JOE HOCKEY’s VOLTE-FACE: A PAULINE CONVERSION?

Hockey“Headwinds coming out of the US early next year” eh, Joe Hockey? Quelle surprise!

So, you’ll pump up the national debt ceiling by two-thirds, from $300 billion to $500 billion and shunt an extra $8 billion into the RBA? Is this your “budget emergency”?

Would the real Joe Hockey please stand up?

OK, so you’re no longer the Opposition and now you have to face the reality of this depression.

Fine, but don’t simply blame the US for it: the Howard government, the Rudd, government, the Gillard government and the Rudd government (again) have set us up nicely for an enormous collapse of our own.

I mean, about one trillion in our very own property bubble and all that, Joe. Of course, the US situation will indeed make it even worse for us, but my point is that much of our troubles are home-grown.

BTW, just a hint, Joe.

Don’t simply cosy up to the Business Council of Australia and pump up the GST. Even the Grattan Institute is coming to see that’s a no-go. It’ll further exacerbate ineffective demand. You ought to be able to see that.

The only thing that can do it for Australia now is greater land value capture, so you can slash taxes on both people and business – as recommended in The Henry Tax Review–modelled effective by KPMG-Econotec–and shown to be the most efficient revenue base in the 2013 tax report by Price Waterhouse Coopers.

Joe! …. Joe! Are you listening?

Check Google Page Rank

5 thoughts on “JOE HOCKEY’s VOLTE-FACE: A PAULINE CONVERSION?”

  1. rubbish all taxes are from the sweat of the brow of a person who sells, makes or thinks something up to trade with another, those that rely to live from that money not so much.
    The resources do not jump out on their own.
    And a country like japan or germany doesnt rely on shit in the ground to prosper, when these resources are gone then what will yu be saying, sell your daughter for a nightly rate?

  2. “It cannot be done” isn’t a question. The issue is NO taxes. None! Natural resource rents are NOT taxes! The issue is who gets the natural resource (land) rents: billionaires who get rich at our expense by rent-seeking, or do we use it for revenue INSTEAD OF taxes.

    ATCOR: all taxes come out of rent eventually, anyway, so as John Locke (the apostle of freedom) said, put them there in the first place – instead of letting them be passed on in prices and crash the economy with all their deadweight. Natural resource rents can’t be passed on in prices.

    People have a “spending problem” alright! It’s called lack of effective demand. Repeat after me, grasshopper: “Private rent-seeking means high land prices and low wages. Rent for public revenue means low land prices and high wages.” (I know you won’t believe me – ‘cos you haven’t seen the cat. Keep looking.)

  3. im asking you not atkor, its a simple question.
    IT cannot be done. The issue is not WHAT txes, the issue is the amount of tax, with available money the public has which is peanuts most are in debt.
    We have a spending problem, not a tax problem and entitlements mentality that has collpsed throught history, name the welfare state era which survived, always collapses.

  4. sounds good when said.
    will this land tax be sufficient to pay all expenses and spending and interest the government owes?
    And if it will be because right now its not enough, does that mean each person will be paying MORE taxes than currently? I cannot see how this plays out if it suks more $ out of the economy than present how we are better off? And if people are paying less tax, how the government meets expenses, something smells fishy.

Comments are closed.