Aielyn said:
1. So what you're saying is that the housing issue wasn't an issue at all in Australia. Which doesn't challenge what I said, that the GFC outside of America wasn't due to local housing bubbles, but because the rest of the world uses the US dollar as the international currency, and because American banks are so tied to other banks. So when America's financial system melted down, it took the rest of the world with it. But Australia still managed to survive it without going into recession. 2. Not sure what you're trying to say, here, but there's absolutely no doubt that the reason for the change in trend in terms of inequality is that our Labor government (Labor is the Australian equivalent of the Democrats) instituted changes that helped to reduce inequality. The American downturn was due to the GFC. Remember, the GFC didn't drive Australia into a recession, so its impact was muted over here. 3. I meant instability of growth - more likelihood of growth going negative. As I pointed out, Australia didn't go into recession, despite higher taxes for the rich (and lower for the poor). What kept Australia from recession, really, was that the government acted swiftly with a stimulus package designed to simultaneously benefit the country in terms of things that we need and the creation of jobs to provide them. The money was spent on schools, on hospitals, on roads, and on providing subsidies for ceiling insulation and solar hot water systems (thereby reducing energy costs). They also provided financial benefits to low- and middle-income families, to students, and to farmers and farming-based small businesses. The result was lower inequality and the prevention of a recession. 4. I have the same problem with the European Union as I do with the United States. If your country is too large to manage well, maybe you should consider separating into multiple smaller countries. And curriculums shouldn't interfere with making sure that minorities are brought up to speed - you just incorporate things into the curriculum to ensure that it's all covered. Although I must ask why a "racial minority" wouldn't be able to succeed in any particular class. Also note that Australia has more ethnic diversity than America, and our education system doesn't really harm any particular "minority". 5. The reason why the US dominates so much in journals is that you're 15 times the population of Australia. China, of course, is catching up as it modernises, because they've got a massive population base... but until relatively recently, science wasn't big in China. And "free college for all" isn't what I'm referring to. It's "free college to anyone who satisfies entry requirements". Here in Australia, what happens is that the number of available places in a particular course is set, and then those places are filled in order of achievement - that is, how well you did at school (or equivalent, if mature-aged). So the cost doesn't blow out, and the value of the degree doesn't get depressed. We also have what is called a TAFE system ("Technical And Further Education"), in parallel with universities, but focusing on the less intellectual pursuits - so you go to TAFE if you want to, for instance, be a mechanic. 6. Shrinking doesn't fix it, that's the problem. If you want to fix it, you should start by simplifying it - get rid of all of those stupid patches that were put on the system, and instead spend the time closing the loopholes properly. Loopholes, by the way, in both directions - both tax loopholes and spending loopholes. And as I pointed out, the biggest problem is that you have a system that works on a two-party basis, which has produced a duopoly. Here in Australia, while it is true that we have two (technically three, but two are in an official coalition) major parties, we also have rather powerful minor parties and independents, who currently hold the balance of power in both our House of Representatives and our Senate. It forces the major parties to be a lot less self-interested. Here's a description of a simple blueprint for fixing America's system: 1) Change your electoral system from first-past-the-post to preferential, and eliminate the "electoral college" system. This will enable a thriving ecosystem of parties, rather than just Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps consider making attendance for voting mandatory (actually voting wouldn't be necessary, as long as you show up (or equivalent - postal/early attendance is fine) - people are more likely to get involved and actually vote if they have to attend anyway). There are other things I'd do, but they're a lot more focused on my opinion rather than objective observation compared with what I've listed above. For instance, I'd nationalise the sales tax system - it's absurd that each state sets its own sales tax, nowadays (thanks to the internet, etc). I mean, my ultimate belief is that a sales tax shouldn't be necessary to begin with, but at the very least, it should be standardised, in my opinion. But it's not a necessity for fixing the system itself. killerzX - not sure what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that because she identifies with Cherokee Indians, she is therefore not making a valid argument on taxation? You can think what you want of her regarding that issue, but it has no bearings on the validity of her argument regarding fair taxation and the comment she made. |
1) There were housing bubbles pretty much everyhwere though... and signs of it failing in other countries well before the GFC.
2) I'm all for closing loopholes.... and millionaires do pay more in taxes then the middle class. The only people who don't are those very few who aren't taxed almost exclusivly on the income tax, but the capital gains tax...(The amount of people like this are like maybe 400.) Which Austrlia has at a lower price then regular taxation as well.
Also worth noting... your exmeptions for the poor are actually lower and when you account for the breaks. USD/AUS is about equal. Thing is, your 0% Tax Bracket at 5,000. Our 10% bracket ends at 17,000. Our 15% bracket ends at 69,000 vs yours ends at 37,000. It's not just the rich who have a lower tax bracket then Austrlia.
3) Except... it wasn't. Austrlia didn't put those measures in, and they didn't apply until well after they should of felt effects and didn't. Austrlia didn't have issues because they were tied strongly to nin Japanese asia and deal in commoddities.
4) I wouldn't disagree with any of that... outside arugeably the national curriculum due to educational inequality worries.
5) Funny thing is... a lot of Canadians disagree. Also the US government doesn't run their healthcare much differently from the canadian system that i can see.
