by Andrew Mackinnon
Thanks a lot for reminding me of the machinations of the Labor Party. Since I share your contempt for the Labor Party and since this website posts comments made in good faith without censoring them like the mainstream media, it’s my great pleasure to share my perspective on your comment.
The Labor Party is enthusiastic about progressive income taxation when a flat rate of 20% on all income above the tax free threshold is what would be fair. Who wants to work more than one day out of five to support the needs of the nation via taxation? It’s not necessary.
(What is the purpose of progressive income taxation? It’s to maximise income taxation revenue. Why? The official reason is so that the money can be given to those with less via old age pensions and unemployment benefits (ie. Newstart). However, this can’t be the real reason because the old age pension in Australia is barely adequate and Newstart allowance is much less than adequate. So, what’s the real reason? It’s to fund government spending that funnels super profits to the private entities that the government pays to deliver its projects. An example is $50 billion to French entities for submarines. A huge percentage of that figure is gratuitous super profit – money for nothing. That super profit is paid for out of the income taxes of Australian citizens.
If the government doesn’t have enough income tax revenue to fund largesse like this, it doesn’t let that stop it from pursuing this scam that transfers wealth out of the public purse to private entities. It borrows money by issuing government bonds in order to fund its spending on projects so that the private entities delivering the project can receive their super profits and thereby increases this transfer of wealth. Now, taxpayers are not only on the hook for repaying the cost of the project out of future income taxes to the bondholders who lent the money to the government, they’re on the hook for paying the bondholders a yield of something like 5% per annum on the money that the bondholders have lent to the government. The government’s enthusiasm for increasing debt by issuing bonds is deliberate. Wealthy entities are keen to earn a guaranteed 5% yield on their wealth by lending to the government and the government is keen to make it happen by borrowing (for projects that transfer super profits to the private entities delivering the projects) because the government has been hijacked by traitors who are committed to making this transfer of wealth from the public to the private purse happen.
I know that the Liberal Party is famous for this financially traitorous behaviour and that the Liberal Party is responsible for the example above of $50 billion for submarines, however, the Labor Party does this also. The same principle applies.)
The Labor Party introduced capital gains tax in the 1980s which should be abolished. Capital gains tax is in direct opposition to property rights. If somebody saves up some money and then invests it in shares (or anything for that matter), they quite obviously don’t have full property rights to it because if they later sell it for more than they paid for it, the government wants a cut of the gain via capital gains tax. If they had full property rights to it, they could sell it and keep the full amount they receive for it without paying any capital gains tax.
The Labor Party introduced compulsory superannuation in the 1990s, which has resulted in a significant percentage (eg. 9.5/109.5 x 100% = 8.7%) of citizens income being compulsorily confiscated week after week after week. Employers don’t pay employees superannuation as a gift. Employees earn it via their work. The fact that employees endure this loss of what is their property – income that they’ve worked for, is more evidence of the Labor Party’s animosity and hostility towards property rights. Such hostility towards property rights is one of the ten planks of communism. Property rights is a biblical concept and is a foundation stone of western societies.
Regarding taking over private land like farming land, I have negligible expertise regarding agriculture, however my guess is that Labor’s enthusiasm for “vegetation management” laws is all about its animosity towards Anglo-Saxon farmers. My guess is that it’s not that Labor isn’t interested in agriculture. I think the problem for Australia is that Labor is hostile towards farmers of Anglo-Saxon ancestry – likewise the Liberal Party. My guess is that it intends to drive Anglo-Saxon farmers out of business via vegetation management laws so that it can obtain their land and then sell the land to China so that the Chinese can farm it. Why China? Because that’s who the Australian government has been selling a lot of land to. Why China? Because communism in China was establish by Jews – it’s not common knowledge, just like communism in Russia was established by Jews – also not common knowledge. With the United States and Australia both similarly under the thumb of Jewish rule, who has their manufacturing, land and who knows what else been sold out to? China.
Regarding “name-calling/race-baiting to create class warfare”, the Labor Party killed meritocracy in the 1980s and 1990s by instigating class warfare. It demonised skilled and wealthy people as privileged and generated a huge amount of animosity towards skilled and wealthy people via class warfare by creating suspicion that the motives of such people are highly suspect and not geared towards the betterment of society. This had a hugely discouraging influence on my generation which was growing up out of its teenage years during that time. The Labor Party is possibly solely responsible for the influential cultural phenomenon of anti-intellectualism in Australia which has had a hugely destructive effect on this country. It is only in the last five years or so that culture in Australia has escaped the clutches of anti-intellectualism.
The Labor Party wants as many Muslims in Australia as possible because it hates the Christian heritage of this nation and wants to erode it by importing people who have no regard for it and who are hostile towards it. (Ditto the Liberal Party.) This is a complicated situation, because the government led Australia into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 and earlier, in which multiple hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have been murdered for no justifiable reason. Thanks to our government, Australia has blood on its hands, so the challenge of resisting immigration of Muslims to this country from Iraq and Afghanistan (and Syria) is a complicated one. Compassion is definitely needed. As for resisting immigration of Muslims to Australia from other countries, I’m all for it.
If I had my way, I would stop immigration and restrict it to people who have a genuine need (ie. refugees) and to people who can speak English. Furthermore, I would ban immigration from Asian, African and Muslim countries, including, particularly, India and China, based on race. These people are not our people – Anglo-Saxons. They have their own countries and it’s up to them to improve them and make them livable. Australia is a country of Anglo-Saxon people. The only reason the immigration door was opened en masse in the first place was because the United States wronged Vietnam in the war and paved the way for immigration from Vietnam to Australia based on compassion. This same strategy of messing another country up to pave the way for immigration of its inhabitants to western countries like Australia was used in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. World War II was also deliberately used to facilitate mass immigration of people from non-English speaking countries to English speaking western countries like Australia. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, World War II. It’s pretty obvious that one of the primary purposes of war is to facilitate immigration based on compassion. This is a sinister strategy because, once the damage is done via war, the compassion is warranted.
If I had my way, I would also deport non-citizens in Australia who have no compelling reason to be here or become citizens. We need to reduce the population in Australia by ethical means so that there is more land available for Australian citizens. More land per citizen means more land to grow food, more land for wood for construction and more land for minerals for the manufacture of steel and other materials.
If other countries like China and India want to grow their populations explosively so that the majority is dirt poor, that’s their business and their responsibility. It’s not my business and it’s not my responsibility. Intelligent people pursue a better quality of life in an ethical manner. A principal means of achieving this objective in Australia is decreasing the population density in an ethical manner – the number of citizens per square kilometre.
One quarter acre blocks (ie. 1,000 square metres) for families of Australian citizens to live on are not large enough. We need 1,500 square metre blocks. I grew up on a quarter acre block and it wasn’t large enough.
The university academics will howl in protest at ideas like the ones I’m expressing. If they want to live on 500 square metre blocks, they’re welcome to it. I respect their desire to live scrappy lives. They should respect my desire to follow my God-given instincts and pursue a better life.
The only way to achieve a better life for Australian citizens is to reduce the population of Australia in an ethical manner. This means stopping immigration, restricting it to people who have a genuine need (ie. refugees) and deporting non-citizens who have no compelling reason to be here or become citizens.
The benefits of this reduction will be reduced congestion, lower house and land prices, lower unemployment, greater wealth per citizen and greater social cohesion, as a result of having more physical space in which to gather together and socialise with fellow citizens.
The traitors in our government and in our public service (eg. Department of Immigration) cannot withstand uncensored discussion of their machinations.