BL> You told me that your company is unsubsidised operating in a
 BL> free market. 

 PE> Yes, I said that.

 BL> Neither of these were true, 

 PE> They are both true.

  See? You really don't understand what a free market is.

 PE> It would be more helpful if you ASKED me what my opinions were
 PE> instead of TELLING me. In the end, I decided to join them
 PE> rather than fight them (Labor policies). 

 BL> It's not easy to understand what you're saying most of the
 BL> time.

 PE> It's a hell of a lot easier to ask and get my "cryptic" answer
 PE> than just take a wild guess. 

  I used logical induction starting from your false premise to work
back to what you *must* believe to come to that point. Basically, you
believe that a hidden subsidy is acceptable but an upfront subsidy
like a tariff is not. I find that logic inconsistent, but it is easy
enough to devise tax rebates to take the place of tariffs, as is done
already with the Film Industry, R&D allowances, subsidised diesel
prices, subsidised highways for transport, etc...

  I just don't understand why you find tariffs anathema. To me it's
all the same thing: protecting local competitiveness at the expense of
trading partners; keeping the market internal; promoting locals over
aliens. I am in favour of *all* means used to do that - including your
protected workshop designing Collins' software.

 BL> I love the way you argue with me in my area of expertise.

 PE> I love the way you try to ignore the FACTS.

  Have you ever argued with a smart kid who thinks he knows the
*truth* but is like an ant contemplating an elephant?

 PE> BTW, in this thread you mentioned "fair taxes".

  "Fair taxes" is an oxymoron, but what fairness exists in the system
is a measure that everyone pays more-or-less their share. If a person
uses negative gearing to subsidise gambling on the stock market and
thus avoids $10,000 in tax while the average punter is paying 18% on
GROSS at the TAB then I consider that unfair. It is inevitable that
the intelligent will use the system to minimise taxes but that does
not make it fair.

 PE> What would be fair is that if I earn $25,000 per year for 2
 PE> years, I pay the $25,000 tax rate. If I earn $50,000 one year
 PE> and $0 the next year, they would give me a tax refund in the
 PE> second year to make up for the extra that I paid (on average)
 PE> in the first year. 

  I agree with you that tax averaging is fairer, especially when it
affects me much more than you, but it is only available to a selected
group: farmers, sportsmen, authors, artists... I can't see why a
Consultant Engineer is not in that same group, or why anyone's income
should not be averaged the same way.

 PE> There is no difference.

  Of course there is a difference... about $10,000!

 PE> In actual fact I am planning on earning $50,000 for 10 years
 PE> and then $0 for 25 years (or similar). What I am attempting to
 PE> do at the moment is trying to use extreme negative gearing to
 PE> do the averaging that I want. BFN. Paul.

  My "ten-year saving plan" was exactly the same (without the benefit
of negative gearing), and in my day it was much worse, with 67% tax.
But even so, I consider that the tax rates of 1970 were fairer than
those today. Tax put the rich (and intelligent) on a handicap to the
benefit of the ordinary joe who always needs help. The tax exemption
level in those days was $3,000 (the equivalent of $30K today) just
below average earnings. Millions did not pay tax at all. When I
retired I paid no tax. In an odd way, the Menzies government was much
more socialist that the Labor fuckwits who followed.

  I accept tax as a social necessity whose only purpose is to take
from the rich and give to the poor. I am 20 years ahead of my time,
but it is clear now that your approach to earnings is the commonly
accepted one: learn for 25 years and get a skill; use that skill for
15-20 years to ammass a fortune; retire on the proceeds. Unfortunately
it can't work. Where does the money come from?

Regards,
Bob
 


 
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---