resources.

Quote:

Net zero is driving energy costs. Rising energy costs don't magically drive the manufacturing bus. Roll Eyes

Correct? Your solution?

(Hint: "taxpayer money" (as per Thatcher's dictum) will never fund the transition to a green economy, even if mainstream economists and polies think "taxpayers" can fund it.

Quote:

You mean they don't believe in honesty?

In effect, yes - though more accurately - like you - they are 'dishonest' because they are indoctrinated in Conservative economics.

Hence - unlike you - they are forced to promise lower taxes to get elected.

Quote:

(The economy) is what drives investment, jobs, manufacturing.

The dysfunctional 'free market' mantra.

The public sector is also required to achieve economic development.

Quote:

It isn't compaible with rising energy costs. Roll Eyes

Correct. So we need the treasury to subsidize energy costs.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14150
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #167 - Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:00pm

Karnal wrote on Oct 26^th, 2025 at 11:17pm:

He's got you there, Great.

Nobody can out-quote bomb Lee, not even you, dear.

Lee ignored*** the nuance later examined in the poll numbers:

'If you look past the partisan voters and narrow in on declared independents, the gap mushrooms with 48% holding the GOP accountable compared with 32% blaming Democrats'.

The Repubs are already sweating about the midterms...

(Raw Story)

GOP lawmakers reportedly 'increasingly worried' they'll lose power in 2026

***Lee, like all Conservatives, ignores facts which conflict with his delusions.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 19568 Gender:	Re: No Kings Protest Reply #168 - Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:04pm thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:00pm: 'If you look past the partisan voters and narrow in on declared independents, the gap mushrooms with 48% holding the GOP accountable compared with 32% blaming Democrats'. Oh only if you look at "declared independents".
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146932
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #169 - Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:08pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:00pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 26^th, 2025 at 11:17pm:

He's got you there, Great.

Nobody can out-quote bomb Lee, not even you, dear.

They're sweating alright, and that's why Trump is working so hard to rig the mid-terms.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19568
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #170 - Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:23pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

The "fair share" of taxation is that which eradicates systemic poverty.

So you don't want to say. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

The gruesome mainstream Conservative view on taxation, continuing Thatcher's dictum "there is no such thing as government money":

(Daily Mail)

So tell us from whence government gets its money. Apart from your dictum of "printing" it. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

Not "fair" for the "aspiration" of "hard-working" people who OWN properties worth more than 2 million UK pounds (more than 4 million Oz dollars)?

you mean hard-working people never aspire, never attain such property? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

no, we should all be ensured above poverty employment and access to affordable housing.

Ah, only those you deem should be on the government tit, whether that is for personal reasons or no. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

the Dems polled stronger than the Repubs, who will wear the blame for the shutdown.

The Dems didn't win government. That is Democracy talking. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

people NEED housing and employment; the rich can look after themselves - and don't NEED the government spending.

And I never said anything different. It is your interpretation of poverty that need clarifying. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

spending limited to purchasing of available resources.

And that's what governments signally fail to do. Energy is a resource. Imported energy is only a resource when landed, else it is a cost.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

"taxpayer money" (as per Thatcher's dictum) will never fund the transition to a green economy, even if mainstream economists and polies think "taxpayers" can fund it.

Exactly. So you leave it to business, not government trying to pick winners by paying subsidies. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

In effect, yes

Thank you.

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

hey are 'dishonest' because they are indoctrinated in Conservative economics.

Ah, back to MMT the theory that has not been tested, outside the models. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

The dysfunctional 'free market' mantra.

So the economy, in your view is merely an abstract notion, and as such MMT has no place. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

The public sector is also required to achieve economic development.

How do they do that? Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

So we need the treasury to subsidize energy costs.

Ah well there goes the economy. But your view about renewables being cheaper than any other energy form? Wink

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14150
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #171 - Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:37pm

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:23pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 12:49pm:

The "fair share" of taxation is that which eradicates systemic poverty.

So you don't want to say. Grin

I just did, to repeat "fair share of taxation" is that which eradcate systemic poverty.

The fact you can't grasp the difference between what is a fair tax for an individual taxpayer, and the total taxation required to ensure 'fairness' across the entire population, shows the paucity of your thinking.

Quote:

So tell us from whence government gets its money. Apart from your dictum of "printing" it. Wink

That's the choice governments everywhere are facing, as they fall-over like 10-pins in an a bowling alley....

You?

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19568
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #172 - Oct 27^th, 2025 at 2:50pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:37pm:

The fact you can't grasp the difference between what is a fair tax for an individual taxpayer, and the total taxation required to ensure 'fairness' across the entire population, shows the paucity of your thinking.

OK What is fair for a homeowner on $38k? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:37pm:

That's the choice governments everywhere are facing, as they fall-over like 10-pins in an a bowling alley....

