Taxes and the Book of Mormon

On several occasions I’ve heard fellow Mormons cite the story in Mosiah chapter 7 as some kind of evidence we’re taxed too highly. In Mosiah, (chapter 7, verses 22 and 23), they talk about being imposed with a tax amounting to “even one half of all we have or possess”, and describe the tax as “grievous to be borne”. The story goes that if a tax of 50% was “grievous to be borne” then, the almost 50% rate we have now must be the same, and thus we have some kind of doctrinal condemnation of the current tax system.

Well, any clear-thinking person will recognise this argument as pure rubbish. True, the highest tax rate (including Medicare levy) was 48.5% until the last budget (now 46.5%), but it’s a marginal tax rate, not an average tax rate. That is, it was the rate paid on income above a certain threshold, not the rate paid on all income, as it was with the people in Mosiah.

Purely on this basis, it’s a completely spurious comparison to make. The progressive nature of the tax system means that most people pay an average tax rate well below the highest  marginal rate. For example, the average tax rate for people on (a) $30,000; (b) 50,000; (c) $80,000; and (d) $200,000 is: (a) 18%; (b) 23%; (c) 29% and (d) 40%. (These rates are lower for people with families, courtesy of Family Tax Benefits).

Far below 50% in all cases, though the $200,000 salary is getting up there. But I’d argue people on that income are using strategies to lower that rate anyway. In any case, the argument that our tax system is “grievous to be borne” could really only be made by the wealthy, but the people I’ve heard complaining are not in those income brackets, and seem to be talking about their own situations.

Now that analysis is enough to throw the whole comparison out. But there’s an even stronger reason to dispatch with the argument. The problem is that we’ve only talked about the revenue side (from the government’s perspective) and not the expenditure side. It’s often overlooked that the government isn’t some black hole that sucks in our money, never to be seen again. The government uses our taxes to fund a wide range of services. The biggest expenditure items are welfare, health and education.

Quite clearly, we receive a lot for our taxes. Our children get primary and secondary education, and a heavily subsidised university education if they so choose. We complain about the health system a bit, but if we compare it to history and to other countries, it is amazing what it provides. For virtually no cost, women give birth, people are treated for cancer, and heart transplants are given. And then with the welfare system, even for those of us who are employed, it acts as unemployment insurance, as we know we can access benefits should we lose our jobs. In addition, it helps out the disadvantaged (although a few bludgers are out there), which is an indirect way of us giving charity.

Now, I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure that the people in Mosiah didn’t get such services. It seems like the money all went one way, and they didn’t see anything. So I’d suggest that anyone who thinks this passage of scripture has much to say about our current tax system is just looking for something to whinge about. They clearly haven’t thought much about this issue.

Guy Sebastian

I can’t say I’m a big fan of Guy Sebastian’s music (Moulmein and I differ here!), but I’m very impressed at how well he stands up for himself as a young Christian. He doesn’t apologise and brush the issue aside when asked, and he doesn’t preach. He just gives simple explanations for why he feels the way he does. I think he must have a significant impact amongst young people.

 The most recent example was on the David Tench show last night. Tench brought up Guy’s chastity, and Guy confirmed that he didn’t believe in sex before marriage. Tench asked how he does it. Guy said that he’s just like any other guy, and is of course interested, but thinks it’s important to exercise self-control. He gave the example of driving along and being cut off, and having the desire to beat the other driver up. But of course, you don’t, you exercise some self-control. He suggested that just because your body tells you to do something, you don’t follow through. (Another example I use is food – my body tells me to eat a lot more chocolate and lollies than is actually good for me).

Anyway, I thought Guy explained it in a way that anyone can understand, and that’s really what we have to do if we’re going to get through to non-religious types. I reckon there’d be at least a few young Australians who have got enough strength from Guy’s stand to resist entering a sexual relationship. And for that I think he’s a fanastic guy.

The New Minimum Wage

The Fair Pay Commission handed down its inaugural minimum wage decision this morning. Previously, the minimum wage had been set by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, but the federal government changed this in the WorkChoices legislation.

In any case, the decision was very much in line with previous AIRC decisions. Workers on the award wage will get around a 2.5-3% annualised wage increase. Not a heck of a lot, but then again, the ACTU wasn’t asking for much more.

