Joshi @ HalfEarthMedic @slrpnk.net

GP, Gardener, Radical Progressive

---

Read more

Posts

11

Comments

13

Joined

2 mo. ago

I read the first book and I think it is the first time in decades that I have encountered actual sci-fi concepts that weren't a reworking of ideas that have been around for decades.

It's not a character driven novel but the characters are fine, mostly they're not that likeable - which in my opinion is not a reason to dislike a story - and I think they probably lose something in translation. When I was a teenager I devoured Asimov, Phillip K Dick, Heinlein etc for the concepts, compared to them the characters in 3 Body are masterfully written.

I haven't yet read the second book as I found the first few chapters a bit of a slog but I plan to pick it up again once I've finished rereading some Ursula K LeGuin

Doesn't this risk creating a slum-like situation that works for no one?

I have very little time for this argument, although I acknowledge that it is one sentence in a longer more nuanced post.

The fact is that these people need to be housed and housing near to public transport, employment and services is going to result in fewer "problematic" neighbours than housing them out in the middle of bum-f**k nowhere.

The vast majority of public housing residents will be fine neighbours, even if inner city folks wouldn't necessarily invite them around for a barbecue. The people who make genuine problems for the neighbours need to be somewhere, I see no reason that burden should be placed on other poor people in preference to the wealthy.

Edit: Whoops, didn't realise this was a month old...

Excellent point well made.

One of the recommendations of the commission has been a tax on cash flow rather than profits for the largest 500 companies for exactly this reason. You can predict what the response of the business council was and therefore its chance of ever becoming policy..

And not reinvesting in productivity. Another recent Gittins piece pointed out the reinvesting in plant and research(which increases productivity) is tax deductible, all other things being equal increasing company tax on large companies should increase incentive to increase productivity.

I came here to say more or less this.

While funding road upkeep with fuel and car taxes makes sense it isn't necessary, we don't fund emergency departments with taxes on trampolines and skateboards for example.

The greater policy need at this point in history is to increase the uptake of electric vehicles(really to reduce the use of fossil fuel vehicles in a variety of ways, including uptake of EVs) and future policy should reflect this, not commitment to past policy.

@Tenderizer @TimePencil

I'm not going to spend my afternoon doing calculations to prove my point as what is required is doing the same calculations for other nations, the number you're quoting is not what is meant by marginal tax rate for a start but the linked article provides the context needed.

Again, I have been in the top tax bracket for around a decade and have never paid more than 40% of my taxable income in tax without an accountant

Australia has lower sales taxes, lower income taxes, no requirement for private or employee provided health insurance. It is straightforwardly untrue that Australia is high taxing. Even if it were true then the level of public services provided would make it worthwhile.

Maybe the top tax rate kicks in lower but the tax free threshold is also higher than in most countries which is the correct balance.

The highest marginal tax rate for income earners is over 50%. And it takes effect at much lower incomes than other comparable countries.

In Australia? The highest marginal tax rate is 45%, and due to the nature of progressive taxation unless you have an absurdly high income most of the income of even high earners is taxed at a lower rate.

Source: I am in the top tax bracket and until recently did my own taxes

This comes up periodically and is absolutely true, judged as a liberal economy Australia is generally quite efficiently run with below average taxes and above average services. Which is no excuse for not trying to do better and indeed think outside the liberal box.

More interesting is that the graph "Breakdown of total tax raised in Australia since WWII" under "Other taxes" there is a spike in 1951. It seems to correlate with the USA stockpiling wool as part of their strategic reserve and a subsequent speculative bubble.

https://www.winton.com/news/australias-lesser-known-commodities-booms

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/185564703

An interesting take on the geopolitical implications of a China-USA conflict

I wonder how much concern there would be if they were planning to house the poor people in Balga

Perhaps a little wonkish and obscure but worth bringing to light

Private schools add literally no value to society. Study after study have shown absolutely no correlation between private schooling and eventual income/self reported happiness/career satisfaction/tertiary education success (after controlling for parental income and education level).

What private schools do is reduce social cohesion by segregating children by income and religion. Funny how conservatives are always in favoir of social cohesion when they are using it as a racist dog whistle but not where it actually matters.

I don't know if I'd go so far as banning private schools(some Montessori or Bush Schools etc may actually add value) but I certainly don't think these class exclusionary bohemoths should be getting any public grants or tax concessions.