Comments on the comments by YOSHIMICHI MORIYAMA26TH APRIL, 2016, 11:10 PM, on
Hugh White "Need to face the facts in Asia", 18 April 2016
You have sated the following: “America will keep its military superiortity over China for an idefinite time, and it seems that it can deter China in the South China Sea.”
So what?
With all the respect, the US and its allies were equally, if not more superior during the Korea War as compared to China. The fact is that China didn’t lose that war and that America together with its allies didn’t win that war either.
And further (on his/her second comments), with all the possible respect to you, I have to say that your central interpretation of “中華人民共和国” is incorrect.
2016-04-28
Voters even in the West may not have many choices
Comments on Nathan Attrill "China’s leadership model goes back to the future", 22/04/2016
Just as voters in any countries may choose different parties if they have the freedom to choose, the Chinese people may change their views about their political leaders, both past and present.
For example, when people see continually increasing inequality even in the context of huge economic growth, as well as rampant corruption over the past 20 years or so, many and possibly the majority may have fond memories of the Mao era when there was little corruption and people were virtually equal in income even though everyone was poor, equally poor.
The Chinese also would like to have more freedom, that is for sure. Equally, they are likely to prefer a strong, and just, government.
People outside China need to understand the whole of Chinese people, their way of lives and their way of thinking. There is no point to lecturing them in our own way.
Commenting on the comments
by RICHARD22ND APRIL, 2016, 7:33 AM
The two upheavals you said were facts and there is no question about it. The first one, the so called Great Leap Forward, however, was not the fault only of Mao even though he should have the greatest responsibility to it. It was the collective work of the then whole leadership including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, with Mao as the top leader. Most people in the leadership were carried away by the huge success of its first 5-years plan and thought, wrongly though, they could accelerate the development in China.
There was an interesting contrast between China and Japan while the latter had two decades of double income plans for every decade at that similar time. One adopted the correct method, while the other went astray. It took a few years to recover from that disaster, before the second, equally if not more disastrous, Cultural Revolution.
I agree with GODFREE ROBERTS that China had seen great changes due the Mao era, even though they were disrupted severely by the two mentioned disasters.
Just as voters in any countries may choose different parties if they have the freedom to choose, the Chinese people may change their views about their political leaders, both past and present.
For example, when people see continually increasing inequality even in the context of huge economic growth, as well as rampant corruption over the past 20 years or so, many and possibly the majority may have fond memories of the Mao era when there was little corruption and people were virtually equal in income even though everyone was poor, equally poor.
The Chinese also would like to have more freedom, that is for sure. Equally, they are likely to prefer a strong, and just, government.
People outside China need to understand the whole of Chinese people, their way of lives and their way of thinking. There is no point to lecturing them in our own way.
Commenting on the comments
by RICHARD22ND APRIL, 2016, 7:33 AM
The two upheavals you said were facts and there is no question about it. The first one, the so called Great Leap Forward, however, was not the fault only of Mao even though he should have the greatest responsibility to it. It was the collective work of the then whole leadership including Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi, with Mao as the top leader. Most people in the leadership were carried away by the huge success of its first 5-years plan and thought, wrongly though, they could accelerate the development in China.
There was an interesting contrast between China and Japan while the latter had two decades of double income plans for every decade at that similar time. One adopted the correct method, while the other went astray. It took a few years to recover from that disaster, before the second, equally if not more disastrous, Cultural Revolution.
I agree with GODFREE ROBERTS that China had seen great changes due the Mao era, even though they were disrupted severely by the two mentioned disasters.
"Dark period" is a over exaggeration
Comments on Editors, East Asia Forum "The limits to Chinese political power"
While many may have concerns regarding China’s direction in many fronts but particularly in its political direction, the use of the words “dark period” by Minzner to describe the current development and situation in the Chinese political system and governance is a bit unfortunate.
Yes President Xi has centralised certain controls, but that may be a over correction to the previous ineffective central leadership. I am not particularly knowledgeable of the central governance in China under President Hu, but there is saying that, in Chinese, “政令不出中南海“ (in English, it roughly means government commands does not go outside the Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist government’s Headquarters location) that may bear some truth of that ineffectiveness.
Whether it is collective leadership, or otherwise, that kind of ineffectiveness, if true, can be problematic for any country.
My best hope would be that the current development represents what in Chinese “矫枉过正”， that is, an overcorrection.
While many may have concerns regarding China’s direction in many fronts but particularly in its political direction, the use of the words “dark period” by Minzner to describe the current development and situation in the Chinese political system and governance is a bit unfortunate.
Yes President Xi has centralised certain controls, but that may be a over correction to the previous ineffective central leadership. I am not particularly knowledgeable of the central governance in China under President Hu, but there is saying that, in Chinese, “政令不出中南海“ (in English, it roughly means government commands does not go outside the Zhongnanhai, the Chinese Communist government’s Headquarters location) that may bear some truth of that ineffectiveness.
Whether it is collective leadership, or otherwise, that kind of ineffectiveness, if true, can be problematic for any country.
My best hope would be that the current development represents what in Chinese “矫枉过正”， that is, an overcorrection.
Good answer to"Japan and Australia ramp up defence engagement in the South China Sea"
Comments on Tomohiko Satake "Japan and Australia ramp up defence engagement in the South China Sea", 28/04/2016
The award of building the 12 submarines for Australia to the French provides the best answer to this post.
I happened to met some people who were doing some jobs for the Australian government and they jokingly put it: "we are back to the Second World War when we were allied with France and fighting against Japan and Germany".
Afterall, history may repeat itself in a crude and unrelenting way! It is ironic, isn't it?
That perhaps summarises the insanity of the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's earlier failed approach to the big project. Some have said that that was one of the issues that Abbott was seen as unsound and prong to funny and poor judgement.
