Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
    Latest

    Finance

    Home Policy Spotlight Finance Page 2

    The New UAE Corporate Tax

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    0

    The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is famous for, among other things, zero tax. That ended this year. The UAE now has a 9% tax rate for all but a very few exempted industries.

    The implementation of a corporate tax is not because the UAE needs the money to build new roads, hospitals, schools or public facilities. The UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world. None of it required tax revenues. Nor was it all paid for with money from oil revenues.

    Similarly, the UAE is not implementing a tax regime to fund public services such as policing, rubbish collection, healthcare or education. Again, the UAE embarrasses high-tax countries when it comes to public safety, maintenance of public spaces, healthcare and education. People in the UAE cannot even conceive of being robbed, let alone mugged; or even seeing a homeless drug addict. The unparalleled safety and cleanliness of the UAE has not required tax revenues; nor was it all funded by oil revenues.

    The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The UAE is also not implementing a tax regime to fund a social welfare program. 89% of the UAE’s 9 million residents are expatriates. They must support their residency through work sponsorship or business profits, or else they have to leave. Technically, there is limited assistance available to the 11% minority of native emirate citizens. In reality, there is an unspoken positive discrimination applied to emirate citizens for various job positions. So taxes are not needed for welfare.

    The UAE is also not implementing a corporate tax to cover a ballooning government bureaucracy and out-of-control public indebtedness, like that seen throughout the “developed” Western nations, such as Australia. The UAE has massive, diverse, revenue generating investments within itself, and throughout the world.

    The idea that Governments need an instrument as crude as tax to monetise a national economy is as archaic as it is absurd. We live in a world in which some of the largest and most successful companies lose money on their core business in order to drive greater profits from tangential sources. Airlines, for example, knowingly lose money from the business of flying planes, because greater profits come from the financialisation of their frequent flyer programs. Google and Facebook also stand out as companies whose revenues exceed the GDP of entire countries despite their ‘core products’ being ostensibly given away for “free”.

    The UAE has attracted literally trillions of dollars of foreign investment, hundreds of thousands of companies, millions of residents, tens-of-millions of visitors each year, and built some of the most incredible cities on earth in scarcely a few decades; primarily, arguably, as a result of eschewing taxation. So why would the UAE change direction after achieving such success following a far more sophisticated business model?

    UAE is home to some of the most extraordinarily modern, effective and high-quality public utilities and infrastructure in the world.

    The reason the UAE is sacrificing the zero-tax brand it worked so hard to build, is due to political pressure from socialist, globalist, kleptocratic politicians in high-tax, western nations. That is, the same politicians responsible for the terminal decline and humiliation of the West – the exponentially increasing debt, monetary debasement, deindustrialisation, illegal migration, growing homelessness, increasing crime, energy shortages, insane ‘woke’ politics, military weakness, civil unrest etc etc etc – are demanding that other nations, like the UAE, follow their lead.

    Unfortunately, the last time the UAE ignored the bullying of Western politicians they were placed on a so-called international ‘grey list’ by the Financial Action Task Force (FTAF) for not doing “enough” to “fight money laundering”. Compared to the money laundering taking place in the US, the volume going through the UAE is a pittance. But the issue was never about money laundering; it was demonstrating fealty to the Western political cabal. The ‘grey-listing’ was to embarrass the UAE rulers. The practical effect was simply to increase the paperwork burden placed on UAE banks moving money to and from overseas. That burden has made routine banking more difficult and expensive for legitimate SMEs, while having virtually no impact on companies and individuals transacting large sums. 

    Join Mailing List

    So the embarrassingly incompetent boobs overseeing the decline of the world’s richest countries have finally forced the UAE to start penalising businesses for being successful. The question now is: what is the likely impact going to be? 

    In 2018, the UAE was similarly pressured into implementing a goods and services tax (VAT) that included precious metals. The new 5% tax caused a 75% reduction in precious metal trade. Just 6 months later the Government exempted precious metals from the tax, restoring trade to previous levels.

    So it will be very interesting to see what comes of the new UAE tax.

    The Misguided Quest for “Fair Share”

    By
    Nicholas Samios
    -
    0

    “Grab your torch and pitch-fork” was the rallying cry of the left in the recent debate over stage three tax cuts.  And so the mob was led to follow a trail of sprinkled money to the door of high income earners to rob them of tax relief. 