But you tell us all you know better than we. Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14150
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #173 - Oct 28^th, 2025 at 2:42pm

lee wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 2:50pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 27^th, 2025 at 1:37pm:

OK What is fair for a homeowner on $38k? Roll Eyes

So, we are looking for what is fair for home-owners, on annual incomes ranging from, eg, $38k to $38 million.

See the problem?

Conservative economic ideologues like Mervin King bleat about preserving the wealth of the latter because the economy needs to promote 'aspiration' and
encouraging the 'wealth creators'.

In my view - given the current rising inequality, cost of living, and housing crises - those workers on mean wages (or less) shouldn't pay any tax.

As for taxing the wealthy, I'm with Stephanie Kelton (author of 'The Deficit Myth') who said: "money doesn't grow on rich people" (a pun on the ignorant mainstream Thatcherite 'taxpayer' meme: 'money doesn't grow on trees'), because a currency-issuing state doesn't need rich people's money.

So how much tax do YOU want to extract from the wealthy, given powerful Conservative ideologues like King insist imposing tax on wealth is a bad idea?

And in practice, governments have discovered it's impossible; the ultra-wealthy have access to all sorts of ways to avoid tax - forget about "fair" taxation.

Quote:

But you tell us all you know better than we. Roll Eyes

Certainly more than you, as outlined above; while your devious little Conservative brain is claiming to be seeking "fair" taxation for those on "$38k".

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19568
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #174 - Oct 28^th, 2025 at 3:53pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 28^th, 2025 at 2:42pm:

So, we are looking for what is fair for home-owners, on annual incomes ranging from, eg, $38k to $38 million.

So you don't want to answer. That's ok. Keep shooting blanks. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 28^th, 2025 at 2:42pm:

In my view - given the current rising inequality, cost of living, and housing crises - those workers on mean wages (or less) shouldn't pay any tax.

Now we get the meat of it. Your view. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 28^th, 2025 at 2:42pm:

Certainly more than you, as outlined above; while your devious little Conservative brain is claiming to be seeking "fair" taxation for those on "$38k".

That's the amount of my income. Roll Eyes

But you are the one insisting that governments can tax and spend more, as long as they don't incur inflation. So which countieres have been able to do that? Any MMT'ers in that? Roll Eyes

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14150
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #175 - Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:32am

lee wrote on Oct 28^th, 2025 at 3:53pm:

Now we get the meat of it. Your view

Yes - do YOU want home-owners on $38k annual income to pay tax?

(Forget about renters.....)

While Conservatives dismiss increasing taxes on the wealthy as a bad idea....

Quote:

TGD: ... your devious little Conservative brain is claiming to be seeking "fair" taxation for those on "$38k".

That's the amount of my income. Roll Eyes

I worked that out from the moment you chose $38k as an income you wanted me to consider - which I did (ie, no tax).

You ofcourse, with your devious little Conservative brain, avoid discussing "fair" taxation of those earning, eg 100 times your income.

Quote:

But you are the one insisting that governments can tax and spend more, as long as they don't incur inflation. So which countieres have been able to do that?

The Scandinavian countries with their high tax, high spending regimes.

But most countries prefer low tax regimes.

eg, in the US, it's a pity Trump doesn't follow something he must have learned before he was first elected, namely c-i government debt is not the issue, inflation is.

Fact: during the GFC, conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh said of a long-time pillar of Republican ideology, "Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus".

Rush had obviously taken on board the MMT debate raging in the US at the time; and Trump must have been aware of Rush's remarks back then, given Rush's huge presence in the media.

In fact at that time, MMT offended Republican die-hard fiscal conservatives so much they introduced a Bill in Congress banning MMT.....

So while Trump's recently passed BBB ignores debt and deficits (which horrifies economic ignoramus Musk), Trump should have offered continued funding for Obama-care (to avoid the current shutdown) so long as inflation is under control - which it is in the US, despite ballooning US government deficits and debt.

So now the US is in shutdown because of a dispute over 'balancing the budget' .

Quote:

Any MMT'ers in that? Roll Eyes

Now you know....

« Last Edit: Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:43am by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19568
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #176 - Oct 29^th, 2025 at 2:29pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:32am:

I worked that out from the moment you chose $38k as an income you wanted me to consider - which I did (ie, no tax).

Actually I pay tax. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:32am:

The Scandinavian countries with their high tax, high spending regimes.

And high household debt. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:32am:

Rush had obviously taken on board the MMT debate raging in the US at the time

Dubious attribution. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:32am:

So now the US is in shutdown because of a dispute over 'balancing the budget' .

It is more than that. It is how it should be done.

"Republican proposals focus on extending large tax cuts and limiting near-term program spending, which independent analyses conclude would substantially increase deficits over the coming decade; Democratic proposals center on raising revenue from high-income households and corporations while increasing targeted program funding, with official estimates showing deficit reduction over ten years. Both parties link policy choices to growth and fiscal risks: GOP plans risk adding trillions to the debt, while Democratic budgets rely on revenue increases to offset new spending "

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/democrat-republican-debt-deficit-propo...