Were Mr Abbott got his own funny way, Australia would lose out greatly. Some may say that Australia's interest would be sold out.
The award of building the 12 submarines for Australia to the French provides the best answer to this post.
I happened to met some people who were doing some jobs for the Australian government and they jokingly put it: "we are back to the Second World War when we were allied with France and fighting against Japan and Germany".
Afterall, history may repeat itself in a crude and unrelenting way! It is ironic, isn't it?
That perhaps summarises the insanity of the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's earlier failed approach to the big project. Some have said that that was one of the issues that Abbott was seen as unsound and prong to funny and poor judgement.
Were Mr Abbott got his own funny way, Australia would lose out greatly. Some may say that Australia's interest would be sold out.
No need to do make-ups for the ugly intention behind the TPP
Comments on Patrick Mendis and Dániel Balázs "When the TPP and One Belt, One Road meet", 28/04/2106
While it may be the hopes and more like wishes of the authors of this post, one has to face the reality that President Obama’s clear statement on his purposes of TTP in terms of the relationship between the US and China. His TPP is to deliberately exclude China and make it extremely difficult for China to join. The TPP is not aimed at promote the benefits of trade and to promote regional growth and prosperity.
On the other hand, the One Belt One Road initiative by China is to strengthen economic growth for the whole region at least covered by that initiative and does not purposefully exclude any countries if they wish to join.
There is a strong and unambiguously contrast between the two, reflecting a declining and difficult power versus a rising, friendly and hopeful and helpful power.
There is no point to ‘make up’ things to make an ugly thing falsely appearing looking good and to wishfully think in almost the manner of the ’emperor’s new cloth’. One should be able to see and say what it is or what they are.
The authors should expose the ugly truth of the TPP, or more precisely, some of the ugly intention behind it, as it is.
While it may be the hopes and more like wishes of the authors of this post, one has to face the reality that President Obama’s clear statement on his purposes of TTP in terms of the relationship between the US and China. His TPP is to deliberately exclude China and make it extremely difficult for China to join. The TPP is not aimed at promote the benefits of trade and to promote regional growth and prosperity.
On the other hand, the One Belt One Road initiative by China is to strengthen economic growth for the whole region at least covered by that initiative and does not purposefully exclude any countries if they wish to join.
There is a strong and unambiguously contrast between the two, reflecting a declining and difficult power versus a rising, friendly and hopeful and helpful power.
There is no point to ‘make up’ things to make an ugly thing falsely appearing looking good and to wishfully think in almost the manner of the ’emperor’s new cloth’. One should be able to see and say what it is or what they are.
The authors should expose the ugly truth of the TPP, or more precisely, some of the ugly intention behind it, as it is.
2016-04-21
US increasingly waning capacity to be the world policeman
Comments on James Curran "Trouble at sea for the US and its Asian allies", 20/04/2016
This post appears to suggest that the US confrontational style approach in the context of maintaining US supremacy is justified. Ironically, the US has a choice to make and it is interesting to know that not every American shares the author’s view.
While many people both outside and inside the US may find that the Trump phenomenon puzzling and frightening, the very phenomenon certainly reflects some uncomforting reality.
One has to consider whether the US will continue to have the capacity to be the world policeman, irrespective whether the policeman has done a good job or not.
Another question is whether it is in the US interest to attempt to continue the role of world policeman. It is not costless to the US. At some point it may find that it will no longer be able to afford it.
This post appears to suggest that the US confrontational style approach in the context of maintaining US supremacy is justified. Ironically, the US has a choice to make and it is interesting to know that not every American shares the author’s view.
While many people both outside and inside the US may find that the Trump phenomenon puzzling and frightening, the very phenomenon certainly reflects some uncomforting reality.
One has to consider whether the US will continue to have the capacity to be the world policeman, irrespective whether the policeman has done a good job or not.
Another question is whether it is in the US interest to attempt to continue the role of world policeman. It is not costless to the US. At some point it may find that it will no longer be able to afford it.
2016-04-19
2016-04-18
Time for wisdom, judgement and courage now for the PM
Comments on Michelle Grattan "It’s certain – Australians off to the polls on July 2 for double dissolution", 18/04/2016
It now will be a test of Turnbull’s wisdom, judgement and courage, possibly in the two opposite ways, that is, to call or not to call a double dissolution election.
Yes, he has threatened to have a double dissolution election and now has got the trigger. But that does not mean a double dissolution is in his and the government’s favour of winning the election if it goes for such one.I
f he really cares about winning the election, wisdom in conjunction with the most recent polls may suggest that the best action to take may not be a double dissolution election and that requires courage to reverse his earlier threat for having one.
Will he do it or not, that will be the question now until he announces one way or the other.
in that respect, it may not be that certain at all, but we will see what happens from now on.
It now will be a test of Turnbull’s wisdom, judgement and courage, possibly in the two opposite ways, that is, to call or not to call a double dissolution election.
Yes, he has threatened to have a double dissolution election and now has got the trigger. But that does not mean a double dissolution is in his and the government’s favour of winning the election if it goes for such one.I
f he really cares about winning the election, wisdom in conjunction with the most recent polls may suggest that the best action to take may not be a double dissolution election and that requires courage to reverse his earlier threat for having one.
Will he do it or not, that will be the question now until he announces one way or the other.
in that respect, it may not be that certain at all, but we will see what happens from now on.
Importance of justice and the foundation of justice
Comments on Editors, East Asia Forum "Australia’s fraught decision on submarines", 18/04/2016
This editorial is well balanced.
The following point from Tatsumi's post this week was quoted: ‘the bid for SEA1000 is important for Japan in the overall context of deepening security ties with Australia’. Japan’s ‘2013 National Security Strategy identified Australia as an important security partner not only as a fellow US ally, but also as a regional partner that shares Japan’s key strategic interest in upholding an international order based on the fundamental norms that have underpinned the post-WWII world. Such norms include the rule of law, freedom of navigation and the non-use of coercive measures to assert diplomatic positions’.
