Jack Waterford (''Prairie populist would
smile at Stanhope budget initiative'',
May 10, pB2) is not alone in his
sympathy for Henry George.
As every properly educated economist
knows, there are only three things
you can tax land, labour and capital.
Only one of them does not stop
working, breeding or being
reproduced.
Only one produces a true enduring
surplus over cost.
That is the major reason why
prominent economists, from the 18th
century French physiocrats, through
Adam Smith to the present day have
endorsed the taxation of unimproved
land values as uniquely efficient.
Unfortunately, few people today
(including, sadly, economists and
politicians) study the history of economic
thought. Few people know that
Sir Samuel Griffith and Sir John Quick,
two of the founding fathers of Federation,
were keen advocates of land
value taxation and leasehold tenure.
In 1988, the ACT should have
adopted the policy of financing infrastructure
through land rates and only
renewing leaseholds at market rents.
It should have abolished stupid taxes
like payroll taxes and stamp duties and
competed with Sydney and Melbourne.
If it did so, the ACT would be a much
better place to work and live.
Housing and utility costs would be
lower and there would be more
employment opportunities outside of
government.
We might even have a couple of dams
built and have the truly green garden
city Canberra was meant to be.
Terence Dwyer, visiting fellow, Crawford
School of Economics and Government,
Australian National University
Size does matter
As a paid-up member of the Liberal
Party, I would like to give a very
qualified congratulations to the Rudd
Government on its budget.
It has made some important cuts to
spending that never would have
happened if the Howard government
had been re-elected. Of course, it did
not go nearly far enough and the size of
Government has again increased.
I am disappointed that the Government
did not cut more fat out of the
budget, but can it really be blamed
when the Opposition has been arguing
against the spending cuts?
Until the parliamentary wing of the
Liberal Party embraces the principles of
small government that it was founded
on, we will continue to suffer under the
burden of ever-increasing government.
Samuel Adams, O'Connor
Cut to the truth
Why do the media insist on using the
same jargon as the Government?
Historically, governments have had a
tendency to obscure the truth when it
was in their interest to do so, but
journalists could supposedly see
through spin and report objectively. In
the 2008-09 federal budget, about $40
billion in unspent surplus to be
deposited in various funds is referred to
as investment when it clearly is not.
Deferred spending is saving, not
investment. It's not going to increase
the skill level of our workers, improve
passenger and freight rail capacity, nor
deliver renewable energy to fight rising
greenhouse gas emissions.
Investment will not occur unless and
until money is drawn from these funds
and spent on infrastructure.
We are not told when this is to occur
and how much is to be spent, which is
the whole point of a budget.
So why aren't journalists asking these
questions?
David Bastin, Nicholls
Email a friend