    In the debate over Australia’s tax system, the concept of “fair share” has been wielded like a moral cudgel. Advocates argue high-income earners should pay more under the guise of affordability. Yet when we examine the impact of progressive taxation, especially through the lens of real-life financial pressures, the narrative of fairness starts to show cracks. 

    Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

    Consider someone earning $200,000 annually. Contrary to the image of affluence often portrayed, they face substantial financial obligations: mortgages, rising living costs, and family expenses. Despite these challenges, they’re taxed at a rate significantly higher than those earning $70,000.

    Under the new “Stage 3” regime, the person on $200,000 pays $55,000, which is $45,000 more than the person on $70,000 who pays $10,000. That is, more than five times as much in absolute dollars. Fairness isn’t just about percentages; it’s about the impact on individuals’ lives. The dialogue around tax rates frequently ignores these actual dollars paid, masking the true disparity. (See graph).

    Furthermore, this focus on rates overlooks a critical issue: bracket creep. As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power. This is an insidious form of taxation that exacerbates the burden on middle and higher-income earners, eroding the principle of fairness the system claims to uphold. 

    Moreover, the strategy of progressive taxation, while politically popular, overlooks the broader economic implications. High tax rates for top earners disincentivize the innovation and investment that drive economic growth. It is a short-sighted approach that prioritizes immediate political gain over long-term prosperity. 

    As wages increase over time, individuals are pushed into higher tax brackets without a corresponding real increase in their purchasing power.

    But the conversation about fairness must also challenge the government’s role in fiscal management. Instead of relying on tax increases, especially through bracket creep, as a default solution for budget shortfalls, there’s a pressing need for government to exercise fiscal restraint. This involves cutting wasteful spending, prioritizing essential services, and treating taxpayers’ money with the respect it deserves. Taxpayers deserve a system that not only is fair but also reflects a government that is accountable for its financial decisions. 

    A fair tax system would mitigate the effects of bracket creep, ensuring that individuals are not penalised for nominal increases in income that don’t reflect real gains in wealth. Alternatives such as a flat tax could offer more equitable solutions, ensuring everyone pays their share in a manner that encourages economic growth and innovation. 

    Join Mailing List

    In advocating for a truly “fair share” we must demand comprehensive tax reform that addresses not only the rate of taxation but also the underlying issues of bracket creep and fiscal responsibility. The aim should be a system that encourages prosperity, treats every taxpayer with fairness, and holds the government accountable for the stewardship of public funds. The quest for fairness in taxation is not just about adjusting rates; it’s about crafting policies that encourage a vibrant economy, respect individual contributions, and ensure the government treats taxpayer money with the care it warrants.

    Lawfare

    By
    Jaimie Stevenson
    -
    1

    “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” is the famous statement attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, Joseph Stalin’s secret police chief. This is an example of lawfare: the manipulation of legal processes, civil or criminal, to serve political, ideological, or personal interests rather than upholding justice. 

    Lawfare involves the misuse of the law by various means including selective enforcement, biased prosecutions, and politically motivated judgments for reasons unrelated to justice. It targets individuals or groups based on their political beliefs, policies or affiliations, and uses the law as a weapon to suppress dissent.

    Civil Law

    Civil law is traditionally employed to resolve disputes between private individuals or entities. However, it has increasingly become a weapon in the hands of powerful interests to silence critics. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused. These lawsuits are often filed with the primary aim of intimidating, censoring, or bankrupting individuals or organisations critical of those in power.

    Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech.

    SLAPP suits typically lack merit but serve as a tool to burden defendants with legal expenses and time-consuming litigation. The fear of financial ruin can force individuals or groups to retract their statements, cease their activities, or settle out of court. 

    Criminal law

    Governments and powerful organisations have increasingly turned to criminal law to suppress dissenting voices. Laws that criminalise defamation, sedition, or spreading false information can be exploited to target political opponents, journalists, activists, or any individual expressing dissenting views.

    Australia’s proposed Misinformation and Disinformation Bill will potentially criminalise free speech. Ostensibly drafted to address the dissemination of false information, the legislation raises concerns due to its broad scope, leaving individuals uncertain about what constitutes a violation. Such ambiguity can be exploited to selectively enforce the law, enabling those in power to target specific individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the alleged offense.

    The absence of precise definitions allows for the manipulation of the law to serve political interests, allowing authorities to interpret and apply it selectively. This raises concerns about the erosion of democratic principles, as those in authority exploit legal measures to silence opposition and stifle public discourse.

