Gillard, soaking the rich to share the wealth in the corporate sector.

Cartoon (Economic suicide bombers): By Pickering.

Recently when announcing her reshuffle of Cabinet to reward her backers and punish Rudd’s Julia Gillard stated that her priority was "ensuring that Australians can share the benefits of the nation's wealth." Her plan for achieving this was not to encourage people to try for the numerous fairly highly paid jobs in the mining sector, or to invest in the sections of the economy that are doing well, but to punitively tax those sectors in order to spread the wealth around.

The latest scheme is to expand the super profits tax, or as it is now called the MRRT into all sectors with higher profitability, such as mining and banking in order to reduce taxation on other sectors such as manufacturing. This appears to be something of a corporate redistribution of wealth, which has the additional aspect of punishing the banking sector:

A WORKING group set up by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is planning a shake-up that would see most companies pay no corporate tax and a smaller number pay a much higher rate of "super tax" on profits clearly above the odds. …

The nine-person working group, set up by Mr Swan after the tax summit, is examining a proposal known as Allowance for Corporate Equity, which would apply no tax to the portion of corporate profits necessary to get a reasonable return on equity. Most companies - especially manufacturers - fail to meet that hurdle and would pay no corporate tax.

Banks and mining companies make a much greater return on equity and so would be liable for the super tax on the excess portion of their earnings. A working group member, John Freebairn from Melbourne University, told the conference the super tax rate could be as high as 40 or 50 per cent. He nominated McDonald's and KFC as examples of companies able to make larger than normal profits because of the power of their brands.

"How are they going to get those profits from Australians without doing it in Australia?" he said. Good tax design said that if something couldn't move, it should be taxed. Mining of Australian resources could also only be done in Australia.”

Apparently this ‘working group’ is totally unaware of the massive mineral deposits in other areas of the world, especially in Africa, where a great deal of Australian investment is already moving. Curiously, the government is likening this move to the introduction of the GST by the Howard government:

Addressing a tax conference at the University of Canberra, the head of Treasury's revenue group, Rob Heferen, compared the change to the introduction of the GST in 2000. He said this would be a more radical change, if more worthwhile.

It is difficult to see where they are coming from with this claim. The GST was introduced to broaden the tax base and replace a significant number of other taxes, which were inefficient and counterproductive. This proposal narrows the tax base and hits our biggest earners. There are at least two areas where this can go seriously wrong.

The first is that in narrowing the tax base to the higher profitability areas makes the tax system more vulnerable to downturns in the world economy. The higher earning areas of the economy in boom times are significantly more vulnerable to fluctuations when things go backwards. A number of US states that have tried this have come a gutser when the earnings drop, especially California which has moved from ‘golden state’ to basket case in a short time.

With the Euro zone in deep trouble and the US not far behind, Asia is probably about to suffer a serious downturn which will reduce their use of our resources. This will in turn seriously affect our banking sector and the rest of the economy as it trickles down. The government is putting its eggs into the basket most likely to be dropped.

The other serious problem is the effect on superannuation and nest egg investment, which stands to be seriously effected by this. When the Keating government realized that the pension system was a Ponzi scheme, which was unsustainable the move was made towards superannuation in order to ensure that retirements could be saved for. Swan and Gillard are possibly destroying the savings of millions of Australians.

Labor confusion on sovereign risk, while its results occur.

Cartoon: By Pickering.

On Tuesday the Communications Minister Mr. Conroy, totally lost it during a speech to the National Press Club. Most of his spray appears to be directed at the Productivity Commission for daring to warn that the NBN could breach its competitive neutrality policy because of its projected low rate of return, estimated at about 7 per cent. However he then demonstrated his ignorance of sovereign risk:

The Communications Minister expressed frustration at suggestions that sovereign risk had increased in Australia's telecommunications sector because of the introduction of the NBN. “If a tax goes up, God, that is sovereign risk, but if a tax goes down, its f***ing fantastic. Excuse me - that is fantastic,” he said.

“The complete hypocrisy around sovereign risk is staggering, because apparently we've been engaging in sovereign risk all of these years every time we've lowered a business tax.”

The reference to lowering taxes constituting sovereign risk is in regard to the imposition of a massive tax on mining profits, some of which is supposed to be used to lower corporate taxes in other sectors as a sort of corporate redistribution of wealth. The factor that creates the risk is the mining tax, which makes such activities more attractive in other countries where the tax does not apply. In other words its nothing but spin.

