James Baker says: Sure, the tax cuts would just kill government revenue, leading to a reduction in government services, leading to a higher financial burden on the people, either through higher costs of living or through tax hikes to compensate or a reduction in taxes in these areas. For what? Tax rates aren't why we don't have a manufacturing base, so lowering them won't bring manufacturing back, nor would they have any real impact on the agriculture sector nor telecommunications/transportation. Corporations have already admitted the planned tax cuts won't go into hiring more people. There's also no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Australia already has trade deals with many of these countries, though they use the British East india as an example, ignoring they pretty much used either slaves outright or indentured servitude, not exactly a fruitful exercise in the modern world. On top of that, it still resulted in concentration of wealth at the top.
Their solution to unemployment is to give them a loan, as though that will give them a job. This does nothing to address the lack of jobs, particularly jobs that provide a living wage (as opposed to one that just puts them into poverty). More people with more money from stable long term jobs that pay above poverty rates is what will boost our economy and this does nothing to address that (nor do any of the other policies).
This is a borderline libertarian policy and reads like it came from the IPA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U made some good points. But here are the counter argument
[Sure, the tax cuts would just kill government revenue, leading to a reduction in government services, leading to a higher financial burden on the people, either through higher costs of living or through tax hikes to compensate or a reduction in taxes in these areas. For what? ]
High tax rate is good for the short run, but bad for the long run. Low tax rate is bad for the short run, but good for the long run. Think of it this way, if people get wealthier, wouldn't it mean, the government become wealthier also? For example, if the tax rate is 50%, a business that make $100 in profit, need to pay $50 in tax, leaving him only $50 to use for his business. But if the tax rate is 10%, that same business that make $100 in profit, need only pay %10 in tax, leaving him only $90 to use for his business. It allow him to better strengthen and expend his business. Also, as a small business owner, I know the important of having financial reserves, for your business. When you are running a business shit happens, in some years, we might even be lossing money, having more finance, allow those business to survive such recession. So, low tax rate, allow business to strengthen during era of better finance and allow them to have a better chance to survive a recession. That is why, most countries, keep tax rate, as low as possible. With the recession economy today, businesses are all trying to do more with less and it is much harder to try to make a business work, with very little money, then with lots of money. For example, image trying to keep a business alive, when the tax rate is 100% percent.
Thus, decrease tax rate is bad for the short run, as it lead to decrease in tax revenue, but it is good for the long run, as it help to strengthen businesses or help them to better survive a recession, thus, help avoid a decrease in job rate and regain the tax revenue, intitally lost, due to tax decrease.
Increase tax rate, is good for the short run, but bad for the long run. It allow government, to provide more services or to maintain the level of service, they currently have, but, it leads to, heavier burden on businesses, with lesser money, it make it harder for businesses to grow stronger and make it harder for them to survive a recession, thus, they are less likely to create more jobs and more likely to do cut back or fail. Which is exactly what is happening in Australia right now. Australia did survive the global economic crisis, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, it is when Juliet Gillard started introducing the carbon tax, where things start going bad and since then, there was continue of increase tax rate, to maintain government service, but sucking businesses dry, resulting in a lack of resource, leading to business cut back, leading to lost of jobs and leading to lack of B2B trade, which further lead to cut back and lost of jobs, leading to people making cut back, leading to fewer B2P revenue and so on.
in regards to the fact that it would kill government revenue, it would for certain be an issue in the short run and could lead to reduce in government service in the short run. This is why, there is a limitation of how much tax cut, can afford to be given and such tax cut must be strategically given in an arena that would provide long term, positive return, for example, I would not recommend giving this tax cut to the mining industry, due to, the industry is currently dying, due to Ausstralia running low on coal and countries such as China, are now mining their own resources. (in fact I have spoken to number of homeless people, many of them are miners, which never thought they would get laid off and are not prepared for it.) The manufacturing and agriculture industry on the other hand proven to be promising.
As a result, it is also not recommended for transportation, manufacturing and agriculture tax cut, to all take place within a period of a year, instead, over a period of time e.g. 3 years~ 5 years. Thus e.g. By 1st year give tax cut to transportation, by 3rd year give tax cut to agriculture too, by 5th year give tax cut to manufacturing too or 1st year give tax cut to transportation too, by 2nd year give tax cut to agriculture too and by 3rd year give tax cut to manufacturing too.
