I am in total agreement with this, and would happily pay my share. However my
(rather off the birding topic!) comment is that the politics/taxation nexus in
Australia does not work in a way to make such a proposal realistic. Levies
like Medicare and the Gun Levy came about without specific questioning of the
electorate because the Governments of the day perceived them as being in their
interest. Conservation issues are not in the same league when it comes to
Government interest. It sounds cynical, but in the last twenty years
successive Australian Governments have found that cutting taxes is the surest
way to re-win office ? which naturally remains the highest priority in all
their policies. More recently we have even seen that they perceive advantage
in keeping the majority of the population relatively(!) poor, as clearly
evidenced by the biased tax-cuts offered in compensation for the GST, as well
as by other measures. This ensures that the majority will vote for a party
that offers them an immediate lifeline of further tax cuts, and cannot afford
to consider the longer-term merits of policies providing societal benefits
arguably greater than the costs in increased taxation. The results are there
for all to see: a widening gap between the rich and the rest, rapidly declining
health services, plunging quality in education, neglected servicing of National
Parks and the rest. It is hard to see where the spiral will end. Any
politician with the idealism to want to see its end certainly has the dice of
the system loaded against him (or her).
But back to birding.
We are off to Newcastle again at the weekend, in pursuit of these hundreds of
self-concealing waders! Where do I look for White-winged Black Terns?
John Clifton-Everest
Bill Stent wrote:
> > What I would like to hear from Birding -Aus'ers is: would you be
> > prepared to pay a levy through the taxation system, along the lines of
> > the Medicare levy, to assist farmers and graziers to manage a
> > significant part of their properties for conservation purposes? How does
> > an extra 0.5 % sound?
>
> Done! I'd be happy to double it to 1%. Australians have got this idea that
> they're always being over taxed, resulting in governments cutting funding to
> social programs, health, welfare, etc., etc. This includes conservation,
> both preventive and remedial.
>
> Look at other countries, particularly European countries, and see how much
> tax they pay. I'm proud to pay my taxes, and I'd be proud to pay more
> because it's the way the better off can help the less so. Not such a
> strange point of view from an economist.
>
> The view that people have in Australia is that we live in an "economy" -
> made up of individuals all competing against eachother. Societal goals have
> to be costed, prioritised, and squeezed in along with all the other
> programs. We should see ourselves as a "society" - a group of people, not
> necessarily with common overall aims, but all living together. With this in
> mind we then look at what we have to do in order to achieve those societal
> aims. And if this involves sacrificing a percentage point off the (all
> important) GDP growth rate to get a better society then so be it.
>
> As soon as a politician comes along that says this sort of thing, then she
> or he has my vote! However, I'm not holding my breath...
>
> Sorry to be off topic.
>
> ---------------
> Bill Stent
> Quality Controller
> IBIS Business Information Limited
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
>
> Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus"
> in the message body (without the quotes)
--
Associate Professor John M. Clifton-Everest
Department of Germanic Studies
University of Sydney
(61) (2) 9351 2262
Fax (61) (2) 9351 5318
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus"
in the message body (without the quotes)
|