Boith sides are playing risk factors. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:32am:

Now you know....

So that's a no then. Thanks for that.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14150
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #177 - Oct 29^th, 2025 at 3:48pm

lee wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 2:29pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 10:32am:

I worked that out from the moment you chose $38k as an income you wanted me to consider - which I did (ie, no tax).

Actually I pay tax. Wink

Dummy, you asked me how much tax is "fair" for someone on 38k; I told you: no tax, given the current cost of living crisis.

Quote:

And high household debt. Wink

Irrelevant: the question was about government debt, I gave you an example.

Note: it's actually private debt which crashes the economy, after a private-credit- fueled boom goes bust, as in the GFC.

Quote:

Dubious attribution.

The point is:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/17/politics/rush-limbaugh-debt-trump

CALLER: In 2019, there’s gonna be a $1 trillion deficit. Trump doesn’t really care about that. He’s not really a fiscal conservative. We have to acknowledge that Trump has been cruelly used.

LIMBAUGH: Nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore. All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it’s been around.

Uh, what? “All this talk about concern for the deficit and the budget has been bogus for as long as it’s been around????” Did anyone mention that to the Republican Party of the last 30 or so years? Or to the Rush Limbaugh of even a few years ago, who bashed then-President Barack Obama repeatedly for the uptick in the debt and deficit?

What’s changed? Nothing, other than the occupant of the White House – and his clear disregard for deficit spending as an issue. Trump’s much-lauded – by him – tax cut law of 2017 is set to add $1.85 trillion to the national debt over an 11-year period, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office. The national debt has already grown to $22 trillion – up more than $2 trillion since Trump came into office.

Note: the last 2 paragraphs are the mainstream viewpoint of the author of the article; the question is: WHY did Limbaugh change his mind - obviously he must have followed the then recent MMT debate in Congress ...no-one else apart from MMT ever said "deficits.... are bogus" (Limbaugh's words).

Quote:

It is more than that. It is how it should be done.

According to economic ignoramus Musk ....got it.

Quote:

Boith sides are playing risk factors. Roll Eyes

And destroying democratic functionality in the process; my point entirely.

There is no risk of inflation (bcause of government deficits) when inflation control is taken out of the hands of ignorant "independent central banks", and instead managed by treasury officials who are fully cognizant of the available-resource limits to government spending.

« Last Edit: Oct 29^th, 2025 at 3:59pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 19568
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #178 - Oct 29^th, 2025 at 5:41pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 3:48pm:

Irrelevant: the question was about government debt, I gave you an example.

And nothing to do with MMT. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 3:48pm:

The point is:

It was a dubious attribution. Pure and simple. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 3:48pm:

There is no risk of inflation (bcause of government deficits) when inflation control is taken out of the hands of ignorant "independent central banks", and instead managed by treasury officials who are fully cognizant of the available-resource limits to government spending.

And yet they print the money that leads to inflation. Roll Eyes

"The U.S. Treasury is best known for literally printing money and offering economic advice to the President."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/treasury-fed-reserve.asp

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 14150
Gender: male

Re: No Kings Protest
Reply #179 - Oct 30^th, 2025 at 10:54am

lee wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 5:41pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Oct 29^th, 2025 at 3:48pm:

Irrelevant: the question was about government debt, I gave you an example.

And nothing to do with MMT. Roll Eyes

Excruciating crippled brain lee comment:

Debt and deficits are everything to do with MMT.

Quote:

It was a dubious attribution. Pure and simple. Roll Eyes

Not dubious: Limbaugh did change his mind re government deficits and debt.

Quote:

And yet they print the money that leads to inflation. Roll Eyes

Excruciating crippled-brain lee comment:

Inflation is caused by excess demand on available resources (goods and services), whether in the private or public sector.

Quote:

"The U.S. Treasury is best known for literally printing money and offering economic advice to the President."

Not the problem, that's what SHOULD happen; but currently the "independent central bank" controls the absurdly blunt interest rate tool which is supposed to control inflation.

So we see the democracies becoming dysfunctional because progressives want "fair" taxation to fund essentials eg, access to health care for all, while Conservatives resist taxation on wealth because (they say) it's taxing "aspiration" and 'wealth creation".

So government debt is ballooning as a result of that political impasse, debt which actually isn't a problem if inflation is under control... it's excess private debt which causes economic booms and busts (like the GFC), not government debt.

In fact government borrowing via the bond markets should be shut down immediately, and bondholders taken off the government teat... because acurrrency-issuing government doesn't NEED to tax or borrow - by definition.

Their task is to manage resource allocation to avoid inflation, without recourse to hideous "independent" central banks who think they have to wreck the economy to save it...as per the hideous mainstream NAIRU dogma.

Logic - but lee doesn't do logic, only dogma.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page