The real result of sovereign risk inducing policies came home to roost for Australia, or at least its cattle producers today with Indonesia cutting our export quota by nearly half and announcing that all imports from here were to be phased out within four years. Our cattle industry supplied the bulk of Indonesia’s import requirements owing to the closeness of our countries and the perceived reliability of supply.

The reputation for reliability was smashed in June when the Gillard government unilaterally banned exports to Indonesia overnight for a month during the peak export period. Some suppliers were driven to the wall, while others were seriously disadvantaged to the point where they are still struggling to get back to normal. It was pointed out at that time by the industry that this action would destroy confidence in us as a reliable supplier and cause the Indonesians to look elsewhere.

While the Minister, Joe Ludwig is making noises about sourcing other markets, there are none as convenient and offering the high numbers we had in this one. He has been plying the line that it is simply caused by the Indonesians wishing to be self sufficient, this has been cast in doubt by reports that cattle will be sourced in other neighboring countries.

Being governed by Labor has been like a storeowner taking a break while the village idiot runs the shop.

The Greens who want the live export industry banned entirely, should consider the ramifications of this decision. It is doubtful that Greens leader Bob Brown has considered just how much pristine rainforest will be destroyed in any effort by Indonesia to provide pasture for enough cattle to supply over half a million cattle per year for consumption.

Gary Johnson moving to LP?

There has been a great deal of speculation going back a couple of months that Republican Presidential candidate Gary Johnson will drop out of the nomination contest and instead, enter the contest for the Libertarian Party one. Now it is widely reported that the move is on, with the possibility of an announcement within the next couple of days.

He is currently in Florida to meet with LP people and according to one of his advisers Roger Stone, he is happy with the results. Johnson, who has been excluded from most debates, partly blames his poor standing in the race on GOP officials who did nothing to help ensure that he had a shot at being invited to the televised debates. Here is an interview he did with Marc Caputo of the Miami Herald:



From Newsmax:

Johnson says he believes most Republicans are not socially conservative, it is only the activists that are. “I didn’t win over social conservatives running as governor of New Mexico in the primary. I didn’t get their votes, there were others to choose from.

“But when it came time for the general election, those social conservative Republicans then deferred to their second-most important issue, which was dollars and cents. And I excelled in the dollars and cents area.

“New Mexico is a state that is 2-1 Democrat,” Johnson, who was governor in Santa Fe for eight years from 1995-2002, pointed out. “I won election and I won reelection by a bigger margin.” …

He said the ban on drugs is responsible for the violence that has engulfed the Mexican border area. “We need to get rid of prohibition like we needed to get rid of prohibition of alcohol, to move disputes from the streets and machine guns to the courts.

… “Newt Gingrich, in 1997, proposed the death penalty for possession of marijuana in excess of 2oz. with intent to distribute from outside of the country. Newt Gingrich has smoked marijuana. Gosh, to me this is hypocritical. “When it comes to Newt Gingrich, we have a real fundamental difference when it comes to marijuana and other drugs, and that fundamental difference is, you know what? Maybe it’s a bad choice, but should you be subject to the death penalty because of your bad choice? I don’t think so.”

He also took issue with the other leader in the Republican race. “I don’t know where Mitt Romney stands on the issues. I’m in the contest and I really don’t know where he stands. “This process should be about explaining what your positions are, what the problems are and, of course, what your resume is.

While the LP has a number of candidates listed at this stage, the entry of a candidate of the stature of Johnson would change the whole outlook for the party should he gain the nomination.

If, as is almost certain that he switches, about the only saving grace for the Republican Party is that while he has the potential to rip votes off them with his fiscal conservative record, he will probably strip the Democrats of socially liberal voters who are disgusted with the disappointing results of the Obama tenure. The GOP has brought this down on its own head.

Unusual Freedom of Speech defense by Humphreys.

Image: OMG, has it happened already?

It is easy to be an advocate of free speech when it applies to the rights of those with whom one is in agreement. But the crucial test concerns controversial speech – statements which we may consider vicious and nasty and which may, in fact, even be vicious and nasty. – Walter Block; “Defending the Undefendable.”