As for the fear of compensating for the lack of revenue, the government can substitute it for decrease in wasteful spending. For example, stop providing churches with millions of dollars per year, could save down much money. Replace unemployment benefit with unemployment loan can also saved down some money, due to people now need to repay the government for the money. As for [leading to a higher financial burden on the people, either through higher costs of living or through tax hikes to compensate or a reduction in taxes in these areas] giving people "higher financial burden through higher cost of living or through tax hikes, to compensate or a reduction in taxes in these area" might not be necessary and if it is not necessary, don't do it. In addition, part of those compensation tax can be taken from industry we don't want or need and can do better without, for example adding tax to the cigarette industry and gambling industry. In addition the point of strategically tax decrease's point also is, to cut as many tax as possible, without having to rise tax in other arena or only rise tax in arena, we don't want or need (e.g. cigarette industry and gambling industry.)
[Tax rates aren't why we don't have a manufacturing base, so lowering them won't bring manufacturing back, nor would they have any real impact on the agriculture sector nor telecommunications/transportation. Corporations have already admitted the planned tax cuts won't go into hiring more people. There's also no evidence to suggest otherwise.]
Lowering tax could help to bring some manufacturing back. This has been evidence in the US, where, when Donald Trump increase import tax on foreign manufacture good, has led, many US company, decide to take some of its manufacturing back into US, due to it is cheaper. The same principle, decrease manufacturing cost in Australia, would also mean, some manufacturing, would become cheaper in Australia, then oversea, thus, encourage foreign and domestic manufacturing back into Australia.
As for transportation industry, it is about trying to get the transportation industry into a price war. We see it between Colse and Woolworth all the time, where both company try to lower their prices as much as possible, to win over customer, from the other. The whole purpose of transportation tax decrease, is to try encourage the transportation companies to lower their prices, to beat the other in a price war. After tax cut, they would have more profit after tax, allowing them, to decrease their price further, in a price war. This price cut, would not necessary benefit the transporation industry, but it would benefit all other industry, that have transportation need.
Usually, the best way of reviving a bad economy, is through infastructure, but that is only if, the infastructure created, is able to have lasting positive effect. Wrong infastructure would be counter productive. While our Grand parent's generation (WW2 gen) have the intelligent to know the right infastructure to make, their children's generation the baby boomers, has proven themself, not competent in leadership role, due to this generation got an unusually high ratio of over arrogant people, as a result, they are less likely to listen to expert advice and more likely to under estimate the difficulty of the situation, leading to bad decisions. Our generation, knows better to make that same mistake our parents make, but, it does not necessary mean, we have the same level of intelligence to our grand parent's generation, and the next best thing, to spending money in infastructure development, to revive economy, is to give as much strategic tax cut, we can afford to give, in arenas that would benefit the country in the long run, without increasing tax rate in other arena, (except industry that we don't want and need, such as gambling industry and cigarate industry)
In regards to agriculture industry, Australia has traditionally proven to be a strong agriculture industry nation, in recent years, this industry suffered, due to focus on mining industry. Now, this mining industry is dying, but the agriculture industry has proven to be promising. What we want is to strengthen this industry, by allowing them to have more money, just like how Australia use to give money to the mining industry. However, in Australia current cripple economic state, Australia cannot afford to give too much money to the agriculture industry, this is especially consider some businesses fail, due to its own ill policy, funding should be given to businesses that is proven promising to succeed, but how are we suppose to know which business would succeed? Thus, the next best thing, is to give tax cut. Therefore, Australia won't be wasting tax payer money, funding fail businesses and the other businesses can better servive recession and/or to grow strong.
Of course, agriculture industry might instead of having more money, thus, growing stronger or better survive a recession, it is also possible they enter a price war instead, but, if they enter a price war, it helps to lower the cost of food, thus, a win for the Australia consumers, also. Thus, either way, people win.
[Australia already has trade deals with many of these countries, though they use the British East india as an example, ignoring they pretty much used either slaves outright or indentured servitude, not exactly a fruitful exercise in the modern world. On top of that, it still resulted in concentration of wealth at the top.]
