Media Workshops, Networking and Programmin', Gaming, Clothes, The Odyssey and ... SEX!

[tcpip]

Prosper Australia were very happy with my first workshop on media and marketing, albeit it was more on organisational structure. More next Tuesday, this time on market segments for people who may think that resource rents are better than taxes on productive capital or labour. One point I emphasized with them is that as a political organisation a narrow focus is not helpful to building a large membership.

Tuesday was the begining of CCNA semester 2. Router configuration. Not nearly as exciting as it sounds ;-) Finished a review of "The Real World Network Troubleshooting Manual" for SAGE-AU, which has some good material, but could have done with an editor. For a bit of fun, and I'm sure it has some practical use, I'm working my way through some Java programming, which I think is slowly converting me from C++, even if the latter is better for most computer games.

Speaking of which met up with three lecturers on multimedia and computer games at Swinburne University on Thursday; Dr. Andrew Stapleton, Dr. Mark Finn and a physicist named... ahh... what was it now? Anyway, they're all mainstays in their Bachelor of Multimedia (Games and Interactivity). It sounds like the start of a beautiful friendship. They've invited me to come and give some guest lectures early next year. Have posted an update to the Immersion mailing list and timetable.

Later that evening had a dinner with severina_242 and her mother who has just returned from Europe. She handed me a big bag of clothes from her boss who throws out his clothes (name brand and higher thank you very much) every six months and who is exactly my size. This grab lot included three Hugo Boss suits, two of which seem to have never been worn at all.

Tonight off to see the Odyssey with lokicarbis and caseopaya. Appropriately, apparently Ulysses tomb has been found. The Odyssey is one of my favourite stories; not just because of the epic wandering adventure and the mythic creatures, but because when confronted with the supernatural, Ulysses uses his reasoning ability to defeat them (see Adorno and Horkheimer's great essay, "Odyssey or Myth and Enlightenment" in The Dialectic of Enlightenment).

Is George Bush the antichrist (from kraant)? If so it would explain the messages he has received from his master. On the opposite side of the theological spectrum Dr. Fernandes has had this little biographical review of Noam Chomsky published in Overland Express. Well worth a read.

I promised sex. Well, how about an "unauthorised reproduction" bill, courtesy of the land of the free? How about a mainstream church promoting panty parties to get more people involved? Or a website that wants sex toy testers? Tasmania's government was going to legalise brothels. Now it's changed it's mind.

Comments

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

the solution is obvious; sell.

Someone who's spent their life paying, say, 40% tax, in order to have a comfortable retirement (something which this whole idea says is an unfairly high amount of tax anyhow) is going to be told to sell their home and move somewhere cheaper? That's the most unfair tax concept I have ever seen someone pretend was a real possibility.

The only way you could make it gradual enough to be fair would be to introduce it progressively over a whole lifetime (ie. about 80 years) or to compensate those who would be shafted by it.

The aged middle class are simply commonly at the far end of the property ownership spectrum ... often, their assets are entirely, or nearly entirely, in property. This scheme would provide massive advantage and disadvantage for, effectively, random sections of the population. Those who, like me, have never bought property at all, would be greatly advantaged. Those who've poured all their savings into a home would be massively disadvantaged.

Let's say the scheme came in. Pensioners move out of average Melbourne homes and flee to the sticks. People like me with investments can now simply liquidate some and buy a home for $150,000 that was $350,000 a few weeks ago. I'm pretty opportunistic at times, but that would revolt me, despite the massive gain I'd make out of it.

Investment decisions are made over the course of many decades, and to simply punish all the landowners and reward everyone else could never work. You'd have armed rebellion before you'd ever implement it.

What it means is you get paid for your work and capital investments and you pay for the resources you use.

That's an interesting philosophical idea, but we've all been paying on a different basis all our lives. The only way it could work fairly is by paying all landowners compensation for all the devalued land that they own. As that would probably come to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per person, you're talking about the type of change that is simply that: A philosophical idea. Nothing more. Ever.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

The only way you could make it gradual enough to be fair would be to introduce it progressively over a whole lifetime (ie. about 80 years) or to compensate those who would be shafted by it.

That is actually what most people recommend.

Those who've poured all their savings into a home would be massively disadvantaged.

No, those who have poured their savings into land would be massively disadvantaged. There is a subtle but fundamental difference. Pensioners, who are currently hit hard on property rates would pay less, not more.

The bottom line in the system is that if you receive income from labour or capital investment you will be better off. If you receive land-rent from others you will be worse off. The fact of the matter is that the distribution of ownership of natural resources (using the Gini co-efficient) is worse than it is for assets or income.

As that would probably come to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per person, you're talking about the type of change that is simply that: A philosophical idea. Nothing more. Ever.

An interested claim considering that you live in a state that already uses the system in part. ;-)

Actually the system is trivially easy to implement. Gradually increase land-taxes and gradually broaden the base, whilst gradually reducing taxes on property and raise the tax-free threshold.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Any reason why you posted this three times? ;-)

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

I screwed formatting one up; LJ screwed the second one up and put it on the end as a new post instead of a reply.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

That is actually what most people recommend.

No sign of it in Prosper Australia's FAQs. They make it appear as if they want an instantaneous cut-over.

The 80-year schedule would simply never work anyhow. That's at least 40 different governments (state + federal) dicking around with it. Look at the mess superannuation has been, as each year the government plays with it, makes it more complex, changes the rules. ... And that's something which really could have been done simply.

There is a subtle but fundamental difference. Pensioners, who are currently hit hard on property rates would pay less, not more.

I don't see where you get that conclusion from. It may be true for rural folks, but land is a massive proportion of the cost of homes in suburbia. For those who've owned a home for many years, it's worse. The house itself deteriorates (at least, it often does, as old people lose the ability and/or desire to fix and renovate), while the land value increases.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

No sign of it in Prosper Australia's FAQs. They make it appear as if they want an instantaneous cut-over.

I know. I've pointed this out to them. They actually have written up a 20 year gradual implementation plan in the past, which is quite workable.

The house itself deteriorates (at least, it often does, as old people lose the ability and/or desire to fix and renovate), while the land value increases.

Fred Nile raised this argument about a pensioner who lived in a shabby house on a 1/4 acre block in Vauclause in Sydney. "But I've been here all me life", she whimpered. Frankly, I don't have too much sympathy for this position. Their assets raise in value whilst their contribution to productivity is nil. Sell, and buy an apartment for goodness sakes and invest the proceeds in something that gives a kid a job.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I don't have too much sympathy for this position.

How can you possibly make any claim to fairness and say that?

Say new scheme were implemented as described. Person X, born now, works hard and pays 30% tax over their working life, amounting to, say, $450,000 in today's money. They are left with easily the resources to own their home and to maintain it in their retirement.

Pensioner Y was born 70 years ago, worked hard and paid 50% tax (including sales taxes, etc) over their working life, amounting to, say, $750,000 in today's money. They are left with nothing but a house they own.

Explain how it is that, after the community has already received $300k more from Y than X, it's fair to then take their house away too.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

How can you possibly make any claim to fairness and say that?

Ultimately because I do not think it is right for people to own what they did not produce, or to purchase what has been achieved by invasion and violence. Which all ownership of natural resources ultimately comes down to.

Pensioner Y was born 70 years ago, worked hard and paid 50% tax (including sales taxes, etc) over their working life, amounting to, say, $750,000 in today's money. They are left with nothing but a house they own.

Apart from the fact they are equally entitled to a citizen's dividend (see above), they also can sell the land that they are not using.