    One of the key concerns in the misuse of civil and criminal law is the selective prosecution of individuals or groups based on their political beliefs or affiliations. Authorities may use their power to target specific dissenting voices, leaving others untouched, thereby creating a chilling effect on those who oppose the status quo. 

    Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are a prime example of how civil litigation can be misused.

    An example of this is the prosecution of Donald Trump, who many people believe is being persecuted rather than prosecuted to defeat him as a presidential candidate. Many believe Joe Biden has weaponised the Department of Justice to go after his political opponent, contrasting its treatment of Trump to that of Joe Biden in spite of widespread allegations of Biden’s corruption.

    The repeated prosecution of Pakistan’s former prime minister, Imran Khan, is another example. The Pakistan military has used the country’s courts to impose jail sentences that ensure he and his party are unable to participate in forthcoming elections. 

    When legal actions are driven by political motivations rather than a genuine pursuit of justice, it erodes the credibility of the legal system. The rule of law is founded on the principles of fairness, due process, and the objective application of legal standards, not on the whims of those in power.

    Frivolous civil lawsuits targeting individuals or groups and selective prosecution in criminal law depart significantly from a rule of law approach. In a rule of law framework, legal processes are expected to be impartial, fair, and based on established principles rather than arbitrary decisions or personal biases. Frivolous civil lawsuits, often driven by ulterior motives such as harassment or silencing dissent, abuse the legal system by burdening individuals with unnecessary litigation, straying from the principle of justice and fairness.

    Join Mailing List

    Similarly, selective prosecution in criminal law undermines the rule of law by targeting individuals or groups based on political motivations rather than the merits of the case. A rule of law system requires equal application of the law, ensuring that legal actions are not used as tools for persecution or favouritism. When prosecution becomes selective, it compromises the foundational principles of fairness, due process, and equal protection under the law. In essence, both frivolous civil lawsuits and selective criminal prosecution deviate from the rule of law by introducing bias, subjectivity, and personal motivations into legal processes.

    Good Reasons for Suspicion

    By
    Simon Anderson
    -
    3

    Worldwide outrage engendered by the SWIFT Affair seems rather quaint today. Operating since 1973, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication is the messaging system that accounts for almost all international financial transactions. Evidence emerged in 2006 that the United States government had been covertly monitoring SWIFT transactions since the late 1990s and in collaboration with SWIFT since 2001. 

    SWIFT’s collaboration to supply transaction data breached the laws of Belgium (where it is based) and Europe. That European citizens could be subject to such monitoring by a foreign power caused great consternation among both the populace and European governments. 

    Justifying the enormous collection of the private information of citizens of allied and friendly countries, the US government claimed it was a necessary aspect of terrorism prevention. To avoid the appearance of disunity between NATO allies in the ‘War on Terror’, and to placate an indignant population, the European Union negotiated an agreement to enable US access whilst making provision for minimal privacy for European Union citizens. An agreement which was altogether academic: as Edward Snowden’s 2010 disclosure of classified NSA material demonstrated, the United States resumed clandestine surveillance of SWIFT before the ink on the agreement was dry.

    The Social Credit System is popular in China, where efficiencies and fraud prevention are broadly appreciated.

    This incident became fertile ground for conspiracy theories among a growing segment of the populace in Western countries, particularly those already suspicious of government overreach in ‘The War on Terror.’ 

    (The populations of non-Western countries, accustomed to the American modus operandi in world affairs, required no such convincing.)

    From survivalists in the Appalachian Mountains to billionaires purchasing luxury fallout bunkers in New Zealand, people began to think about ‘what if’, extrapolating contemporary social, political, geo-political and environmental trends to rational yet disconcertingly dystopian conclusions, pessimism exacerbated by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and resentment at the enormous taxpayer-funded bailouts of the institutions that caused it. 

    Currency suddenly held people’s attention. Was it evolving from a means of exchange to a mechanism for surveillance? Could it be used to impose social controls on entire societies? What if it was absent altogether? What are the privacy ramifications of obsoleting paper currency? 

    SWIFT’s collaboration to supply transaction data breached the laws of Belgium (where it is based) and Europe.

    No-one needed to look too far for answers to most of these questions. In 2014 the Social Credit System was introduced by the People’s Republic of China to several regions. The excesses of the state and the capabilities inherent in the system became readily apparent to horrified Western observers shortly thereafter. Currently comprised of disparate systems, the objective is for the Social Credit System to coalesce into a consolidated system encompassing the entire country. Underpinning the system is financial transactions (currently the Yuan, in future the Digital Renminbi.)