The norms mentioned there are based on the so called post-WWII world international order, as Tatsumi stated. Some of the foundations were unjust, because some territories which had belonged to different countries were given by the Americans to its allies including Japan, particularly as the world gradually became divided into the American led and the Soviet led two opposing camps, with some in between. Certainly some Chinese have held the view that some of its former territories were dealt with in such deals between the Americans and some of its allies or its controlled subordinating countries.
If the foundation of the current international order is unjust, then is the argument to maintain this order just or justified?
We can write another story in which someone has stole other peoples' properties then after that that person argues for the rule of law and the protection of existing property rights, a seemingly quite 'just' prevailing order. We also have some accomplices has a strong force and police the existing order!
This editorial is well balanced.
The following point from Tatsumi's post this week was quoted: ‘the bid for SEA1000 is important for Japan in the overall context of deepening security ties with Australia’. Japan’s ‘2013 National Security Strategy identified Australia as an important security partner not only as a fellow US ally, but also as a regional partner that shares Japan’s key strategic interest in upholding an international order based on the fundamental norms that have underpinned the post-WWII world. Such norms include the rule of law, freedom of navigation and the non-use of coercive measures to assert diplomatic positions’.
The norms mentioned there are based on the so called post-WWII world international order, as Tatsumi stated. Some of the foundations were unjust, because some territories which had belonged to different countries were given by the Americans to its allies including Japan, particularly as the world gradually became divided into the American led and the Soviet led two opposing camps, with some in between. Certainly some Chinese have held the view that some of its former territories were dealt with in such deals between the Americans and some of its allies or its controlled subordinating countries.
If the foundation of the current international order is unjust, then is the argument to maintain this order just or justified?
We can write another story in which someone has stole other peoples' properties then after that that person argues for the rule of law and the protection of existing property rights, a seemingly quite 'just' prevailing order. We also have some accomplices has a strong force and police the existing order!
New emperor's new cloths re security order in Asia
Comments on H. D. P. Envall from ANU "Strategy under the surface of the Australia–Japan sub deal", 18/04/2016
I sense the undertone of this post is to strengthen the so called 'trilateral alliance' of the US, Australia and Japan to encircle or tackle China.
The author may benefit from reading the following by a respected Australian journalist or media commentator, Michael Pascoe: "Australia shouldn't pay price for 'pivot', available on the Canberra Times website, April 18 2016 - 12:50PM, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/world-business/australia-shouldnt-pay-price-for-pivot-20160418-go8rat.html.
It presents facts as opposed to the often argued and hyped what is 'right' under existing security order in Asia.
Those hypocrites have been exposed as another version of Emperor's new cloths story.
Michael Pascoe's article should be republished on the Eastasiaforum, as a well respected and independent Australian journalist and current affairs commentator.
The Eastasiaforum has, regretablly and unfortunately, published many distorting articles, not based on facts but reflecting biased views serving the purposes of some circles.
It is unclear whether the editors have thoughtfully and dutifully sought factual based responses to those articles.
I sense the undertone of this post is to strengthen the so called 'trilateral alliance' of the US, Australia and Japan to encircle or tackle China.
The author may benefit from reading the following by a respected Australian journalist or media commentator, Michael Pascoe: "Australia shouldn't pay price for 'pivot', available on the Canberra Times website, April 18 2016 - 12:50PM, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/world-business/australia-shouldnt-pay-price-for-pivot-20160418-go8rat.html.
It presents facts as opposed to the often argued and hyped what is 'right' under existing security order in Asia.
Those hypocrites have been exposed as another version of Emperor's new cloths story.
Michael Pascoe's article should be republished on the Eastasiaforum, as a well respected and independent Australian journalist and current affairs commentator.
The Eastasiaforum has, regretablly and unfortunately, published many distorting articles, not based on facts but reflecting biased views serving the purposes of some circles.
It is unclear whether the editors have thoughtfully and dutifully sought factual based responses to those articles.
Important for ministers to work smart than hard
Comments on Michael Koziol "Election 2016: How Michaelia Cash became the new Eddie Everywhere of Australian politics", 18/04/2016
While that phrase is not wrong and admirable for many, it should also be combined with work smart and work smarter. However, this is also a case similar to the political correctness, most people probably have a feeling that it would not be correct to say otherwise, just as the minister has done.
For a federal politician and government minister, she has got a lot of resources to work for her and that is for sure. What that means is she needs to stand on top of those resources and make sure they are well used to assist her in making the right decisions.
She does not need to, and does not have to, work her butt off. The main thing is her judgement and the ability/capacity to make informed decisions. Some political operability would help in getting things done and achieve.
While that phrase is not wrong and admirable for many, it should also be combined with work smart and work smarter. However, this is also a case similar to the political correctness, most people probably have a feeling that it would not be correct to say otherwise, just as the minister has done.
For a federal politician and government minister, she has got a lot of resources to work for her and that is for sure. What that means is she needs to stand on top of those resources and make sure they are well used to assist her in making the right decisions.
She does not need to, and does not have to, work her butt off. The main thing is her judgement and the ability/capacity to make informed decisions. Some political operability would help in getting things done and achieve.
Early election will be a loser for the government
Comments on Peter Hartcher "Fairfax-Ipsos Poll: Malcolm Turnbull a cautious PM, and voters are punishing him for it", 18/04/2016
I suspect that the best action for the Mr Turnbull the PM from now on would be defer the early election push, so to give the himself and the government a bit more time to reverse the decline in its popularity and to return to a more certain winning position late this year.
I would certainly advise the PM to go down this road and to have some thing done to impress the public and the voters. The following would contribute to that:
1. Have the budget well prepared and done to be an excellent budget for the election year, not only in terms of election sweetening, but also containing some election winning measures or policies.