The problem with British East India is that, they don't really have much understanding towards trade. After the fall of Roman Empire and rise of Christianity, most knwoledge of the western world is lost, this is due to according to the teaching of the bible education is a sin, as the bible claim everything not from Christ to be demonic things from Satan. After the Age of Enlightenment, the western world regain much of the knowledge, but many of those knowledge are passed to the west from either the Arabs or Asians, rather then original research (at least within the 1st 100 years of age of enlightenment) for example modern western medicine, are in fact, Arabic medicine and the Arabic world remain as the leader of this school of medicine till the fall of Ottoman Empire in 1919. Traditional international trade company, focus is usually with small businesses. For example, in 17th century China, the only big businesses was professional international trade company, agriculture and manufacturing are all small businesses. What happen is that these international trade company know the international demand and the demand of each region of China. What these traders do, is to fulfil the demand, they search for Chinese agriculture and manufacturing small businesses that make the product, the small businesses sign a contract with these trader big businesses, where they sell goods to these big businesses and then, the traders sell the goods to other countries. For example, during the 17th and 18th century, China was the international largest supplier of china, tea, sugar and medicine. The Arabs use to do the exact same thing, their traders via road and via sea, do the exact same thing as the Chinese.
It is this sort of trade company that is ideal for Australia to model after. For example, India and Australia trade co-operation, India is highly over populated and cannot produce enough food, Australia on the other hand produce lots of food, thus, can fulfil at least some of that India demand, India due to much cheap labor cost, can help produce cheap labor goods, such as clothing, which Australia need, due to its insane cost of living. So, Australia India trade co-operation, a company co created by Australia and India government can purchase huge quantity of Australia agriculture goods, to be sold in India and purchase huge quantity of India cheap labor goods e.g. clothing, to be sold in Australia.
Take a further example, Australia Taiwan Trade Co-operation and Australia Japan Trade Co-operation, Australia is in need of much more hospital care than it can afford to give right now, frequently, not even enough hospital bed and for some reason, this seem to be a problem nearly every western countries are facing today. On the other hand, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea's health care has proven to be better then Australia and most western countries, but is only at a fraction of the price, to western nations. While many western people believe, the western world is still the leader in western medicine (the political correct term should be "Arabic medicine"), in reality, these three countries has already surpassed the west. This is due to unlike the west that only got western medicine, Asia got both western and eastern medicine. Eastern medicine is just as good as western medicine, although both school of medicine have its strength and weaknesses (for example, a while ago, I got months of pain in my feet, I went to number of western medicine doctors, but they can't figure what is going on, I went to an Eastern medicine doctor, after only 2 weeks, my feet is fine. But in arenas such as optometry, eastern medicine is hopeless and I only trust western medicine for it.) After mastering western medicine, the Japanese, Taiwanese and South Koreans, combined these 2 school of medicine to compensate each other, in term of both medicine treatment and medical research. The end result, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, is still the leader in Eastern medicine and they have also replace the west, as the leader of western medicine. For example a few years ago, there was a massive explosion in Taiwan, during the opening of a theme park, leaving up to hundred injured (and not just explosion, it was a special effect instrument malfunction resulting in further complication e.g. buring toxic absorb into victim's lungs, resulting in the lungs been cooked, while inside their body.) Base on the experience of western hospitals, most western medical associations, estimate up to 50% of the injured victim would die, base on their cost and medical skills, but in Taiwan, 100% of the injured victim, made a full recovery within 6 months, something that surprised every western nations.
For the past 10 years, one of Taiwan and Japan's export involve allowing foreigners (including westerners) to come to their country, to recieve medical treatments, due to having way more hospital beds and supply then needed, thus, they can provide many foreigners with world class treatment, at a price a fraction to their nations and make a lot of money, as a result
On the other hand, Australia own lots of foreign debt, up to 20% is own to China. But China themselves own a great deal of foreign debt, they own Taiwan and Japan, more foreign debt, above all other nations. The Taiwanese and Japanese are currently very angry at China, because the Chinese are not repaying the foreign debt they own to their nation, but the Chinese some how, is still borrowing money to Australia, US and some other nations, while owning Taiwan and Japan a truck load of foreign debt.
So, image this, Australia Taiwan Trade Co-operation and Australia Japan Trade Co-operation, working with Australia, Japan and Taiwan hospital, to let Taiwan and Japan, to take on cases Australia is not able to resolve and to help relieve some of Australia's over burden hospital system, the Japanese and Taiwanese can make a lot of money, from Australians going there to recieve medical care. In exchange, the Taiwanese and Japanese government can purchase some of the foreign debt Australia own to China. As a result, it would be, as if, China repay Taiwan and Japan, for those money, China own to them and Australia would own a bit lesser foreign debt.
[Their solution to unemployment is to give them a loan, as though that will give them a job. This does nothing to address the lack of jobs, particularly jobs that provide a living wage]
This policy is not about giving them loan, but replacing unemployment benefit with unemployment loan.