    The Social Credit System is popular in China, where efficiencies and fraud prevention are broadly appreciated. Many of the criticisms of the system as a form of Orwellian control are overstated but not invalid. Suspicious foreign observers rightly point out that while it might not be utilised for that now, it could be in the future. Conversely, observers taking a nation-state perspective began to consider the possibilities for their own societies.

    Join Mailing List

    So ended the decade: a growing appreciation by governments for the control inherent in surveillance of financial systems, and a burgeoning section of the populace suspicious of state overreach into private transactions. 

    Technology is the enabler for all of it, good and ill. As the technology landscape evolves the battle remains the same, between the rising libertarian instincts of the populace and the authoritarian tendencies of the state. Yesterday’s battle was the SWIFT affair. Tomorrow’s battlefield is cryptocurrencies and Central Bank Digital Currencies.

    Subjects I’ll address in part II.

    China 2024 and Beyond: A Troubled Future

    By
    Warren Wang
    -
    2

    My recent discussions on Liberty Itch have painted a picture of China’s landscape as a prison-like surveillance-intensive system, and as a no-privacy technology-driven cashless society. In this article, I want to further explore the future of China as we look towards 2024 and beyond. I will examine the implications of China’s expanding surveillance state, the tightening grip of authoritarian power, the simmering economic challenges, and the looming demographic crisis.

    A Safe Prison

    In China, particularly within its major cities where surveillance cameras are omnipresent, the situation resembles a vast yet secure prison. Proponents may argue that it ensures unparalleled safety, but high security is also a characteristic of prisons, largely due to extensive surveillance, with only a few exceptions like Jeffrey Epstein.

    Beyond what I discussed in my previous article, emerging technologies are being used by the government to further erode any remaining privacy. A recent example I heard from a friend is a discreet device, easily overlooked, capable of extracting comprehensive information from your phone within a short range. Although not widely deployed yet, the potential of such technology is horrifying. While the most secure phone option in China is an overseas iPhone, these have been banned by all government bodies and affiliated organisations – a decision aimed at facilitating surveillance under the guise of patriotism.

     The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023

    A Loyal Empire

    Xi Jinping’s regime is imposing a concentration of power unprecedented since Mao’s era. This communist empire demands not just loyalty, but absolute allegiance from its members. Figures like the recently deceased former Premier Li Keqiang, known for their more liberal stances on society and the economy, have been conspicuously absent from the new cabinet for a year.

    With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier. In various government bodies and affiliated institutions, such as banks and universities, advanced AI-embedded cameras are being employed to analyse people’s facial reactions. These sophisticated systems scrutinise subtle changes in lips, noses, chins, eyes, and eyebrows to infer individuals’ emotions – admiration, confusion, indifference, or even dissent. The leap from mere “facial recognition” to “mind reading” is deeply troubling.

    A Growth Mirage

    China’s economy is facing severe challenges. Despite optimistic forecasts for a robust recovery following China’s post-COVID reopening at the end of 2022, the reality in 2023 has been starkly different.

    Stock Market: In contrast to the significant gains in global share markets in 2023, with the US up by 24.2%, the Eurozone by 15.7%, and Australia by 7.8%, China’s stock market has seen a decline, down by 11.4%.

    Property Market: The real estate sector, once a cornerstone of China’s economic growth, has seen a decline of 20-30% across most major cities. In cities like Shanghai, luxury properties have seen even steeper declines of 30-40%. This downturn is more pronounced in smaller cities experiencing a net population outflow. Additionally, a report in August 2023 indicated that the vacancy rate in 28 major cities was at 12%. (For comparison, Australia’s vacancy rate was recorded at 1.02% in October 2023.)

    Local Government Debts: Local governments need to repay a record US$651 billion in bonds in 2024. The deep property slump is reducing their ability to generate income from land sales, which is a crucial revenue source. The slowdown in the broader economy has also affected their tax revenue. Growing concerns about potential defaults could trigger a widespread economic crisis.

    Spending: Although people are still showing off with travelling photos on popular Chinese social media platforms, overall spending has reduced significantly, leading to the phenomenon termed “selfie travel.” A friend, whose business has suffered a significant downturn, satirically remarked, “I used to shop at Hermes, but now I shop at Uniqlo.”

    With the aid of AI and new technology, examining loyalty to the supreme leader has become easier.