2. Do something to win the public over for the next six months, including things like a tax reform package or at least one or some important and memorable item
3. Have a meaningful and achievable reform item to the federation
4. Make some inroad into the development of Northern Australia
5. Identify weaknesses of the opposition and nail down on them, to make the opposition on the run
If the above can be done successfully, the election will be unlosable and will be in the bag. It will be a revival of the PM's satisfactory rating once he would have shown real actions.
On the other hand, it would be extremely uncertain to win the election on early July and the most likely outcome is a hung parliament that would be damaging not only to the current government but also the nation.
So there is so much at stake and I hope the PM will be wise enough to have the election late this year as opposed to an election in July.
Having said that, I am politically neutral to the two main political parties.
I suspect that the best action for the Mr Turnbull the PM from now on would be defer the early election push, so to give the himself and the government a bit more time to reverse the decline in its popularity and to return to a more certain winning position late this year.
I would certainly advise the PM to go down this road and to have some thing done to impress the public and the voters. The following would contribute to that:
1. Have the budget well prepared and done to be an excellent budget for the election year, not only in terms of election sweetening, but also containing some election winning measures or policies.
2. Do something to win the public over for the next six months, including things like a tax reform package or at least one or some important and memorable item
3. Have a meaningful and achievable reform item to the federation
4. Make some inroad into the development of Northern Australia
5. Identify weaknesses of the opposition and nail down on them, to make the opposition on the run
If the above can be done successfully, the election will be unlosable and will be in the bag. It will be a revival of the PM's satisfactory rating once he would have shown real actions.
On the other hand, it would be extremely uncertain to win the election on early July and the most likely outcome is a hung parliament that would be damaging not only to the current government but also the nation.
So there is so much at stake and I hope the PM will be wise enough to have the election late this year as opposed to an election in July.
Having said that, I am politically neutral to the two main political parties.
2016-04-12
Commenting on 'What might a new Asian order look like?'
Comments on Robert A. Manning and Jim Przystup "What might a new Asian order look like?" 12/04/2016
This article is really lacking of imagination, to say the least, because its real aim was probably to maintain the continued dominance of the US which they seem to have a strong interest.
The rise of the US following Britain may serve as a path if the US and the authors will try to do what the British did when it faced challenges from the US.
Could Britain in any way to stop the rise of the US and the change in the world order, given the economic power of the latter and its strengths in military or the ability to transform part of its economic power into military power if and when it was needed?
Could there have been an alternative and better trajectory than what was then? Could Britain have possibly been able to contain the USA forever?
Further, did all the former masters of former colonies adopted the best and fair strategies when their former colonies began to ask for independence? Were they really all caring the interests of those colonies instead of leaving some tricky and divisive legacies behind?
Would that have always been justified to maintain the status quo at those times?
One may like the certainty of the present time, but future will definitely be different from the present, although sometimes it is harder to predict what it will be exactly.
The following is the second part of my comments on the article:
The authors seem to think Asian people cannot come up with an Asian order that benefit all Asians. If that is true, they run the serious risk of being significantly estimating the intelligence and creativity of Asians.
What might a new Asian order look like?
Firstly, a simplest answer would be if the Americans are wise enough to not interfere with Asian affairs, that would be a big part of a new Asian order. Asians can live well by themselves without their interference. The US can do a rebalance back to its own country in America!
Secondly, a new Asian order would be that where all Asian countries are proud members of their regional organisation and being respected not by each other themselves but by other interregional plays, big and small.
Thirdly, a new Asian order would be where the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Russians, and ASEAN people and all other Asian people are masters of Asia and work together toward the rise of Asia, beyond the rise of of any single or small group of countries in Asia.
Fourthly, the Americans, the Europeans are no longer able to arrogantly regard themselves as the first and second world and treat Asians as the third world people. They will not be able to monopoly that status for themselves.
The above are elements of a new Asian order and of an Asian dream.
It would be a proud Asian dream similar to but more than what King's dream was, because Asians have shown some of that already.
Yes, there are some Asians who like to beg their uncle Sam because it is now still the superpower but they don't have true Asian characters.
This article is really lacking of imagination, to say the least, because its real aim was probably to maintain the continued dominance of the US which they seem to have a strong interest.
The rise of the US following Britain may serve as a path if the US and the authors will try to do what the British did when it faced challenges from the US.
Could Britain in any way to stop the rise of the US and the change in the world order, given the economic power of the latter and its strengths in military or the ability to transform part of its economic power into military power if and when it was needed?
Could there have been an alternative and better trajectory than what was then? Could Britain have possibly been able to contain the USA forever?
Further, did all the former masters of former colonies adopted the best and fair strategies when their former colonies began to ask for independence? Were they really all caring the interests of those colonies instead of leaving some tricky and divisive legacies behind?
Would that have always been justified to maintain the status quo at those times?
One may like the certainty of the present time, but future will definitely be different from the present, although sometimes it is harder to predict what it will be exactly.
The following is the second part of my comments on the article:
The authors seem to think Asian people cannot come up with an Asian order that benefit all Asians. If that is true, they run the serious risk of being significantly estimating the intelligence and creativity of Asians.
What might a new Asian order look like?
Firstly, a simplest answer would be if the Americans are wise enough to not interfere with Asian affairs, that would be a big part of a new Asian order. Asians can live well by themselves without their interference. The US can do a rebalance back to its own country in America!
Secondly, a new Asian order would be that where all Asian countries are proud members of their regional organisation and being respected not by each other themselves but by other interregional plays, big and small.
Thirdly, a new Asian order would be where the Chinese, the Indians, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Russians, and ASEAN people and all other Asian people are masters of Asia and work together toward the rise of Asia, beyond the rise of of any single or small group of countries in Asia.
