🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <adm.877313957@ccadfa>, adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) wrote:

>gleeson@unimelb.edu.au (Martin Gleeson) writes:

>>adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:

>>>>One wonders why David Moss chooses not to apply this reasoning to farmers
>>>>when the government is giving them another $500 million in handouts.
>>>>But of course we must fund the lifestyle choices of farmers or we wouldn't
>>>>get bread for '99c', would we? Isn't that how it goes, David?

>>>I notice you declined to continue the "Howard dons the Akubra" thread
>>>Martin. I'm not surprised, you really had no answer there.

>>You wish. The article hasn't reached my server yet. I'll get it from
>>Dejanews and follow up. 

>I look forward to seeing how you deal with the facts you asked me to provide.
>If you have trouble finding the article (most of the words in the title
>ae spelled wrong) let me know and I'll revive it.

That's OK - I've already found it.

>Perhaps you had a similar reason for 'declining
>>to continue' your defence of Pauline Hanson's racism in the thread
>>entitled 'David Moss is wrong (Re: BRIAN ROSS is a LIAR.)'

>I dropped out of that one because

>a) I don't like my name in titles of threads

So why not change it?

>b) It had degenerated into a slanging match featuring GWB.

Not that part of the thread. It had degenerated into you arguing that
Hanson's racist comments were just statements of opinion.

>c) it got boring and I have better things to do.

I would hope that you have better things to do than try to defend Pauline
Hanson's racist attitudes.

>>>As to why tha above does not apply to farming subsidy, perhaps we should
>>>look at the background.

>>Yes, let's see why you can complain about 'funding the lifestyle choices'
>>of others, but make exceptions for the lifestyle choices of farmers.

>When we subsidise farmers during hardship we are not subsidising a chosen
>lifestyle, we are paying out from our national self-insurance to ensure
>we sustain food prodiction capability.

Ah, so if we put the right spin on it, it's perfectly consistent?
Unfortunately, it isn't. How is providing up to $45,000 for farmers to
*leave* their non-viable farms permanently some sort of 'national self-
insurance to ensure we sustain food prodiction capability'?

>>>A person who decides to take on employment and have the State take care of 
>>>his/her children does nothing for the overall productivity of Australia.

>>How so? It certainly doesn't take anywhere near one full-time child
>>care worker per child, and people have always contributed towards
>>the cost - Howard's just decided that he will slug the battler yet again.

>Nice emotive language but it doesn't cut it Martin.
>I'll explain it slowly.
>Lets start with 2 people and 1 job.
>Thats 2 people, one claiming unemployment benefit, the other a single
>parents benefit.
>Now we will bifurcate.
>
>1) The UB recipient gets the job.
>   The SP recipient still gets SP.
>   The SP recipient provides full childcare at own expense.
>   Net gain in productivity of 1 worker.
>
>2) The SP recipient gets the job.
>   The SP recipient claims childcare from taxpayers.
>   The UB recipient still gets UB
>   Net gain < 1 worker.

No, you said above that this "does _nothing_ for the overall productivity
of Australia". Perhaps you'd care to correct that.

>Point 2 is compounded when the SP recipient takes on a job that
>requires the government to fund more childcare, as the original writer
>does.

No, the original writer was a sole parent who already had a job, was
already paying for childcare and was pointing out that the changes proposed
by the government would leave her another $60 per week worse off. Here, I'll
refresh your memory:

=>Question:  If families who cannot define a pattern of usage or predict
=>their care needs for group payments will be paid reprospectively on
=>production of receipts..... wont that put them at a disadvantage?
=>
=>I quote my own case.
=>I work 3 nights a week, sole parent.
=>One month its Fri/Sat/Sun the next its Sat/Sun/Mon.
=>ok, so thats regular - but I need 2 child care centers - one for nights,
=>and one for days. I still have to pay for the Tuesday day, even during
=>the month I am not using it.
=>
=>What all this means to me, is an increase of in excess of $60 per week,
=>without any additional income to show for it, and the hassle of getting
=>my rebate paid retrospectively should I work 1 or more hours extra.
=>I also have the hassle of trying to explain my hours of work to every
=>person I speak to. 