    Youth Unemployment: The youth unemployment rate in China reached new highs each month in 2023, leading to the government’s decision to cease publishing the data. The last official youth unemployment rate was over 20%. This trend is attributed to a slowing economy and a mismatch between graduates’ skills and job market demands, as well as their expectations and “lying flat” attitudes, which pose serious implications for social and political unrest.

    Baby Boom Bust

    China’s future is increasingly influenced by a significant demographic issue: its declining birth rate. In early 2023, China experienced its first decline in birth rates in 60 years, a trend that only intensified as the year progressed. Despite policy shifts from the One-Child to the Two-Child and later the Three-Child policies, young families remain reluctant to have more children. This trend, along with minimal population growth, threatens to strain social security systems, potentially leading to a critical tipping point.

    Join Mailing List

    Conclusion

    While numerous factors, such as potential war with Taiwan and evolving political and economic relations with Western countries, play a role in shaping China’s future, the areas discussed here are particularly significant. The increasing reliance on surveillance, a heightened emphasis on ideological conformity, and a declining population, point towards significant difficulties ahead. Though Xi Jinping, persistently criticised for lacking the capability to advance China’s progress, remains the unchallenged supreme leader, China is in urgent need of a new Deng Xiaoping—a true reformist—to take the country back onto the right track.

    (Don’t) Be Your Own Boss

    By
    Max Payne
    -
    1

    By ‘closing the loopholes’, Labor ultimately seeks to undermine self-employment, casual employment and competition, Libertarians must take note. 

    November 17 2023 The scene is the 2023 HR Nicholls Society conference in North Sydney; the speaker is Ken Phillips; the topic: Federal Labor’s ‘Closing the Loopholes’ bill. 

    Phillips is unassuming, plainly dressed, but he means business. In a conference otherwise dominated by partisan interests and the society’s own history, he cuts through with a powerful and practical message. Having dissected and analysed all 274 pages of the ‘Loophole’ bill and written his own submission (on behalf of Self-Employed Australia [SEA]), he has been in regular contact with the crossbench, who Labor currently relies on to pass legislation. 

    Ken Phillips

    Phillips was optimistic then, satisfied that the crossbench were heeding his call for caution and discernment over the prevailing narrative. But it was not to last; Senators David Pocock and Jackie Lambie combined to split, then pass, the first tranche of the bill, including concerning new provisions that escalate the power of union delegates. But the worst is yet to come.

    Subject to an inquiry this year, the remainder of the bill seeks to undermine commercial contracts, create strict pre-conditions that define ‘casual’ employees, and effectively prevent workers from being their own boss. 

    The loophole bill relies on the rhetoric of exploitation: pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’. 

    90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere.

    The reality is quite different – I should know, having been a contract worker and a casual for much of my working life. These reforms in fact represent a direct attack on my livelihood. 

    Keep it casual

    As Phillips demonstrates in his analysis of wages by employee type, casual workers are financially better off on an hours-worked basis to the tune of about 6% (more if you consider the higher super contributions). What’s more, being a casual employee allows for the worker to ramp up or down their hours, take on a different employer and maintain flexibility much more readily – something I made use of as a student particularly.  

    Businesses also require flexibility to operate effectively in the marketplace, as demand and staffing requirements fluctuate. The loopholes bill creates stringent regulations on how an employee can be considered casual. This will simply disincentivise businesses from hiring staff as employers will have fewer options to reduce their wage liability when business is slower. 

    Fixed contracts

    Contract and self-employed workers are also in the sights of Labor and the unions. The proposed legislation coins a new term – ‘employee like’ – to describe self-employed workers. This means self-employed workers will be subject to the industrial relations system, undermining the nature of commercial contracts between consenting parties. 

    As a contract worker myself, I do not miss the IR system. My generous employers allow me paid leave entitlements anyway, and I can readily work for an employer based anywhere in the world, making my own choices with regards to super contributions.  

    Pitting workers against employers and removing agency from consenting participants in the ‘gig economy’.

    Getting a gig

    A major objective of the loophole bill is supposedly to protect workers from exploitation in the ‘gig economy.’ The reality is quite different: well over 90% of people working for digital gig platforms are also employed elsewhere – they are ‘hustlers’, earning top-up income outside of regular employment.

    There are concerns for market competition too. By eliminating self-employed workers from the marketplace, large operators in industries such as transport and construction will face less competition. How this market concentration will benefit workers and consumers, or is consistent with Labor’s message to voters, I cannot reconcile.  