Fourthly, the Americans, the Europeans are no longer able to arrogantly regard themselves as the first and second world and treat Asians as the third world people. They will not be able to monopoly that status for themselves.
The above are elements of a new Asian order and of an Asian dream.
It would be a proud Asian dream similar to but more than what King's dream was, because Asians have shown some of that already.
Yes, there are some Asians who like to beg their uncle Sam because it is now still the superpower but they don't have true Asian characters.
2016-04-11
Ideas on the "ideas to fix Australian taxes"
Comments on Miranda Stewart "Ideas for Australia: Five ideas to help fix Australia’s tax system", 11/04/2016
While many points in the post are probably valid and good, some points are debatable.Firstly, in terms of income tax, why not consider a flat or much flatter tax structure to simplify the current income tax?
This is particularly in the context where the author also argued for broadening the GST base to cover everything and to increase the rate to 12.5%. To do that with the GST is not too different to have a flat income tax.Secondly, company income tax rate, there should be a debate what is best in terms of the tax rate.
I personally have significant doubt on the often argued benefits of lowering company tax rate, notwithstanding the capital mobility argument.The argument on tax on superannuation contribution is highly questionable and dubious, particularly in terms of using individual’s marginal tax rate.
The argument on negative gearing is also questionable. So much for now and may comment further down the track.
For the universal paid parental leave of 6 months and universal childcare for those who working, what would be the pay rate for the mothers or fathers for that matter, and what level of assistance for universal childcare from the government using taxpayers' money? The rates are the key and without appropriate rates such talks are pointless.
Further, the equal share in both personal income tax and the GST between the federal and state governments may give too much revenue to the states. And yes, any increase from the current federal revenue to the states should definitely contingent on the states to abolish some the most inefficient taxes.
The states have not delivered the promise or requirement as specified in the inter-governmental agreement for the GST. As a result, the public is justified to be suspicious of promise to abolish taxes without actions undertaken.
The relative shares of income tax and the GST should be based on some objective measures in terms of services and other obligations of each levels of government and should not left to the politicians alone. There should be an independent body to decide that, or to have referendums to decide.
Income tax should be indexed to the total income level, so the the ratio of total tax revenue to the income is virtually fixed. Again, if there is a need to increase tax, let referendum, that is, the voters to decide.
PS: in reply to comments on the first part of my comments by Robert:
"Lincoln, I don’t know about you, but for the last 50 years my taxation has been calculated by a computer, and automatically deducted and passed on to the ATO - again by a computer.
I have never once been fussed by a regressive or progressive tax calculation. Computers can handle any of them. The real issue is whether you think taxes should be paid by those who can afford them, or by those who cannot.
As to the GST, yes, it is a flat tax applied to pretty much whatever you chose to spend your after-tax income - unless you are rich, of course, in which case the tax you pay is pretty much voluntary.
You need to be more specific in your comments."
Robert, please see more comments from me below that may clear some of your questions. Progressive taxes are more than for high income earners to pay more taxes, they are paying proportionately more from their income. A flat tax means the more one earns the more tax they would pay.
While many points in the post are probably valid and good, some points are debatable.Firstly, in terms of income tax, why not consider a flat or much flatter tax structure to simplify the current income tax?
This is particularly in the context where the author also argued for broadening the GST base to cover everything and to increase the rate to 12.5%. To do that with the GST is not too different to have a flat income tax.Secondly, company income tax rate, there should be a debate what is best in terms of the tax rate.
I personally have significant doubt on the often argued benefits of lowering company tax rate, notwithstanding the capital mobility argument.The argument on tax on superannuation contribution is highly questionable and dubious, particularly in terms of using individual’s marginal tax rate.
The argument on negative gearing is also questionable. So much for now and may comment further down the track.
For the universal paid parental leave of 6 months and universal childcare for those who working, what would be the pay rate for the mothers or fathers for that matter, and what level of assistance for universal childcare from the government using taxpayers' money? The rates are the key and without appropriate rates such talks are pointless.
Further, the equal share in both personal income tax and the GST between the federal and state governments may give too much revenue to the states. And yes, any increase from the current federal revenue to the states should definitely contingent on the states to abolish some the most inefficient taxes.
The states have not delivered the promise or requirement as specified in the inter-governmental agreement for the GST. As a result, the public is justified to be suspicious of promise to abolish taxes without actions undertaken.
The relative shares of income tax and the GST should be based on some objective measures in terms of services and other obligations of each levels of government and should not left to the politicians alone. There should be an independent body to decide that, or to have referendums to decide.
Income tax should be indexed to the total income level, so the the ratio of total tax revenue to the income is virtually fixed. Again, if there is a need to increase tax, let referendum, that is, the voters to decide.
PS: in reply to comments on the first part of my comments by Robert:
"Lincoln, I don’t know about you, but for the last 50 years my taxation has been calculated by a computer, and automatically deducted and passed on to the ATO - again by a computer.
I have never once been fussed by a regressive or progressive tax calculation. Computers can handle any of them. The real issue is whether you think taxes should be paid by those who can afford them, or by those who cannot.
As to the GST, yes, it is a flat tax applied to pretty much whatever you chose to spend your after-tax income - unless you are rich, of course, in which case the tax you pay is pretty much voluntary.
You need to be more specific in your comments."
Robert, please see more comments from me below that may clear some of your questions. Progressive taxes are more than for high income earners to pay more taxes, they are paying proportionately more from their income. A flat tax means the more one earns the more tax they would pay.
2016-04-07
Chinese dream's broad implications
Comments on Shaheli Das "The awakening of Xi’s Chinese Dream", 7/04/2016
To me, the China or Chinese dream, as advocated by President Xi, is largely domestic oriented as opposed to be used as a key principle in its external diplomatic relations. It is a way to unify and inspire the Chinese people, with a key focus on the mainland people, but also those Chinese in other Chinese regions, such as Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. It is mainly a domestic narrative, connecting to the past both long (the ancient glories when China was estimated to be among the world best) and short (the past decades particularly the reform era) with the aspiring future (a projected reaching to high income countries). One may interpret it as a way to justify the communist rule under the Chinese Communism Party.