If you don't think that's slugging the battler, I don't know what is.

>>>We have a staggering number of unemployed people willing to take the
>>>person's place at award pay rates. Sure single parents should expect
>>>some level of support from the community to compensate for the lack of
>>>a partner. This is not carte-blanche to take on any job no matter how much
>>>it costs the taxpayer however.

>>But it's people like you and your Liberal cronies that tell people that
>>they must take on any job that comes up because any job, no matter what
>>the conditions, is better than no job. Have you changed your tune?

>It must be a socialist thing.
>Taking on a job and expecting the taxpayer to pay all the costs involved
>is not what I am on about. When I take on a job I expect to pay any
>expenses involved out of my own pocket. I expect the same of others.

Except for farmers.

>>>Subsidising farmers during times of natural hardship is entirely a
>>>different matter. There are very few people willing to work more than
>>>three times the standard working week for less than average earnings.
>>>There is a noticeable shortage of people with both the skills and the
>>>capital who are willing to risk everything for such a low return.

>>So what? It's a business like any other and they choose to be in it.
>>We've all heard your wheat farm sob stories before, and the song
>>remains the same: you think farmers should be subsidised by the
>>government because you know some farmers that work very hard. 

>Actually you misrepresent my position somewhat.
>I expect farmers in genuine need to be subsidised during times of
>genuine hardship caused by natural or economic disaster. I do not
>expect such assistance to be permanent, or even regular. It is not
>income subsidy but charity in time of need. 

Then how do you explain that farmers can claim up to $45,000 for
chucking it in and leaving the farm to try and get a job in the city?
I'd like to see any other business or individual that gets 'charity in
time of need' like that.

>>Well,
>>there are a hell of a lot of other people in this country that work
>>very hard for not much in wages - most owners of small businesses,
>>for example, but they're building capital instead of drawing a high
>>wage (like some farmers), 

>Thats a personal choice. The Coalition recently allowed business owners
>to reinvest the proceeds of a business sale in another business without
>incurring capital gains tax. Are you going to whinge about that too or
>is it only farmers you are against ?

I'll call them hypocrites over that one as well if it's based on the same
hypocritical reasoning. You're the one claiming that the taxpayer shouldn't
have to fund someone's choice of business or lifestyle.

The new 'assistance' package allows farmers to hand on their farms to
their relatives (up to a value of half a million dollars), and still get
the pension while living on the farm. I don't see how this is the same
as avoiding capital gains tax on the reinvestment of a small business.
Small business owners still don't get the pension if they've got half a
million dollars in assets to pass on to their kids.

>>and I don't see you arguing that they should
>>also be subsidised when business is bad or when they haven't set
>>anything aside for slow periods.

>Chalk and cheese Martin and you know it.

Not at all. I'm just applying your party's economic rationalist thinking
to your own statements, and it doesn't stack up.

>>>What do you suppose would happen if we didn't support farmers during
>>>lean periods, and family farming became extinct in Australia ?

>>Perhaps they should acquire some budget skills and manage their money
>>like anyone else in business. 

>Hmm, like how much they can invest in soil conservation work during
>drought periods and still have enough left to produce next year when the
>rain arrives. Or is it the year after ? Or the one after that ? or
>perhaps they should budget wisely and stuff soil conservation ?

Perhaps they should do both.

>>It's not as though lean times are some
>>sort of freak occurrence. We've been having droughts every few years
>>for decades. Or perhaps (to be fair) we should get them to pay higher
>>taxes when there's a bumper crop?

>Learn a little about the sector Martin.
>1 bumper crop every 7 years is about average. Thats the one that buys
>the farmer new clothes, a "town" car and educates his/her kids.

