Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Arguments against State government

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by TarmacSamurai, Sep 16, 2009.

  1. Apart from the obvious, I think it really is time to consider scrapping state governments in favour of better federal government. How about this for a good case:


  2. Abolish state governments... so the paedophiles can live anywhere?
  3. Im a little suss about all powerful all encompassing governments.
  4. Abolish councils rather than state governments. Never has there been a more useless retard than a local councillor with a vested interest.
  5. No, abolish state governments so pedophiles are dealt with instead of being handed from one jurisdiction to another. QLD passes the problem onto NSW, NSW passes it back and nothing is done about the actual problem.

    I think it would be better to abolish the states and increase the size and scope of council areas.
  6. But then, your only creating a lot of mini states, not fixing the problem....
  7. The whole system needs an overhaul.

    1. Abolish state govts and local councils.
    2. Have seats that overlap, so each constituency has more than one member in the house (so its sorta like council).
    3. Make parliament run like a court of law. Have a jury (or several small juries) made up from the public that votes on the bill rather than pollies that blindly follow party lines.
    4. Abolish the senate.
    5. Tax capital, not income.
    6. Give motorcycles a 30% leeway on speed restrictions.
  8. I reckon they need to expand local councils a bit and then move the federal government to pick up what the Stes currently do and then give the state governments the flick.
  9. Have you got any idea of the ramifications of that?
  10. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    Stupid idea.
  11. Yeah this is my view too, but de-power the state governments so they no-longer look after:


    Then make them look after the local needs of their electorates.
  12. They already exist - it's not creating anything new.
  13. Isn't that exactly what I said?

  14. The rate would be bugger-all %. There is a lot more capital than income.
    It would encourage efficient use of capital.

    Of course there would have to be exemptions or rebates for certain types of capital (eg farmland).

    The tax system would be a WHOLE lot simpler.

    No income tax, no sales tax, no GST, no capital gains tax.
  15. Interesting topic about canning either local councils or state government. Looking at it entirely from my viewpoint of being one engineer who deals with road infrastructure in Queensland, canning the state govt would have the following benefit. The local councils will pick up my work. That means they'll use local expertise. That's a good thing. The downside is that there'll be a number of engineers employed to look after their patch whereas I cover different areas of the state (up to my capacity after which private consultants are used for the excesses). Otherwise, the council wouldn't bother and would contract a consultant when required. Some may say that is a step forward and it will create competition and value for money. I'm not so sure about that. My work costs the state my salary and travel for site inspections etc. A consultant costs the state about 3.5 times the salary of the person doing the work, travel costs and any markups (typically 10%) on top of that. In terms of road construction, contractors are the norm nowadays. The likes of Joel are in that crowd and from what I've seen/heard of his work, I'd trust him to do the best job possible with the constraints (usually budget) he is given. There plus with contractors is that they accept risk, sometimes/normally have to wear repair costs if things don't turn out to plan so you pay for offloading that risk, and they take responsibility for increasing/reducing their workforce as required.

    I've seen and been part of the mop up process of the worse than poor work some multi-national consultancies have done. In these particular instances they bid cheap, put in people who didn't know what they were doing (e.g. who pulls up a borehole after only 6m for a bridge foundation on a national highway when they've only intersected loose to medium dense sand? Who designs a 3-7 m high retaining wall adjacent to a significant creek then doesn't even know what a draw-down condition is when it comes to loading? That's just two examples of incompetence that left me in disbelief.), and didn't give the necessary supervision. At least "we" were eventually involved at some stage to check.

    I give all of my jobs the same level of attention whether it be the Gateway Motorway or a little culvert widening on the Gold Coast. Profit is not my driver. Getting the job technically correct and giving the best solution for the tax payer (and sometimes it has been just doing more frequent bandaid maintenance rather than removing and replacing because that was the lowest cost way to do it) is my goal. That doesn't mean I take forever to do my job. I give it the time it needs and move on to the next job. I did the same (different role though) at Leighton and they were happy with the way I went.

    To sum up my view, I look after my jobs network as if I were doing them for myself. The reputable consultancies do the same thing so that doesn't 'save' my job (even though it costs a lot less by me/us doing it). However, the checks/reviews that my team performs from contractors' work seeks to ensure that the state gets what it pays for and that corners aren't being cut and having that swept under the carpet.

    In terms of rationalisation, duplication is a waste so if there was a level of organisation that minimises that then that's a good thing. If the state system was wiped out and everything run federally then how would you prevent a bias towards, say NSW, if the influential folk in power were mostly from there? If the majority of services were put onto councils and the feds only used as administrators of funds and little else then what would we do about the size of the councils and the number of councillors? For example, there are a gazillion councils and councillors in Melbourne and Sydney when compared to the same area in Brisbane. Every council has a mayor so look at the waste of funds there compared to one mayor for the same area as 10 or 20 councils in Melb/Syd. There's more double-ups than that again. Get rid of duplication/waste. I wouldn't care whichever way that was achieved.
  16. How would you define capital? Would it include assets that go up in paper value? If so, what would happen when there's a decline? Would the govt give back money?

    The simplest system would be a flat rate tax on income, no tax deductions, no GST, no payroll tax, no other rubbish. That way, the little person would pay the same rate as the corporations. If you make $10 then you pay a percentage (and it wouldn't need to be the typical 30% or thereabouts rate we have now because the corporations would pay instead of the gazillions in deductions they have). I believe this sort of thing works elsewhere (like Hong Kong) and the last I heard, their rate was something like 15%.
  17. How would you structure a company if your income was not taxed but your capital was, think about it for a minute.
    Flat tax rate on income is the only fair way.
  18. How about we just promise to let the state governments stay, as long as they promise to ignore us when we bash the fcuking shit out of their pedophiles?
  19. I seem to recall commenting on this topic in another thread earlier today. But my views stay the same, with the addition of an idea I read in here :)

    1. Remove councils. We do not need them. Replace them with a panel of representatives and an open forum. These serve not to make decisions, but rather as a channel for the public to address the state government through

    2. Take away the state gov'ts reasons for being petty. The state gov't now only exists to serve the needs of the people within the state. local state issues go here (ie, we need a new crossing, we want a cricket pitch in our park, building developments, etc.) State gov't no longer looks after public transport, health, education, roads. This is Federal. As is law (although it has been pointed out that this could lead to some issues of the fascist persuasion)

    3. Federal gov't looks after the big issues, such as law, roads etc. All unified, no more budget quibbles. (ie, this is a federal road, and im not paying to fix it out of the state budget)

    This is probably full of holes, all of which will be gushing with issues. It is also by no means definitive. But hey, I never said it was perfect!