The so called socialism with Chinese characters could be interpreted in a number of different ways, as China has undergone so many reforms and changes yet at each stage it has always been said to be socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Yes, given that the Communist party has always been in power, one of the most common interpretations is under communism rule, although one needs to bear in mind those reforms and changes in China and the huge differences between China now and China nearly a few decades ago.
My interpretation of the Chinese dream is, similar to the author's, that it has both individual and collective two dimensions as opposed to the largely individualistic approach embedded in the American dream. This has something to do not only with the current Communist rule, but also rooted to a degree in its history of Confucius tradition where the State was given a very important role as compared to individualism.
Does that mean communist rule forever? No one knows for sure, because it is difficult to predict what the socialism with Chinese characteristics will be in 20 to 30 years in the future, similar to the situations back 35 years ago!
To me, the China or Chinese dream, as advocated by President Xi, is largely domestic oriented as opposed to be used as a key principle in its external diplomatic relations. It is a way to unify and inspire the Chinese people, with a key focus on the mainland people, but also those Chinese in other Chinese regions, such as Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan. It is mainly a domestic narrative, connecting to the past both long (the ancient glories when China was estimated to be among the world best) and short (the past decades particularly the reform era) with the aspiring future (a projected reaching to high income countries). One may interpret it as a way to justify the communist rule under the Chinese Communism Party.
The so called socialism with Chinese characters could be interpreted in a number of different ways, as China has undergone so many reforms and changes yet at each stage it has always been said to be socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Yes, given that the Communist party has always been in power, one of the most common interpretations is under communism rule, although one needs to bear in mind those reforms and changes in China and the huge differences between China now and China nearly a few decades ago.
My interpretation of the Chinese dream is, similar to the author's, that it has both individual and collective two dimensions as opposed to the largely individualistic approach embedded in the American dream. This has something to do not only with the current Communist rule, but also rooted to a degree in its history of Confucius tradition where the State was given a very important role as compared to individualism.
Does that mean communist rule forever? No one knows for sure, because it is difficult to predict what the socialism with Chinese characteristics will be in 20 to 30 years in the future, similar to the situations back 35 years ago!
2016-04-06
Why China should not join the INF Treaty
Comments on Petr Suchy and Bradley A. Thayer "Why China should join the INF Treaty", 6/04/2016
The proposal in this post is unworkable at best. That treaty seemed to be the product of either the cold war or the two then super powers.
Firstly, the two treat members had and still have vast numbers of superior nuclear arsenals than China.
Secondly, now there are so many countries beside the two existing treaty members that have the capability to produce or possess the weapons banned by the treaty and China is only one of them. It would be futile to just ask China to join the treaty when it is much inferior in its nuclear weapons and other similar countries are not asked to do the same.
Thirdly, China faces constant security threats, as demonstrated by the flights and sail for the so called freedom of navigations by the US and other US allies.
Fourthly, should China join the treaty and destroy its such missiles, it would have no effective defence of itself in the context of so many aircraft carries that pose significant threats to its security if not to its very existence.
What a joke of such a proposal is, given the uneven military powers in both nuclear and conventional weapons between China and the two super powers!
I don’t think China will go for such vanity as described in this post at the expense of its own security, because the threats are real.
The proposal in this post is unworkable at best. That treaty seemed to be the product of either the cold war or the two then super powers.
Firstly, the two treat members had and still have vast numbers of superior nuclear arsenals than China.
Secondly, now there are so many countries beside the two existing treaty members that have the capability to produce or possess the weapons banned by the treaty and China is only one of them. It would be futile to just ask China to join the treaty when it is much inferior in its nuclear weapons and other similar countries are not asked to do the same.
Thirdly, China faces constant security threats, as demonstrated by the flights and sail for the so called freedom of navigations by the US and other US allies.
Fourthly, should China join the treaty and destroy its such missiles, it would have no effective defence of itself in the context of so many aircraft carries that pose significant threats to its security if not to its very existence.
What a joke of such a proposal is, given the uneven military powers in both nuclear and conventional weapons between China and the two super powers!
I don’t think China will go for such vanity as described in this post at the expense of its own security, because the threats are real.
Farcical headlines and discussions about federal student loan debts
Comments on Timothy Higgins et al "Higher education policies could result in big increase to federal debt: experts respond", 6/04/2016
The headlines in the presses and news reports are all about the 500% increase in the so called costs to the government, such as this statement in this post: "the annual cost of HELP loans to the government will rise more than six-fold over the next decade, to $11.1 billion in 2025-26", but few have talked about the side of the savings associated with those deregulation policies and the increase in the interest rates for indexation of the students' debts.
For example, the effects of increase in the interest rates for indexation would be to increase the government's return with the same amount of student debts and that is compounded year after year. Why people don't point that out that would be good for the government if one look at purely from the point of nominal returns in the investment in higher education. Just imagine if the government could charge an infinite interest rate and how much return that would be!
Secondly, with the deregulation to allow universities to charge higher fees, the government's current level of subsidy to higher education will be decreased, right? And that will be a huge saving for the government.
Thirdly,
Thirdly, the effects on students and their life in the future will need to be considered. All talks are about the effects (and that is focused on only a small part of that unfortunately, as I mentioned above), and few have included on how that will impact on students and also its equity effects on different people including the likely flow on effects on whether the same level of participation in higher education could be maintained and whether some particular groups particularly disadvantaged one will be impacted disproportionately.
