tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post3867136628655076673..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: “Shall we kill them in their beds?”–or, Transitions to Freedom: Good & BadPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-56507856635943106972011-07-24T06:28:15.190+12:002011-07-24T06:28:15.190+12:00And for many low-income people, it would be greate...<i>And for many low-income people, it would be greater than their entire annual income. It bring new meaning to the phrase "being taxed into oblivion".<br /></i><br /><br />So? your problem with that is precisely what?<br /><br /><i>but give the employer the unmitigated right</i><br /><br />Employment "law" - such as is necessary - should be based on one principle and one principle only <b>it's the employer's damn money</b><br /><br />They can pay who they what whatever they want. <br />Beginning. Middle. End. "Workers" who do not work or work well or join unions or vote labour or insist on 40-hour "workweeks" etc etc can have action taken against them by private "police" services for theft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-37785007815857139212011-07-24T00:44:32.523+12:002011-07-24T00:44:32.523+12:00sure thing bizzaro. but give the employer the unmi...sure thing bizzaro. but give the employer the unmitigated right to employ who they want when they want on the terms they want, including a fair dismissal rule, where co-supporters going on strike can be sacked forthwith, with no penalty to the employer, after all it is the employer who owns the jobs, and this would redress the years of incremental theft that socialists have enforced on employers with regards to their ownership rights over jobsMortnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-15421720349864017772011-07-23T15:08:01.622+12:002011-07-23T15:08:01.622+12:00What other ideas can you come up with?
Remove pro...<i>What other ideas can</i> you <i>come up with?</i><br /><br />Remove prohibitions on union shops/closed shops, and sympathy/secondary striking, government measures designed to prevent negotiations between employers and employees and drive wages down. If an employer wants to only hire union members (not "wants", per se, but agrees to do so in negotiations with the union), it should be her prerogative. Similarly, if one group of workers wants to go on a sympathy strike, then it is a private contract dispute between employees and employers, and contract law should apply: there should be no legal prohibition of the act.Bizarro #1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-85759240191066242242011-07-23T15:03:21.550+12:002011-07-23T15:03:21.550+12:00That gets you closest to a real flat tax - not 10%...<i>That gets you closest to a real flat tax - not 10% but say just $20,000 per person. For any high-value high-worth person, that'll be far less then they'd be liable under a 10% rate!</i><br /><br />And for many low-income people, it would be greater than their entire annual income. It bring new meaning to the phrase "being taxed into oblivion".Bizarro #1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-40454462490278628542011-07-23T13:32:49.917+12:002011-07-23T13:32:49.917+12:00MacDoctor: Please share a link that shows ecstasy ...MacDoctor: Please share a link that shows ecstasy or LSD causing a fatality "at normal use levels"Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-27936204923148783922011-07-23T11:56:03.529+12:002011-07-23T11:56:03.529+12:00increased sacrifice by those whose present tax rat...<i>increased sacrifice by those whose present tax rates are below the chosen flat rate. </i><br /><br />Naa. They're bludgers. They deserve to pay tax!<br /><br /><i>Far preferable is the Libertarianz transitional proposal (and Green policy)</i><br /><br />Leftertarian, then. Not truly in favour of freedom and the productive.<br /><br /><i> to offer a threshold below which no tax at all is paid, along with the slow and gradual increase in the level of this threshold. </i><br /><br />What you want is a threshold <b>above</b> which no further tax is paid, and a rapid <b>decrease</b> on that threshold! <br /><br />That gets you closest to a real flat tax - not 10% but say just $20,000 per person. For any high-value high-worth person, that'll be far less then they'd be liable under a 10% rate!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28772672467777430752011-07-23T00:23:09.676+12:002011-07-23T00:23:09.676+12:00what about a policy of trialling special economic ...what about a policy of trialling special economic zones based on declaring some of the areas of most deprivation (eg cannons creek, Flaxmere, Murupara, Raetihi, Kaikohe, Ruatoria....) in NZ to be tax free and RMA free zones. If you set up a business in one of the zones you pay no tax. <br />Its not as if the govt are going to be losing tax from those areas anyways.Mortnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-23769526785570477492011-07-22T12:54:32.878+12:002011-07-22T12:54:32.878+12:00The Lancet drug harm chart is controversial and ov...The Lancet drug harm chart is controversial and overestimates the harm levels of both tobacco and alcohol. Many of the drugs on your list are prescription medicines that are by no means entirely benign, particularly when used in an uncontrolled fashion. Ecstasy, LSD and solvents have reported fatalities at normal use levels. <br /><br />The point is that the argument you are using to legalize these drugs is not as rational or as clear cut as you are making it out to be. <br /><br />Having said that, there is probably a very reasonable argument for legalizing cannabis. While it is not as harmless as NORML would have us believe, it is likely that the harm from law enforcement far outweighs the harm from the increased use of the drug that legalization would bring. <br /><br />Love your tax idea, though. I would take it in a heartbeat.MacDoctorhttp://www.macdoctor.co.nznoreply@blogger.com