Porn – a civil rights dilemma

Let’s be frank. Pornography is a serious problem for Australian society. I saw in the Courier Mail the other day that internet porn use in Brisbane is the highest in the world. Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with that statement, it does raise some issues. However, we know that as a Church, we stand in opposition to porn in every possible aspect. It ruins lives more than is often advertised or covered by current affair programs.

There are several websites and studies showing the detrimental effects that porn has on the human life. See www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html for an excellent look into how pornography can be linked to causes of rape. And there are a number of Church releases about this issue. However, I argue that it does something more and wonder where we as Church members draw the line.

Forgive me for being personal with you all, but in my non-member days, I cannot say that I was untouched from the world of porn. From my own personal experience, it caused me to view women differently, as objects to satisfy the male urges which I was always taught were natural. But I wonder what it did for my perception of what was ‘normal’ for intimacy. And where does the line get drawn?

We see figures of women draped in sexuality everywhere in the marketing and advertising industry. Not only does it provide a woman with the ‘ideal body’ or ‘body perfect’, but surely it also shapes the perception of what a woman should look like, or how they should be to the general public. In the end those who don’t fit become excluded in some ways with women constantly fighting to obtain that body which is considered the ‘norm’. In the end, that is a civil rights issue.

So I wonder where we draw the line? Should advertising be banned to the extent that Hamilton (2003) suggests with no advertising for consumer products being allowed? OR should we just attack the hardcore porn industry. To me it seems like a fine line between what is porn, and what is not. Another imporant and interesting question is if we condone censorship in this manner, what would that do for other issues that should be uncensored? Would it open pandoras box?

Furthermore, I’m interested in joining or perhaps starting an anti-porn movement here in Australia. Anyway know of any or interested?

The Democrats vs Christianity (no prizes for guessing which one will still be standing after the next federal election)

The Democrats, in a bid for relevance, have been harping on about religion (specifically, Christians who do not share their world-view) for the past year or so. They’ve now released a discussion paper on the issue, much of which is just plain ridiculous. It asks for feedback, so I encourage you all to give some.

Bill Muehlenberg (whose blog is great reading, incidentally) has posted on this issue. Well worth a read.

 (Hat tip to Family Man)

Handouts for farmers

From Brian Toohey’s article in the Weekend Australian Financial Review: 

Although we’re constantly told Howard is winning the “values debate”, it’s a little hard to discern what values were on display last Monday [the press conference announcing additional aid for farmers]. Self-reliance? No way. A leg-up, not a handout? Certainly not. Mutual obligation? Nope.

 

All we got was a limp excuse for more welfare spending, based on the special place farmers allegedly hold in the “psyche of the country”.

 

Howard claimed: “We would lose something of our character, we would lose something of our identification as Australians if we ever allow the number of farmers in our nation to fall below a critical mass.”

 

Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran went even further, declaring: “We’re going to fight to save every farmer.”

 

With farm numbers dropping by 13 per cent over the past decade, not every farmer can, or should, be saved.

 

What will this unwinnable fight cost? On Monday, Howard announced an extra $350 million for drought relief on top of the $1.2 billion since 2001, with more to come.

 

So where does this reverence for the bush sit in the “history wars” that Howard is supposedly winning? Firmly on the side of agrarian socialism and value-free political pragmatism.

 

More compassionate solutions than unending drought aid would be to help non-viable farmers off marginal land if they can’t find a buyer who can give it a sustainable future, or to pay them to stay and repair the soil.

 

We do farmers no favours with handouts to keep them on land where they only go deeper into debt, placing even greater stress on their families.

……………..

 

Yet McGauran told ABC Radio on Tuesday: “If it weren’t for the drought, which has now extended into its sixth year, agriculture would be booming.”

 

Yes, and if it weren’t for low prices, rising costs, frost and locusts, it would always boom in other years.

…………….

 

What McGauran is really saying is that people are entitled to farm semi-desert regions and receive on-farm welfare when they discover that deserts don’t get a lot of rain.

 

I agree with the PM that farmers are part of the national psyche, and thus am not opposed to some aid to get farmers through difficult times. (Plenty of economists would of course take a more hardline approach.) But the Nationals approach is just stupidity.  Fighting to “save every farmer” is pure agrarian socialism. What about the farms that simply aren’t viable? What about farmers who haven’t saved enough during the good times to see out the bad?  I don’t see why my taxes should go to some farmer to prop up his non-viable enterprise.