The headlines in the presses and news reports are all about the 500% increase in the so called costs to the government, such as this statement in this post: "the annual cost of HELP loans to the government will rise more than six-fold over the next decade, to $11.1 billion in 2025-26", but few have talked about the side of the savings associated with those deregulation policies and the increase in the interest rates for indexation of the students' debts.
For example, the effects of increase in the interest rates for indexation would be to increase the government's return with the same amount of student debts and that is compounded year after year. Why people don't point that out that would be good for the government if one look at purely from the point of nominal returns in the investment in higher education. Just imagine if the government could charge an infinite interest rate and how much return that would be!
Secondly, with the deregulation to allow universities to charge higher fees, the government's current level of subsidy to higher education will be decreased, right? And that will be a huge saving for the government.
Thirdly,
Thirdly, the effects on students and their life in the future will need to be considered. All talks are about the effects (and that is focused on only a small part of that unfortunately, as I mentioned above), and few have included on how that will impact on students and also its equity effects on different people including the likely flow on effects on whether the same level of participation in higher education could be maintained and whether some particular groups particularly disadvantaged one will be impacted disproportionately.
Integration alone is no panacea to development
Comments on Wing Thye Woo "ASEAN integration can keep region above US–China fray", 6/04/2016
While this post is undoubtedly very constructive in its intent and analysis, there are a number of points I would like to make.
Firstly, the likelihood, between the US and China, of a US-Soviet style cold war as we saw in the past in the foreseeable future up to two decades away is extremely unlikely. To the most, the two world powers may get into a mild cool war as opposed to a cold war. Any suggestions of such a cold war is either too much a concern bordered on paranoid, or exaggeration.
Secondly, ASEAN as a regional organisation is very useful and constructive to both its own members as well as to regional peace, stability and cooperation. Its integration process will undoubtedly strength its regional role and influences. However, one must realise the enormous difficulties of the task to develop the economies of any regional bodies. It is no less in the degree of difficulties in develop any single country. The author has mentioned some of the more advanced ASEAN members have unfortunately fallen into the so called middle income trap. If they have had difficulties in managing their own individual countries to overcome that trap and to advance to the rank high income countries, then it is not too had for one to see the difficulties ahead for ASEAN, as a group or whole, to achieve faster development. While one may argue the positive effects of integration in terms of trade, investment and resources movement with a more integrated region, the task to coordinate common policies and actions are not insignificant and are not easily delivered.
Then one has to realise that while a more integrated ASEAN may provide some boosts to its members in terms of development, each member would also need to take all opportunities that may be available to them and many of those opportunities may lie outside ASEAN itself. That may result in some natural differences in each member's priority in the real term. After all we have seen and are still seeing the case where the UK is debating and having a referendum on whether it should stay in or out of the EU, not along for its to abandon its own currency to join the Euro. This interesting example may serve as a does of sobering medicine for those who may argue for the positive effects of 'integration' without analysis its costs.
While this post is undoubtedly very constructive in its intent and analysis, there are a number of points I would like to make.
Firstly, the likelihood, between the US and China, of a US-Soviet style cold war as we saw in the past in the foreseeable future up to two decades away is extremely unlikely. To the most, the two world powers may get into a mild cool war as opposed to a cold war. Any suggestions of such a cold war is either too much a concern bordered on paranoid, or exaggeration.
Secondly, ASEAN as a regional organisation is very useful and constructive to both its own members as well as to regional peace, stability and cooperation. Its integration process will undoubtedly strength its regional role and influences. However, one must realise the enormous difficulties of the task to develop the economies of any regional bodies. It is no less in the degree of difficulties in develop any single country. The author has mentioned some of the more advanced ASEAN members have unfortunately fallen into the so called middle income trap. If they have had difficulties in managing their own individual countries to overcome that trap and to advance to the rank high income countries, then it is not too had for one to see the difficulties ahead for ASEAN, as a group or whole, to achieve faster development. While one may argue the positive effects of integration in terms of trade, investment and resources movement with a more integrated region, the task to coordinate common policies and actions are not insignificant and are not easily delivered.
Then one has to realise that while a more integrated ASEAN may provide some boosts to its members in terms of development, each member would also need to take all opportunities that may be available to them and many of those opportunities may lie outside ASEAN itself. That may result in some natural differences in each member's priority in the real term. After all we have seen and are still seeing the case where the UK is debating and having a referendum on whether it should stay in or out of the EU, not along for its to abandon its own currency to join the Euro. This interesting example may serve as a does of sobering medicine for those who may argue for the positive effects of 'integration' without analysis its costs.
2016-04-03
APS underperforming senior executives
Comments on Henry Belot "John Lloyd warns underperforming public servants on individual accountability", 2/04/2016
It is not just junior staff may under-perform, some managers including fairly senior ones also undoubtedly under-perform that cause the whole units under them to under-perform. Many senior managers don't have senior management skills and cannot innovate either. They have not graduated from a lower manager role.
Further, there is a culture for senior managers to protect their close friends of men/women. As a result, they blame other staff for their own incompetency.
It is not just junior staff may under-perform, some managers including fairly senior ones also undoubtedly under-perform that cause the whole units under them to under-perform. Many senior managers don't have senior management skills and cannot innovate either. They have not graduated from a lower manager role.
Further, there is a culture for senior managers to protect their close friends of men/women. As a result, they blame other staff for their own incompetency.
Vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalance and the PM policy process bubble
Comments on Richard Eccleston "Modelling shows why premiers are wary of Turnbull’s tax proposal", 3/04/2016
The PM's proposal for the States and Territories to levy their own income taxes, unsurprisingly, hit snags of State and Territory leaders, not just because of many of its potential faults, but more importantly also because of the poor processes the PM has got into.
How could such a significant change to Australian taxation and federation financial relations labelled by the PM as a reform to the Australian federation in generations be announced by the PM only one day before the COAG meeting, with no prior consultations at all?
It reflected either unprecedented creative genius, or perhaps sheer stupidity!