    An unlikely union

    It is a good deal for those large operators though, and it’s an especially good deal for the unions, perhaps revealing the true motivations behind this bill. Trade union membership has dwindled for decades, and the availability of flexible or casual work has further undermined their influence. 

    Join Mailing List

    By forcing all workers into employment contracts subject to IR law, the unions can once again wield significant influence. Large employers can collude with these unions and suppress competition, diluting the influence of smaller or independent players in their respective industries. 

    The big loser is of course the workers, who lose flexibility in their employment arrangements, are forced to work in industries dominated by a few large players, and are financially less well off if they are casual. 

    It is truly a sad state of affairs that the party of workers would propose such a bill, but it is characteristic of Australian politics, long divorced from the interests of common workers.
    Further reading: https://selfemployedaustralia.com.au/be-your-own-boss/

    Go Where You Are Treated Best

    By
    Damon Hayhow
    -
    2

    ‘Go where you are treated best’ is the tagline of entrepreneur, Andrew Henderson, founder of the business Nomad Capitalist. Andrew and his team help entrepreneurs, retirees and others move their lives out of countries like Australia to countries where they will be treated best. It is a business that has being growing exponentially in recent years.

    When I first heard Andrew speak those six words during the earliest days of the Covid sham, it hit me like a power-slap from Mike Tyson. What the hell was I still doing in Australia? For years I thought I had been fighting to build small businesses. But I had not; I could do business just fine. I had a bunch of great products and services in an interesting niche. I liked my customers, and my customers liked me. The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it. The reality was Australia no longer treated me well, let alone best.

    The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments. 

    “We crush many a dream around [here]” was proudly proclaimed to me by an officer of Melbourne’s Stonnington Council when I applied for a permit to open a simple, small business. He also bragged how new laws rendered thousands of commercial properties “completely unlettable”. Sadly, the only thing shocking about his statements was his candor. His malicious and malignant attitude towards honest citizens, small business operators and the future success of the country was what I had come to expect from Australian bureaucrats.

    Being an unwilling participant in an abusive relationship with local government was only part of the problem. The bigger problem was the direction of the country as a whole.

    The absolutely disgusting and immoral human rights abuses orchestrated by the Victorian Government, media and law enforcement during the Covid sham was not an aberration. Nor was the Victorian public’s willing complicity. It was unequivocal proof of the direction society had been headed.

    So what is a patriotic Australian supposed to do? Vote? For whom? Protest? And get shot with rubber bullets or sprayed with mace for not supporting the Government-approved message? Exercise your free-speech online? And get arrested in your home, in front of your kids, even if you are pregnant? Or have your government-permission to practice your profession cancelled? Or have your bank accounts frozen? 

    Australia does not have a bill of rights. You have no legislated right to free speech or right to protest. The Government could not care less about having signed the international treaty for human rights. Their Covid shenanigans proved that unequivocally.

    When democracy has been hijacked, like it has been in much of the so-called “free world”, your most powerful option is to vote with your feet and go where you are treated best. If enough people leave, the people and government left behind will be forced to change, to stem further losses and attract good people back. If they do not change, the country will fail as their beliefs and policies were destined to anyway.

    The fight was against the suffocating cancer of Australian government bureaucracy, and I was exhausted by it.

    Unfortunately, for most people leaving is not an option. The nature of most people’s vocations, businesses, finances and/or families makes leaving all but impossible. There will always be people who have no option but to stay and fight against bad governments. But that does not mean staying and fighting is noble; in most cases throughout history, staying to fight your own government has been a terrible option.

    For the few people who can move their lives and business elsewhere in the world, they owe it to themselves and their country to go where they are treated best. It is not weak or cowardly, as many jealous people will say. Nothing is harder than leaving family and a lifetime of friends, to face the uncertainty of restarting life in a new country. But it can be the most patriotic thing you can do; not to mention cathartic, enlightening and positively life changing. 

    Join Mailing List

    A country is not its government. Being so disgusted and disillusioned with a government that you move says nothing about your feelings toward the country or its people. The history of the human race is a story of people escaping horrible governments. 

    Australians are lucky to be welcomed all over the world. Wherever you go, you will always be Australian (or whatever nationality you are). If you go where you really are treated best, you will almost certainly be more financially, emotionally and spiritually successful than you could have been under the current government in Australia. 

    Nomad Capitalist has a website. I recommend taking a look at it.

