Home > General, Pension, Superannuation, Tax > The rotten systems and is there an alternative

The rotten systems and is there an alternative

The Rotten Systems, and is there an Alternative?

The so called Civilizations since mankind came out of the cave, or maybe  down from the trees have hardly changed over thousands of years, because we are now as brutal to each other as they were in the stone ages; the only difference is, that thousands of years ago, men fought each other with sticks and stones, and now destructive weapons are used to the point that the planet on which we live could be completely destroyed in matters of minutes, if the potent weapons, designed by very clever people, put into the hands of not so clever, so called leaders, be they Kings, Dictators or just Politicians, and none of the latter display any scruples or courage to speak up against what should be spoken up against.

But in the so called Democracy, are the Politicians only to be blamed?

If a Politician speaks honestly, if that is possible, will he/she be re-elected at the next election; most likely not, and that is the weakness of a Democracy, the citizens in a Democracy cannot accept the truth, which may go against the voter’s interests, be it economically or otherwise.

How could Democracy be improved so that it becomes a better system of Government than all the other systems that preceded it?

Considering the previous systems, Be they Oligarchies, Royalties, Plutocracies  or Communism.

The first three are only for the benefit of the few, based on either birth or other means, while the last would be the best, yet it completely collapsed after less than a hundred years, but why did Communism collapse so quickly?

The Capitalist always harp on the idea of being the human nature, and greed will always come out on top, when it comes to benefit humanity.

For Communism to work, the human mind has to broaden enormously, because if people think that Communism is a system made in heaven, they are very wrong, because it is obvious that if nobody is prepared to put the effort he/she is capable of, and everybody has no desire to limit their consumption, the system cannot function.

But in any system, the main problem is, that there are always people trying to usurp the leading positions, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are capable of being the leaders and are not just in the leading positions for their own benefit or boost their big ego.

As most of the aspiring leaders have the ability to fool the common people, by first crawling to them, and when they are in positions of power they will quickly turn around and often misuse the power vested in them.

The people in power also have the great ability of surrounding themselves with underlings who will lick the boots of their leaders, and empower the leader to overcome any attempt to challenge their leadership

Many male leaders are often also controlled by their wives or female partners and are rather weak in reality, but very cunning to outwit their opponents, but in the long run, the society with weak or unfair leaders always suffers.

In a Marriage, where a partner with less ability gains control through having a thicker skin, in the end both partners will not achieve their full potential, and this will also apply in every other Organization up to the leadership in Governments.

That does not mean that the more skillful partner in a marriage should debase his/her partner, but for the benefit of both and the community at large, fools should not be leaders, but use their skills and talents for the benefit of a family, a group or Government, and the so called Indians are just as valuable to society as are the Chiefs.

Never, never should the leaders in society be left in total position of power, but should  always be challenged  to explain and justify their actions.

Unfortunately many individuals which are prepared to challenge the leaders or the system are conveniently accused of “Rocking the Boat” or called “Whistleblowers” and many times they pay a high price for their actions.

Also the leaders of any society should not be put on a pedestal and idolized like super heroes, and when the people in power talk about serving the Community, they should really show their true colours and admit that they are not in those positions for their own ego and like to have the nose in the trough.

How many families become career politicians; now if to be a politician is such a hard and demanding task, a parent would hardly encourage their offspring to follow in their

Foot-steps.

One way how Democratic performance could be greatly improved would be, is , instead of having the Senate or Legislative Councils, abolish them and set up Committees of interested citizens to perform the task of keeping a watch over the Governments, and they should not be paid, except being remunerated for any expenses in performing their tasks.

There could also be some risk that this committees set up to keep the “bastards honest” do not become in the same mould of the Australian Democrats, which although now completely obliterated, are a huge burden on the taxpayers, as there are many quite young ex MP’s enjoying the benefits of a generous parliamentary pension, with all the attached perks.

In the capitalist system, much emphasis is placed on the value of capital for the benefit of society, but is capital really so important for the function of society?

It is also emphasized that money has to work hard for the benefit of the owner of the money; but money does not work, only people work, even if they at times use animals or machines to perform their tasks.

There are two types of parasitic money in society; first, is, where a person is not prepared to put anything into society and yet expect that the society supplies him/her with the means to sustain a certain living.

The second is the money gained with money, and this now almost exceeds the total money needed to run the worlds economies; in other words what workers produce is distributed in such a way that the owners of the money can consume more of the goods than the producers of the goods, therefore this parasitic money is even worse than the former, because it is a much larger part of production.

In Australia both of the major parties are doing a good job in turning the Democracy into a Plutocracy.

Although the governments always tolerated tax minimization in various forms like family trusts and other business arrangements, when the Hawke Keating government introduced the compulsory super, the shift in wealth from bottom to top has really accelerated. Then the Howard government in 2007 introduced the tax-free super for the over sixties and this acted like a booster in financial terms, similar to a booster on a fast car.

As the wealthiest 20% of the population controls approximately 70% of the super assets the tax savings for this people are enormous. The total cost of the tax concessions for super is now equal to the total cost of the age pension, yet 70% of pension-age people are constrained from attaining a decent standard of living by the meanest “Means Test” of the basic pension in the OECD, and therefore the retirees in Australia are only second to Ireland as far as poverty is concerned.

But is this social system sustainable, when there are retired people on incomes of $100,000.00 per annum  and not paying a cent of tax, while a worker on half the income has to pay tax and care for a family.

No sooner there is any mention of reducing the tax concessions for super, the super industry is out in force, because they are not prepared to lose the lucrative management income, which at times is $500,000 or more per annum, while the super accounts of most workers are less than $50,000, and the Union leaders are on the bandwagon as well, sitting on boards of industry super funds, albeit on lower remuneration.

In 2013, Labour lost the election which it could have won if it had promised to abolish all tax concessions for super and scrap the means-test for the age pension; what reason would have the self-funded retirees to complain about the loss of tax concessions but getting the full age pension. Rather than do this labour would lose the election, allowing the Coalition government to scrap the 15% tax the owners of large super funds, with incomes above $100,000 per annum would have had to pay. There are some 60,000 of retirees with incomes in excess of $100,000.

Why didn’t Labour do it? Because most of the Labour, current and ex-politicians are now, or will be in future among the 60,000 of rich retirees. That much for Democracy in Australia.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
Share
Categories: General, Pension, Superannuation, Tax Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

*