Currently, Australia provide unemployment benefit to those who are looking for a job, but don't have a job, some, might be unemploy for years. Unemployment benefit is basically, the government giving these people money, as a gift. But, by Australia's current economically fragille state, it cannot afford to give away much money as gift. So, if we replace unemployment benefit, with unemployment loan, what that mean is, these people after getting a job, still need to repay the government, for the money they own.
It is more affordable for the government, to borrow unemploy people money and have them repay the government, when they get a job (kind of like university student loan from government), then for the government, to give unemploy people money as a gift, which is what the government is currecntly doing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U made some good points. But here are the counter argument
[Sure, the tax cuts would just kill government revenue, leading to a reduction in government services, leading to a higher financial burden on the people, either through higher costs of living or through tax hikes to compensate or a reduction in taxes in these areas. For what? ]
High tax rate is good for the short run, but bad for the long run. Low tax rate is bad for the short run, but good for the long run. Think of it this way, if people get wealthier, wouldn't it mean, the government become wealthier also? For example, if the tax rate is 50%, a business that make $100 in profit, need to pay $50 in tax, leaving him only $50 to use for his business. But if the tax rate is 10%, that same business that make $100 in profit, need only pay %10 in tax, leaving him only $90 to use for his business. It allow him to better strengthen and expend his business. Also, as a small business owner, I know the important of having financial reserves, for your business. When you are running a business shit happens, in some years, we might even be lossing money, having more finance, allow those business to survive such recession. So, low tax rate, allow business to strengthen during era of better finance and allow them to have a better chance to survive a recession. That is why, most countries, keep tax rate, as low as possible. With the recession economy today, businesses are all trying to do more with less and it is much harder to try to make a business work, with very little money, then with lots of money. For example, image trying to keep a business alive, when the tax rate is 100% percent.
Thus, decrease tax rate is bad for the short run, as it lead to decrease in tax revenue, but it is good for the long run, as it help to strengthen businesses or help them to better survive a recession, thus, help avoid a decrease in job rate and regain the tax revenue, intitally lost, due to tax decrease.
Increase tax rate, is good for the short run, but bad for the long run. It allow government, to provide more services or to maintain the level of service, they currently have, but, it leads to, heavier burden on businesses, with lesser money, it make it harder for businesses to grow stronger and make it harder for them to survive a recession, thus, they are less likely to create more jobs and more likely to do cut back or fail. Which is exactly what is happening in Australia right now. Australia did survive the global economic crisis, under the leadership of Kevin Rudd, it is when Juliet Gillard started introducing the carbon tax, where things start going bad and since then, there was continue of increase tax rate, to maintain government service, but sucking businesses dry, resulting in a lack of resource, leading to business cut back, leading to lost of jobs and leading to lack of B2B trade, which further lead to cut back and lost of jobs, leading to people making cut back, leading to fewer B2P revenue and so on.
in regards to the fact that it would kill government revenue, it would for certain be an issue in the short run and could lead to reduce in government service in the short run. This is why, there is a limitation of how much tax cut, can afford to be given and such tax cut must be strategically given in an arena that would provide long term, positive return, for example, I would not recommend giving this tax cut to the mining industry, due to, the industry is currently dying, due to Ausstralia running low on coal and countries such as China, are now mining their own resources. (in fact I have spoken to number of homeless people, many of them are miners, which never thought they would get laid off and are not prepared for it.) The manufacturing and agriculture industry on the other hand proven to be promising.
As a result, it is also not recommended for transportation, manufacturing and agriculture tax cut, to all take place within a period of a year, instead, over a period of time e.g. 3 years~ 5 years. Thus e.g. By 1st year give tax cut to transportation, by 3rd year give tax cut to agriculture too, by 5th year give tax cut to manufacturing too or 1st year give tax cut to transportation too, by 2nd year give tax cut to agriculture too and by 3rd year give tax cut to manufacturing too.
As for the fear of compensating for the lack of revenue, the government can substitute it for decrease in wasteful spending. For example, stop providing churches with millions of dollars per year, could save down much money. Replace unemployment benefit with unemployment loan can also saved down some money, due to people now need to repay the government for the money. As for [leading to a higher financial burden on the people, either through higher costs of living or through tax hikes to compensate or a reduction in taxes in these areas] giving people "higher financial burden through higher cost of living or through tax hikes, to compensate or a reduction in taxes in these area" might not be necessary and if it is not necessary, don't do it. In addition, part of those compensation tax can be taken from industry we don't want or need and can do better without, for example adding tax to the cigarette industry and gambling industry. In addition the point of strategically tax decrease's point also is, to cut as many tax as possible, without having to rise tax in other arena or only rise tax in arena, we don't want or need (e.g. cigarette industry and gambling industry.)
