WA Greens should come clean on mining tax
Issued 8 Aug 2010
“The WA Greens candidates need to come clean on whether they support Bob Brown’s push for higher mining taxes,” said WA Liberal Democrats Senate candidate Mark Walmsley.
“Greens leader Senator Bob Brown is on the record pushing for higher mining taxes, and has said he expects to use his balance of power in the Senate to impose them. WA voters need to know if the Greens candidates here agree.”
“I challenge each and every Greens candidate to publicly confirm to the Western Australian public whether or not they support such higher taxes.”
“I also call upon the WA media to ask every candidate for their position on this vitally important election issue, and to publish the results prior to the election.”
Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was dumped by the Labor Party for proposing a 40% tax on mining which was hugely unpopular in Western Australia. Greens leader Bob Brown is on record for advocating a 50% tax rate.
“If Western Australians deserted Rudd over a 40% mining tax, imagine what they think of a 50% mining tax! Unsurprisingly, the local Greens candidates have been silent on this particular policy.
“The Greens seem to think they can win control of the Senate with a preference deal with the Labor Party, feel-good environmentalism and a protest vote against the two major parties.
“Western Australians should send a message to Bob Brown that they do not support his high tax attitude.
“The Greens agenda would send the Western Australian economy into a tailspin. House prices would fall and unemployment rise.
“Voters looking for an alternative to Liberal and Labor and not wanting to damage the economy should consider voting for the Liberal Democrats,” Mr Walmsley said.
“The Liberal Democrats support less government, lower taxes and greater freedom. This combination has delivered huge increases in living standards in the past and will do so in the future.”
How convenient that a WA Greens Senator has already answered that question on this very site!
I love that the LDP can realistically only target the Greens for vote-share.
“Do you like civil liberties, but also unrestricted capitalism? You’ll love the LDP! We’re just like the Greens, but without a conscience.”
For a second there it seemed as though you might be suggesting that it is the government’s role to act as moral arbiter for the population. Of course, those of us fortunate enough to already own a conscience have no need to elect one.
uh, but it’s the government’s job to represent out concience… (as we are repesented by our government); and as such, if our government is to not have a concience, then it is shown that we do not have a concience…
or is this under the false assumption that we live in a democracy…
The LDP lives in a magical fairyland where everybody poops jellybeans and rainbows. Lots of people are arseholes and that’s why you need a government to reign them in.
Karellen, it’s not so much that we believe everyone is wonderful, it’s more that we believe the free market works even if people aren’t. Even when businessmen are just being greedy Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” ensures their profits trickle down to the lowest levels.
On the other hand it only takes one megalomaniac to ruin a socialist or communist utopia.
Small government works well whether people are selfish or selfless. Big government only works if people are selfless. Big government doesn’t see a reduction in the power of big business, big business uses big government to achieve its aims.
The Liberal Democrats don’t believe in corporate capitalism, we believe in free markets. That means ending subsidies to the big companies, too.
Where do monopolies fit into your 200 year old economic theory from a time when the economy looked nothing like it does now? (Hell, the industrial revolution had barely got under way) Without the *regulation* of competition watchdogs, monopolies emerge, and squeeze out their competitors. Society then relies upon someone driven by greed to do right by them. We’ve seen time and again super-rich people using their wealth to buy influence and power, and using that influence and power to consolidate their wealth and keep it to themselves. It doesn’t ‘trickle down’.
You realise Adam Smith was also a proponent of regulations for large businesses, right?
“Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical”
How about this oft-ignored quote about why the free market isn’t the be-all and end-all:
“The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life… But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the laboring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.”
Chris, how many natural monopolies have emerged without government intervention?
I’m struggling to think of any off the top of my head. The closest I can get is Microsoft and even there they have been protected by excessive intellectual property laws.
All it takes to break a monopoly is one competitor willing to offer better value to customers.
There are some industries where monopolies tend towards being “natural monopolies”, but often these industries have competition from other companies that compete for their customer’s interest. Coke’s biggest rival isn’t Pepsi, it’s the kitchen tap, after all… Public transport may seem to tend towards being naturally monopolistic, but there’s always private transport as a means of ensuring those companies are kept honest in the absence of government intervention.
De Beers, off the top of my head.
“All it takes to break a monopoly is one competitor willing to offer better value to customers.”
That assumes that a competitor can survive against the buying power of a monopoly. All it takes is a monopoly saying “we’ll undercut you in the same regions” and that one competitor is screwed.
And, you’re right, strict monopolies are uncommon. But you have many instances of duopolies etc which don’t do anything for consumers. One example of that would be Coles and Woolworths, who control an absurd amount of the grocery market – and it shows in grocery prices.
Also, excellent work ignoring the bits of Adam Smith that don’t suit your opinion.