People will probably talk about the security of our food supply, but you have to weigh that against the extra costs of having all our food grown domestically.

If the security of supply issue is so paramount, should it not extend to all consumer goods? We should stop importing computers, cars, clothes and everything else! Of course, then these items would be so ridiculously expensive that we would each own far less than we do now. In addition, we would have deprived millions of people in the developing world an opportunity to escape poverty by manufacturing such items for us.

 

Love her or hate her….

It’s a sad day for Australian politics with the resignation of Natasha Stott-Despoja. Love her or hate her, she has worked tirelessly for the minority groups here in this country including the refugee movement and the university student. She was one of the few Australian Democrat Senators that actually too each issue on its merits and voted according to what she believed to be true.  How many Senators can we truly say are that way inclined? Apart from perhaps Barnaby Joyce.

I may have not always agreed with her, but I still think we’ve lost a great Senator….and now the dems are dead. I don’t care what Lyn Allyson says….

2005 births data

Just last year (or maybe the year before?) the ABS made all of its data free. There’s a lot of great stuff you can find there. Last week they released 2005 births data. One thing I found troubling was that the share of births in 2005 to registered marriages was 68%, down from 85% in 1985. Sad to see so many kids not getting the best possible start in life.

LDS Politicians in Australia

In a comment in the previous post, Family Man noted that in the recent Queensland state election a Mormon was elected for the Nationals in the seat of Gympie. Does anyone know if Australia has, or has had, any other LDS politicians?

I read in the Sydney Morning Herald several months ago that a Baulkham Hills shire councillor is standing for preselection as a Liberal in the safe state seat of Baulkham Hills, but I’m not sure what’s happened there. 

Of course, it’s entirely understandable that there have been very few LDS in politics. The hours worked by politicians are hardly conducive to family life. Even politicians labeled as ‘deadwood’ by political reporters spend a lot of time away from home just to attend parliament. Personally, I’m quite enticed by the idea of being a politician, but could simply not work the hours required and as well as doing justice to my family, at least while my children are young.  In addition, there’s the time required in networking, attending meetings to get to the point where you could actually be elected. And all that time could very easily come to nothing if a bit of luck doesn’t kick in to deliver a preselection in a winnable seat. 

I suspect that the first, prominent LDS politician will be someone requiring little sleep, will have an extremely supportive and capable spouse, and children that aren’t overly challenging.

What’s the point of Family First?

I don’t quite understand the point of Family First, the political party established several years ago by Seventh Day Adventists. By following what they’ve said publicly, and by poking around their website, I do understand their aims; they like traditional family values, and are a bit worried about the impact of an unrestrained market economy on family life. Fair enough, I happen to have similar views. But Family First doesn’t seem to be a particularly effective vehicle in achieving those aims.  With all the thousands of volunteers they mobilised in the 2004 federal election, they managed to get only one person elected (Steve Fielding, senator for Victoria), and luck played a big part in that. But Fielding hasn’t been terribly effective (for example, the government appears to have reneged on an early commitment to provide a ‘family impact statement’ for every piece of legislation). I suppose Family First would argue that they’ve been able to funnel preferences to candidates they prefer (generally Liberal/National), but presumably Family First voters would have voted for the Liberal/National in the absence of Family First anyway.  

What I found most remarkable was that Family First made the effort to field a large number of candidates in the recent Queensland state election. Unlike most other states, Queensland has no upper house, so there’s virtually no chance of getting into parliament unless you’re from a major party (there are a smattering of independents, but no Democrats or Greens). In addition, Queensland has optional preferential voting, leaving much less scope for influencing outcomes by engaging preference deals. People may say that it’s early days for the part yet, but I simply don’t see much scope for them getting that much bigger. The bottom line is that everyone knows that they are a Christian-aligned party, and there’s going to be natural limits to their electoral popularity in such a secular society. In addition, the proportion of voters that are in a traditional family is on a downward trend (delayed marriage, lower fertility rates etc) so there’s not a heck of a lot people attracted by a party so avowedly looking out for families. 

Now it’s clear that they’ve had some impact, so I’m not suggesting that the whole exercise has been a waste. But I’d argue that there’s a clearly superior option to achieve their stated aims – encourage all their supporters to join the Liberal party, and then they’d have substantial power to preselect candidates that share their values. It’s well known that membership in all political parties is pretty low, and this means that Family First-aligned people joining the Libs en masse could have some real power.