One such vicious and nasty form of speech is to call for your death. A couple of days ago, Graeme Bird issued such a call on John Humphreys, who can be irritating, but has changed to the point where the writer has not felt like choking the living shit out of him for a couple of years. The following though, goes too far:

“He must die. John Humphreys must die so that this country can live. He has betrayed this country too many times and he must no longer live … This is too important a subject to let John Humphreys live. Where does the lying end. I’m convinced that it only ends when John Humphreys is cold and stiff … HE MUST DIE, FOR THE LYING TO END. AND THIS IS A LIFE OR DEATH MATTER … I am accusing Humphreys of being a knowing traitor … SO MY NEW CLAIM IS THAT HUMPHREYS WILL NEVER STOP LYING. THAT HE WILL NEVER BE A SAFE PAIR OF HANDS. THAT HE WILL ALWAYS BE A TRAITOR. WHILE HE YET LIVES.”

This is not unusual for Graeme; he often has difficulty disengaging his caps lock. His main beef is that John supports fractional reserve banking, but even Ron Paul would not go this far. He has since pulled the post, only leaving three Humphreys ones up, “The Moron John Humphreys Screed … Followed By The Censored Responses,” “The Deeply Disturbing John Humphreys Story,” and, “Comments Soon To Be Wiped By Quisling John.”

John has been gracious in reply:

My conclusion, once again, is that death threats such as above should be allowed as free speech.

The moral reason to allow the above sort of rants is that Graeme hasn’t actually directly hurt anybody with his rant, nor has he tried to coerce anybody (by saying “do XYZ, or else”), and so he should be left alone. He has simply stated that he wants me dead. If somebody were to act on Graeme’s death wish, then in my opinion the responsible person is the killer, and not Graeme.

We are surrounded with advertising every time we turn on the TV or go outside. We are more subtly being influenced every time we read a newspaper or book or website, or when we talk with our friends. We are even being influenced when we simply watch strangers on the streets. But ultimately, I believe that each person needs to be held responsible for their own actions, and that responsibility can not be passed on to the people who have influenced the actor. If I say that a book is good, and you go and buy the book… then it is you (not I) who is responsible for your actions. Likewise, if grumpy-Graeme says he wants me dead, and mad-Doug (another freak with an unhealthy fixation on me) actually comes and kills me… then it is mad-Doug (not grumpy-Graeme) who is responsible for the murder.

The idea that advertisers or influential people are responsible for the actions of others undermines individual responsibility, and it sets a dangerous precedent for controlling who is allowed to say what to whom. And once we start controlling speech to only “good speech” we get into dangerous territory. …

Go here for the full post.

Santa gets a cavity search.

Image, courtesy Bastiat Institute.

Not sure if this is a photoshop, we hope it hasn't come to this. Enough said. This is very reminiscent of the following Arlo Guthrie clip.



For all of you young whippersnappers out there, too young to remember the 60s, try the longer version, which includes his dedication of the song to the FBI and “The Last Guy” here.

Carbon tax, The Road Ahead

Cartoon: By Pickering.

By Viv Forbes, Chairman,

The Carbon Sense Coalition

Carbon Tax is now law in Australia. Now the main aim of the climate alarmists, the wealth distributers, the anti-development crowd and those promoting world government by the UN is to stifle the debate. Their media mates will try to pretend there is nothing more to talk about. So we have to defeat their conspiracy of silence. This is the task for 2012.

Unfortunately for them, the climate alarmist news is uniformly bad, and this is newsworthy:


1. Global temperatures refuse to rise, despite rapidly rising human production of carbon dioxide – this fact alone disproves their main scare story. More people are waking up to this fact and to the antics of the alarmist academics in distorting the evidence. Climategate II has revealed the uncertainty, bias and deliberate deceptions within the secret circle of alarmist academics. See:

2. Sea levels, glaciers and polar bears are not following the alarmist forecasts.
See: 
And:

3. The latest climate-fest in Durban looks unlikely to produce good news for the alarmists. The Kyoto Protocol is dead on its feet.
(Since this was written a faux agreement has been cobbled together which is in essence an agreement to negotiate on an agreement …)

4. The world is waking up to the wind/solar power scams. These piddle power producers are designed mainly to harvest tax breaks and subsidies. Once these crutches are removed, the cripples will collapse. Even the Dutch are falling out of love with the absurdly costly windmills:

5. The price for carbon credits has crashed.

6. The financial crises will continue to divert political attention. The public has lost interest in climate alarm – they are more interested in jobs, energy prices and asset values.
See:

Exposing the Global Warming Lies

Here’s a collection of Internet videos exposing the lies used by global warming evangelists to promote their cause to an uninformed public. Watch these videos, learn the truth and share them with your friends and family. Don’t allow environmental extremists to destroy our freedoms with their lies. Go here.