[Tax rates aren't why we don't have a manufacturing base, so lowering them won't bring manufacturing back, nor would they have any real impact on the agriculture sector nor telecommunications/transportation. Corporations have already admitted the planned tax cuts won't go into hiring more people. There's also no evidence to suggest otherwise.]
Lowering tax could help to bring some manufacturing back. This has been evidence in the US, where, when Donald Trump increase import tax on foreign manufacture good, has led, many US company, decide to take some of its manufacturing back into US, due to it is cheaper. The same principle, decrease manufacturing cost in Australia, would also mean, some manufacturing, would become cheaper in Australia, then oversea, thus, encourage foreign and domestic manufacturing back into Australia.
As for transportation industry, it is about trying to get the transportation industry into a price war. We see it between Colse and Woolworth all the time, where both company try to lower their prices as much as possible, to win over customer, from the other. The whole purpose of transportation tax decrease, is to try encourage the transportation companies to lower their prices, to beat the other in a price war. After tax cut, they would have more profit after tax, allowing them, to decrease their price further, in a price war. This price cut, would not necessary benefit the transporation industry, but it would benefit all other industry, that have transportation need.
Usually, the best way of reviving a bad economy, is through infastructure, but that is only if, the infastructure created, is able to have lasting positive effect. Wrong infastructure would be counter productive. While our Grand parent's generation (WW2 gen) have the intelligent to know the right infastructure to make, their children's generation the baby boomers, has proven themself, not competent in leadership role, due to this generation got an unusually high ratio of over arrogant people, as a result, they are less likely to listen to expert advice and more likely to under estimate the difficulty of the situation, leading to bad decisions. Our generation, knows better to make that same mistake our parents make, but, it does not necessary mean, we have the same level of intelligence to our grand parent's generation, and the next best thing, to spending money in infastructure development, to revive economy, is to give as much strategic tax cut, we can afford to give, in arenas that would benefit the country in the long run, without increasing tax rate in other arena, (except industry that we don't want and need, such as gambling industry and cigarate industry)
In regards to agriculture industry, Australia has traditionally proven to be a strong agriculture industry nation, in recent years, this industry suffered, due to focus on mining industry. Now, this mining industry is dying, but the agriculture industry has proven to be promising. What we want is to strengthen this industry, by allowing them to have more money, just like how Australia use to give money to the mining industry. However, in Australia current cripple economic state, Australia cannot afford to give too much money to the agriculture industry, this is especially consider some businesses fail, due to its own ill policy, funding should be given to businesses that is proven promising to succeed, but how are we suppose to know which business would succeed? Thus, the next best thing, is to give tax cut. Therefore, Australia won't be wasting tax payer money, funding fail businesses and the other businesses can better servive recession and/or to grow strong.
Of course, agriculture industry might instead of having more money, thus, growing stronger or better survive a recession, it is also possible they enter a price war instead, but, if they enter a price war, it helps to lower the cost of food, thus, a win for the Australia consumers, also. Thus, either way, people win.
[Australia already has trade deals with many of these countries, though they use the British East india as an example, ignoring they pretty much used either slaves outright or indentured servitude, not exactly a fruitful exercise in the modern world. On top of that, it still resulted in concentration of wealth at the top.]
The problem with British East India is that, they don't really have much understanding towards trade. After the fall of Roman Empire and rise of Christianity, most knwoledge of the western world is lost, this is due to according to the teaching of the bible education is a sin, as the bible claim everything not from Christ to be demonic things from Satan. After the Age of Enlightenment, the western world regain much of the knowledge, but many of those knowledge are passed to the west from either the Arabs or Asians, rather then original research (at least within the 1st 100 years of age of enlightenment) for example modern western medicine, are in fact, Arabic medicine and the Arabic world remain as the leader of this school of medicine till the fall of Ottoman Empire in 1919. Traditional international trade company, focus is usually with small businesses. For example, in 17th century China, the only big businesses was professional international trade company, agriculture and manufacturing are all small businesses. What happen is that these international trade company know the international demand and the demand of each region of China. What these traders do, is to fulfil the demand, they search for Chinese agriculture and manufacturing small businesses that make the product, the small businesses sign a contract with these trader big businesses, where they sell goods to these big businesses and then, the traders sell the goods to other countries. For example, during the 17th and 18th century, China was the international largest supplier of china, tea, sugar and medicine. The Arabs use to do the exact same thing, their traders via road and via sea, do the exact same thing as the Chinese.