    Curse of The Planner

    By
    Bob Day
    -
    1

    In her excellent book The Siberian Curse, British-American author Fiona Hill describes how the settlement of Siberia in the twentieth century and the mass movement of people and industry into this vast region by central planners lie at the root of many of Russia’s contemporary problems.

    Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.

    Examples abound around the world, but allow me to cite a local one.

    Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes. 

    A number of years ago, I bought a block of land on a very busy main road in one of Australia’s capital cities.  I submitted plans to the local council to build 12 semi-detached home units on the land and, as the zoning allowed for such a development, I didn’t expect any problems. That was of course until I came up against the Council Town Planner who said he’d recommend the development be approved “subject to the provision of noise attenuation devices” across the front of the property (noise attenuation is a fancy name for sound-proofing).  I tried to point out that there were thousands of kilometres of main roads with many thousands of dwellings fronting these main roads and it all seemed to work quite well without ‘sound attenuation’. I also told him that the project was actually geared towards older people, many of whom prefer the noise of traffic and pedestrians chatting as they said it made them feel safer than in some quiet back street or cul-de-sac.  But he was having none of it. He wanted his noise attenuation devices.  

    Naturally, I tried the commercial argument that people who didn’t like noise wouldn’t buy into the project and that the market would sort it out.  But for reasons known only to town planners but obscure to common sense, he rejected all my pleas, and I had an acoustic engineer design a front fence to assist with noise attenuation.  But no sooner had I finished the job than the Royal Society for the Deaf bought all the units – every single one of them.  I showed the planner the contract and he couldn’t even see the funny side of it. 

    Ludwig von Mises, one of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the 20th century, observed:

    Ludwig von Mises

    ‘The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans.  Planners aim at one thing only:  the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of their own plans.’

    National, State and Local government planners now infiltrate our lives at every turn. 

    Take the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), for example, the nation’s main economic planner.

    The RBA has over 1,500 staff and as well as its headquarters in Sydney, has offices in London, New York and Beijing. 

    The RBA basically has one main task – to control inflation. As we know, inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods and services. When governments contribute to this by running deficits, the RBA is there to put up interest rates and make the government feel the pain of their spending. In recent years, however, the RBA did not do this. In fact, in spite of record deficit-spending, former RBA Governor Philip Lowe said in 2021 the bank would be keeping interest rates low until at least 2024! 

    Central planning – whether geo-political, social, urban or economic – has caused many a disaster.

    Since then it has raised interest rates 14 times in an attempt to bring inflation under control, in effect shifting the inflation burden to consumers – particularly low-income consumers – through price rises. 

    One can also trace the current housing affordability crisis back to the RBA when it similarly refused to admit it made a mistake with its submission to the 2003 Productivity Commission Inquiry into First Home Ownership. The Bank’s focus on demand stimulators (capital gains tax, negative gearing, low interest rates, etc. – all Federal matters) and not supply factors had a huge influence in shaping the Productivity Commission’s findings. 

    Join Mailing List

    As we now know, the RBA overlooked the real source of the affordability problem – the unwillingness by State governments to release more land for new housing and urban planners’ obsession with urban densification, an idea that has failed all over the world. Whether it’s traffic congestion, air pollution, the destruction of bio-diversity or the unsustainable pressure on electricity, water, sewage, or stormwater infrastructure, urban densification has been a disaster. Worst of all, it puts home ownership out of the reach of those on low and middle incomes. 

    As von Mises observed, the step between planner and dictator is not as big as some might think. When their plans are rejected, planners become indignant, and instead of adjusting their plans to suit the people who have rejected their ideas, they seek ways to enforce their will on the people. The inner authoritarian is revealed.

    The Lure of Government Benevolence

    By
    David Leyonhjelm
    -
    3

    Why is it that in many countries, including Australia, governments consistently spend more than they collect in taxes, thus increasing the national debt? 

    Most governments understand that budgets should be balanced. They have seen what happens in countries that accumulate too much debt and cannot service it. And yet, the debt keeps growing. 

    The explanation is rather uncomfortable for many of us. It is, broadly speaking, our own fault. We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.

    There was a time when we largely provided for ourselves. Prior to 1909, for example, there was no age pension; everyone was expected to save for their retirement, directly or via a mutual society. 

    The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful.

    Similarly, prior to 1910 there was no disability support pension. Privately funded charities and philanthropic organisations provided assistance for the disabled. 