Wind Energy Ghosts

Wind energy is just a method of harvesting tax breaks. Once the tax breaks and other financial props disappear, so do the promoters. Already thousands of abandoned turbines litter the land.

The Scientific Scandal of our Generation

"The scare over man-made global warming is not only the scientific scandal of our generation, but a suicidal flight from reality."
Christopher Booker See: 


Feedback from a Supporter:


"I have recently moved up to Fernvale from Canberra which is the social and environmental engineering capital of Australia (if not the world). I share all your scepticism about the “climate alarmist industry” although I have none of your professional qualifications or experience. Nevertheless, I do have opinions and despite writing many letters to the Canberra Times which followed the general tone of your missives to the Courier Mail, I was rarely published. So, I really enjoy reading your comments in the Brisbane and local papers as you echo the same concerns which I feel about this growing problem. I’ve found that, climate alarmists deal in absolutes in that everyone must agree ‘absolutely’ with the theories they postulate or are deemed ignorant imbeciles. It is really enjoyable, therefore, when someone like you strikes back with reasoned, cogent arguments against what is really mounting hysteria fuelled by vested interests. Keep up the good work."


Disclosure: 
Viv Forbes has spent most of his life all over Queensland in exploration, farming and grazing pursuits. He has an applied science degree and qualifications and experience in soil science and pasture management. He lives now with his wife on a small grazing property in SE Qld. That property is affected by vegetation protection orders mentioned in this newsletter.

Cabinet reshuffle highlights overgovernment.

Cartoon: By Pickering.


The cabinet reshuffle, which has been tipped for some time, goes a long way to demonstrate the degree to which Australia is overgoverned. There are 22 members of the inner cabinet, another eight in the outer cabinet in charge of (at a rough count) fifty-five ministries. There is a list of them here:

Years ago on the comedy show, The Two Ronnies in their faux news section they posed the question, “We ask are there too many government ministers, and we will be talking to the Minister for Steak and Kidney Pie on the issue.” Australia is not too far behind this scenario. Given that some of these ministries cover multiple functions, it is clear that just too many matters fall under government control.

If more functions were left in the hands of the individual, and the government stayed out of matters not reasonably falling into its net of intrusion, it would be more effective in its proper place. One of the secrets of successful management is delegation. Why not delegate the way we conduct ourselves to us and stay the hell out of our lives?

While some of the press is hailing this development as a “Julia stamps her authority,” moment it is reasonably clear that she is not really in control:

But the reshuffle has sparked tensions over the dumping from cabinet of Kim Carr, a former Gillard supporter now seen as sympathetic to Kevin Rudd, and led one minister to describe the changes as more about "spin" than policy.

The Prime Minister was also forced to fend off suggestions that her decision to expand the cabinet by two places was because senior ministers refused to go. Senior sources last night denied reports that Peter Garrett and Robert McClelland had threatened to resign from parliament if they were demoted.

The Australian understands that Mr McClelland, who remains in cabinet, was moved despite making a strong case to remain attorney general.

This rings true, as no realistic cabinet reshuffle would be likely to keep Garrett on after his disastrous performances in every area entrusted to him in the past. Garrett was brought into the government at the behest of Hawke on the basis of being a washed up pop star who might inspire the young to vote Labor. Since then he has achieved little other than an inflated sense of self-importance.

The idea of ‘super ministries’ that has been exulted by the press as a great innovation, are a crock. If the persons given these responsibilities were in fact up to them, the sheer volume of work involved would almost certainly guarantee that it would be impossible to carry out the multiple roles efficiently.

Greg Combet though has a ready solution to this problem. He has had Industry and innovation added to his Climate Change portfolio. If he succeeds with the climate change part along the lines the government is proposing, the industry and innovation part will no longer be needed.