It is this sort of trade company that is ideal for Australia to model after. For example, India and Australia trade co-operation, India is highly over populated and cannot produce enough food, Australia on the other hand produce lots of food, thus, can fulfil at least some of that India demand, India due to much cheap labor cost, can help produce cheap labor goods, such as clothing, which Australia need, due to its insane cost of living. So, Australia India trade co-operation, a company co created by Australia and India government can purchase huge quantity of Australia agriculture goods, to be sold in India and purchase huge quantity of India cheap labor goods e.g. clothing, to be sold in Australia.
Take a further example, Australia Taiwan Trade Co-operation and Australia Japan Trade Co-operation, Australia is in need of much more hospital care than it can afford to give right now, frequently, not even enough hospital bed and for some reason, this seem to be a problem nearly every western countries are facing today. On the other hand, Japan, Taiwan and South Korea's health care has proven to be better then Australia and most western countries, but is only at a fraction of the price, to western nations. While many western people believe, the western world is still the leader in western medicine (the political correct term should be "Arabic medicine"), in reality, these three countries has already surpassed the west. This is due to unlike the west that only got western medicine, Asia got both western and eastern medicine. Eastern medicine is just as good as western medicine, although both school of medicine have its strength and weaknesses (for example, a while ago, I got months of pain in my feet, I went to number of western medicine doctors, but they can't figure what is going on, I went to an Eastern medicine doctor, after only 2 weeks, my feet is fine. But in arenas such as optometry, eastern medicine is hopeless and I only trust western medicine for it.) After mastering western medicine, the Japanese, Taiwanese and South Koreans, combined these 2 school of medicine to compensate each other, in term of both medicine treatment and medical research. The end result, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, is still the leader in Eastern medicine and they have also replace the west, as the leader of western medicine. For example a few years ago, there was a massive explosion in Taiwan, during the opening of a theme park, leaving up to hundred injured (and not just explosion, it was a special effect instrument malfunction resulting in further complication e.g. buring toxic absorb into victim's lungs, resulting in the lungs been cooked, while inside their body.) Base on the experience of western hospitals, most western medical associations, estimate up to 50% of the injured victim would die, base on their cost and medical skills, but in Taiwan, 100% of the injured victim, made a full recovery within 6 months, something that surprised every western nations.
For the past 10 years, one of Taiwan and Japan's export involve allowing foreigners (including westerners) to come to their country, to recieve medical treatments, due to having way more hospital beds and supply then needed, thus, they can provide many foreigners with world class treatment, at a price a fraction to their nations and make a lot of money, as a result
On the other hand, Australia own lots of foreign debt, up to 20% is own to China. But China themselves own a great deal of foreign debt, they own Taiwan and Japan, more foreign debt, above all other nations. The Taiwanese and Japanese are currently very angry at China, because the Chinese are not repaying the foreign debt they own to their nation, but the Chinese some how, is still borrowing money to Australia, US and some other nations, while owning Taiwan and Japan a truck load of foreign debt.
So, image this, Australia Taiwan Trade Co-operation and Australia Japan Trade Co-operation, working with Australia, Japan and Taiwan hospital, to let Taiwan and Japan, to take on cases Australia is not able to resolve and to help relieve some of Australia's over burden hospital system, the Japanese and Taiwanese can make a lot of money, from Australians going there to recieve medical care. In exchange, the Taiwanese and Japanese government can purchase some of the foreign debt Australia own to China. As a result, it would be, as if, China repay Taiwan and Japan, for those money, China own to them and Australia would own a bit lesser foreign debt.
[Their solution to unemployment is to give them a loan, as though that will give them a job. This does nothing to address the lack of jobs, particularly jobs that provide a living wage]
This policy is not about giving them loan, but replacing unemployment benefit with unemployment loan.
Currently, Australia provide unemployment benefit to those who are looking for a job, but don't have a job, some, might be unemploy for years. Unemployment benefit is basically, the government giving these people money, as a gift. But, by Australia's current economically fragille state, it cannot afford to give away much money as gift. So, if we replace unemployment benefit, with unemployment loan, what that mean is, these people after getting a job, still need to repay the government, for the money they own.
It is more affordable for the government, to borrow unemploy people money and have them repay the government, when they get a job (kind of like university student loan from government), then for the government, to give unemploy people money as a gift, which is what the government is currecntly doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment