Taxeater Sinclair Davis now declares that everyone ought to pay income tax. It would be great if he quit his taxeating job and started paying it. But this is a totally untenable idea. What with family payments to wipe out, and old age pensions to wean over time, nothing could be more stupid than this concept.
You can take the man out of Africa. But can you take the Africa out of the man? Sinclair sticking up for his tribe rather than voting for good sense here. We need to abolish the company tax but get rid of the personal income tax by various tangential exemptions but basically by lifting it straight up from the ground. Thats the only way to take the whole population with you. People will understand if its all about mass-sackings of taxeaters and the closure of bureaucracies by the bakers dozen. Sinclair doesn’t see this because he’s not a serious free enterprise economist, and has a more static view of the situation.
The static view is that the people who aren’t paying the taxes will thereby vote for more government since they are lead to believe that won’t have to pay for it. There is some truth to this idea, but its basically a kindy version of public goods theory 101. There is room for leadership and communication here. For individuals to try and educate the public. But Sinclair is so unsound where public education is concerned that he refuses to trash the idiotic Keynesian multiplier (thats if he isn’t stooged by it himself). And he will not talk about mass-sackings and the slashing of government spending.
So he isn’t serious. His lack of seriousness is what has lead him down this cul de sac of everyone must pay.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, or so one hears, but the problem with the idea that everyone ought pay the income tax is that there IS NO overall strategy behind this notion. Its reminiscent of the supply-sider idea. That tax cuts can lead to greater government revenue. Well so what? What then? You’ve just created more parasitism without a further step to matters. One-step thinking. There is no sense of time, justice or strategy in the ideas of even mildly rightest Australian economists.
Just wondering about the mental deficiency of people who fall for the Keynesian multiplier. Just the same mental deficiency as all those who have fallen for the global warming fraud. They simply cannot lock in two things in their mind at once. Or lock in one thing and then build a further implication on that.
With the multiplier it never seems to occur to people that increasing spending isn’t all that often a crash-hot thing to do in the first place and its INFLATING matters. Then you have to overlay that with the knowledge that fiscal policy CANNOT increase spending except by serendipity or by the government debt acting like a sort of money substitute or partially so… then you have to overlay that with the knowledge that if you want to do this cash would actually work…….
… by the time you get that far an idiot like Cambria, just for example, will be accusing you of wanting inflation, years long assurances that you are in favour of growth-deflation, to the contrary not-withstanding. I’ve encountered this same idiocy so many times it really amounts to a mental defect in the person, in that they are simply not cut out for economic science. So it appears on the face of it, that Sinclair and the others were never up to the study. Because they do not have the facility of mind to lock in and overlay these assumptions. (Whereas someone like Rafe Champion would have been a natural and had the good sense to notice the genius of Hutt when he discovered him.)
Which is why of course every last one of these allegedly rightist dummies, Cambria included, (though he isn’t an economists book-holder), has fallen for the global warming hoax. You start off pointing out that warming would be a good thing if indeed it was possible. But by the time you’ve moved onto the next constituent part of the reality of the situation they’ve lost that first overlay. So Cambria, Sinclair, Humphreys et al are simply not capable of coping with the controversy, lacking that ability to understand something, lock the assumption in, and move to the next part of the argument.
As soon as you get to the part where CO2 does not warm the globe except perhaps by some tiny amount they’ve already lost the first understanding that they were supposed to overlay.
As a result of these mental defects absolute leftist lunatics are always beating these tribal rightists in public debates. Sinclair once went so far as to imply that the real problem with Nick Gruen trashing the first 11 billion of other peoples money to the direct detriment of the economy…… was that the fuckwit Gruen hadn’t done the requisite computer modeling. Here Sinclair is with the advantage that he’s closer to the right position policywise (in that he would have wanted to trash the fiscal situation less) and in the position where he is critiquing an ignorant lunatic like Gruen….. and he pisses away his dual advantage.
Guys like Sinclair and Humphreys don’t appear to know how much harm they do. They may as well be working for the other side.