    It was the same with health care; Medibank, the precursor to Medicare, did not exist until 1976. 

    University fees were a private cost until 1974. There were many scholarships on offer but those who failed to obtain one and whose family was unable to pay the fees would often delay or forego tertiary studies. 

    For women returning to work, childcare was typically provided by families, friends and neighbours, or by community organisations such as churches. Government subsidised childcare only began in 2000. 

    Most people would probably be disinclined to wind back the clock. And yet, most people also believe that they already pay too much tax and do not wish to pay more. And therein lies the problem. 

    In the five years in which I was a senator, I wrote hundreds of articles for newspapers and magazines. The subject on which I received the most hostile feedback was the suggestion that eligibility for pensions should take into account all assets, including the family home. It was inequitable, I argued, that the taxes of those who could not even afford to buy a home were funding the pensions of those living in multi-million-dollar houses. 

    I lost count of the number of people who claimed they were entitled to a pension because they had paid taxes during their working life. Many also argued that age pensions were justified because there were parliamentary pensions (although these were abolished in 2004). 

    It made me realise that Australians want to have their cake and to eat it too. That is, they want the government to pay for all sorts of services, but do not associate this with taxes. Money from the government is somehow different.  

    We keep electing governments that reflect our thinking.

    The outcome is that governments implement generous schemes such as the NDIS, age and disability pensions, Medicare, childcare subsidies and HECS, generally to public acclaim, without mentioning where the money is to come from. There are far more votes in spending money than collecting it. 

    This presents a problem for libertarians, who advocate low taxes and small government. How can they persuade Australians that the hugely expensive government-run schemes they consider to be a right are either not necessary or could be replaced by something that is cheaper and more effective, if approached differently. 

    This same problem is now facing Argentina’s new president, Javier Milei. Although Argentinians elected him with his libertarian agenda, he did not receive a majority of votes and his party does not have a majority in parliament. Argentinians, like Australians, have been told for decades that the government will provide. Like most Australians, most are yet to accept that their expectations are unrealistic. 

    Join Mailing List

    Unless voters can be persuaded that there is no such thing as free government money, and that personal responsibility yields better results at lower cost, there is little chance governments will implement policies based on that. Even in Argentina, which has defaulted on its national debt no less than eight times, the appetite for economic reality is low. Milei will require the wisdom of Solomon to implement his policies. 

    We must hope that he succeeds. The reality of socialism is universal poverty, but the illusion of unlimited, universal care remains powerful. 

    The ABS Just Found 188,000 Public Servants Hiding Behind The Lounge Cushions.

    By
    Dimitri Burshtein
    -
    1

    The Numbers Grow Ever More Staggering Every Year.

    Around early November of every year, the ABS publishes statistics on the number of public sector employees in Australia.  The numbers grow ever more staggering every year.

    The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023.  That is across Commonwealth, State, Territory, and Local Government.  By way of context, this is:

    • more than the entire population of Perth;
    • a centimetre away from the entire population of Brisbane;
    • five times the entire population of the ACT; and
    • four times the entire population of Tasmania.

    How bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.

    The salary costs for all these employees for the 12 months to 30 June 2023 was a humble $215 billion.  Again by way of context, Australia could pay for the multi-year AUKUS nuclear submarine program with one and one third years of Australian public sector employee salaries.

    In November 2022, the ABS said there were 2,160,000 public sector employees at June 2022.  Twelve months later, in November 2023, the ABS said there were 2,348,400 at the very same date.  That is, the ABS somehow found an extra 188,000 extra public sector employees hiding behind the lounge cushions.  Just a small 9% variation.

    The ABS says there were 2,430,400 public sector employees in Australia as at 30 June 2023

    This is not a suggestion that there should be no public sector employees.  But 2.4 million?  Is it any wonder that Australia is experiencing economic pain and inflation with ever more resources being transferred from production to the public sector.  Plus all the reported skills shortages … in engineering, ICT, legal, accounting, and trades … how bad would the shortages be if the public sector did not hoover up all the skills and resources which are in short supply.

    Join Mailing List

    These numbers are staggering but are sadly par for the course in Australia, where our political leaders seem to believe that any problem can be solved by taking money and property by means of legal force from taxpayers to give to people who pay no price when their schemes and solutions don’t work.

    123Page 2 of 3
    Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube

    EVEN MORE NEWS

    POPULAR CATEGORY

    © Newsmag WordPress Theme by TagDiv