So we should pay for the luxury of a private education for farmers kids?

>The others _might_ pay maintenance costs.

So you're arguing that we should continue to support inefficient or
unviable businesses in the national interest? Strange as it may seem
to you, I think that is a worthwhile goal in some cases (particularly
food production). It's just that it isn't consistent with your other
rhetoric.

>>>Think of how production costs would rise if we had to pay award wages
>>>and conditions for food production. I used to get paid for 20 hours
>>>when working 12 hour shifts in the steel industry, use that as a starting
>>>point.

>>So? Like I said in the other thread, they should raise their prices,
>>which would be passed on to the consumer with little difference in
>>price, instead of complaining and asking for a handout when they're
>>sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of capital.

>Read the "Howard dons the Akubra" thread Marty and you will see that if
>farmers raised their prices, even marginally, it would be more economic to
>import grain and the whole sector would be wiped out.

No, _you_ think it would be wiped out. You seem to think that if we
pay hidden subsidies and are fooled into thinking we're getting cheap
wheat, it's all OK, but if we remove the hidden subsidies and see the
true price, it'll all go belly-up. So much for the rhetoric of the
economists in your party, eh?

>Think about that when you butter your toast or gobble your pasta.

What? That I'm paying for it twice?

>>>The result would be the total destruction of domestic food production,
>>>all our grain would be imported and none exported. What would that do
>>>to our balance of payments, never mind unrealistically exposing us to
>>>the foreign policy of food producing countries.

>>Rubbish. Either people would be happy to pay, or (as your economic
>>rationalist Liberal friends would say) we'd be rid of inefficient
>>or non-viable businesses.

>I guess thats why we have so few imports and Australian businesses are
>booming hey Martin ? People are so happy to pay more ?
>If people were happy to pay more retailers would charge more.
>Wholesalers would still buy from the cheapest source to make their own
>cut. National interest doesn't get a mention in real life economics.

You're giving it a mention a few lines up. Aren't you arguing that
national interest dictates that we should support non-viable farms?

>>>There is no comparison between hardship subsidies for farmers and
>>>people who think its their right to work regardless of of what they cost
>>>the community.

>>So you've changed your tune from 'people should take ANY job", eh?

>No, I just expect them to carry the cost instead of passing it on to me.

Except for farmers.

[...]

>>>People who choose to have children also choose to look after them.
>>>If they want to work at something else too, let them make their own
>>>arrangements. Sometimes its viable, sometimes its not. Thats life.

>>Like I said before, why don't you apply the same reasoning to farmers?

>I do. Farmers who want subsidies for everyday running expenses should be
>told to go jump. Those who need hardship relief during times of natural
>disaster should be helped out. The alternative is we all starve together.

So a natural disaster is when a farmer decides to permanently leave the
farm for the city, and puts his hand out for up to $45,000?

>>Is it because they're some sort of special group that is more deserving
>>because you happen to have some first-hand experience of their business?
>>The 'deserving poor' vs. the 'undeserving poor', eh?

>You might notice that I was very vocal in arranging relief for the
>people of North Korea who's farmers were also caught out by natural
>disasters. There is a well known adage that charity begins at home.
>Whos the hypocritical one with "deserving" and "undeserving" poor now ?

It's still you. Just because you can find one example that is
consistent with your view on farmers doesn't change the other examples
that aren't. This is all quite interesting, because I support the idea
that we should help out farmers in need. I also think we should also help
out others in need, instead of making pontifications about 'lifestyle
choices'. I'm just amazed at your lack of consistency when applying
these sweeping generalisations to farmers. If running a farm isn't a
lifestyle choice (and quite a good one, IMO), I don't know what is.

Cheers,
Marty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gleeson                <URL:http://www.unimelb.edu.au/%7Egleeson/>
Webmaster, The University of Melbourne.       ** Personal opinion only **
    Imagine, if you will, a world without hypothetical situations...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------