Certainly it was not the way national policies should be made at the top of the Australian government.
Having said that, virtually all the issues raised in this post could potentially resolved without too much difficulty. That is to say, the States and Territories could be allowed to have the capacity to raise their own income taxes in whatever rates they each deem as suitable and desirable, then the federal government only provides enough fund for horizontal fiscal equalisation.
Giving the States and Territories the capacity to levy their own income tax would resolve vertical fiscal imbalance. Horizontal fiscal equalisation, in a way similar to what Canada does, would achieve horizontal fiscal imbalance.
The PM's proposal for the States and Territories to levy their own income taxes, unsurprisingly, hit snags of State and Territory leaders, not just because of many of its potential faults, but more importantly also because of the poor processes the PM has got into.
How could such a significant change to Australian taxation and federation financial relations labelled by the PM as a reform to the Australian federation in generations be announced by the PM only one day before the COAG meeting, with no prior consultations at all?
It reflected either unprecedented creative genius, or perhaps sheer stupidity!
Certainly it was not the way national policies should be made at the top of the Australian government.
Having said that, virtually all the issues raised in this post could potentially resolved without too much difficulty. That is to say, the States and Territories could be allowed to have the capacity to raise their own income taxes in whatever rates they each deem as suitable and desirable, then the federal government only provides enough fund for horizontal fiscal equalisation.
Giving the States and Territories the capacity to levy their own income tax would resolve vertical fiscal imbalance. Horizontal fiscal equalisation, in a way similar to what Canada does, would achieve horizontal fiscal imbalance.
2016-04-02
Our national political leaders need leadership skills
Comments on Michelle Graton "The implosion of Turnbull’s ‘big idea’ will raise further doubts about his substance and style", 2/04/2016
To resolve the so called vertical fiscal imbalance is one issue and defining both expenditure and revenue responsibilities and make each government responsible to their actions/policies (accountability) is another and a different issue. The mistake by the PM is that he wanted to hit such two birds with one stone and the State and Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers didn't like the PM approach. As a result, the PM failed badly.
I think the States and Territories would probably only like to focus on the first issue, that is, to get more revenues from the Commonwealth as untied grants, that is, a fixed share of income tax. They clearly didn't like to be seen as having to raise more revenue in their own name to pay the bills for education and health.
The PM should now be a bit of more statesman like, and agree with the States and Territories for them to have an agreed and fixed share of revenue from personal income tax, and possibly the revenue from company income tax. If that is done, it would be possible to resolve the vertical fiscal imbalance, should the shares are appropriately determined.
The PM, however, needs a better and carefully considered approach to the second and more thorny issue of real and effective accountability, that is, linking spending responsibilities with revenue responsibilities. What occurred this past week was simply not good enough for the PM.
Where was his leadership and judgement for him to rush such a ill-prepared tax and federation reform plan? Where is the role played by his advisers including from both the POM and the PMC?
I suspect they were probably not well consulted or not consulted at all. If that is true, that would not be too different from the chaotic situations that was accused of the former PM Rudd, as reported or argued by some of his ALP former colleagues.
It seems that our national leadership is lacking leadership skills and is failing the nation badly, when the nation's top political leader behaves like what they have shown us! It is so miserable and pitiful, not just for themselves but for the nation as a whole, because the nation suffers as a consequence!
To resolve the so called vertical fiscal imbalance is one issue and defining both expenditure and revenue responsibilities and make each government responsible to their actions/policies (accountability) is another and a different issue. The mistake by the PM is that he wanted to hit such two birds with one stone and the State and Territory Premiers and Chief Ministers didn't like the PM approach. As a result, the PM failed badly.
I think the States and Territories would probably only like to focus on the first issue, that is, to get more revenues from the Commonwealth as untied grants, that is, a fixed share of income tax. They clearly didn't like to be seen as having to raise more revenue in their own name to pay the bills for education and health.
The PM should now be a bit of more statesman like, and agree with the States and Territories for them to have an agreed and fixed share of revenue from personal income tax, and possibly the revenue from company income tax. If that is done, it would be possible to resolve the vertical fiscal imbalance, should the shares are appropriately determined.
The PM, however, needs a better and carefully considered approach to the second and more thorny issue of real and effective accountability, that is, linking spending responsibilities with revenue responsibilities. What occurred this past week was simply not good enough for the PM.
Where was his leadership and judgement for him to rush such a ill-prepared tax and federation reform plan? Where is the role played by his advisers including from both the POM and the PMC?
I suspect they were probably not well consulted or not consulted at all. If that is true, that would not be too different from the chaotic situations that was accused of the former PM Rudd, as reported or argued by some of his ALP former colleagues.
It seems that our national leadership is lacking leadership skills and is failing the nation badly, when the nation's top political leader behaves like what they have shown us! It is so miserable and pitiful, not just for themselves but for the nation as a whole, because the nation suffers as a consequence!
Pongsudhirak's misinformation
Comments on Thitinan Pongsudhirak "China’s its own worst enemy in regional relations", 2/04/2016
I find that this post is highly biased and it does not seem to be based on factual analysis. Building dams along the Mekong River, for example, has been or is being done not only by China but by almost every country where the river passes through, while he author seems to argue only China has done it. China has built many dams in many of its own rivers, not just on the Lancang river.
Further and again, China is not alone in terms land reclamation in the South China Sea, but the author seems wanting to creating an impression that it is along.
Perhaps, the EastAsiaforum editors should be aware of this and should exercise editors responsibility to not allow misinformation to be presented by anyone!
I remember there was a post earlier about countries building dams in the Mekong River on the EAstasiaforum not long ago that provided a much more balanced and detailed exposition of dam building. See here, for example, "New rule-based order needed to save the Mekong" by Nguyen Khac Giang 29 March 2016.
I find that this post is highly biased and it does not seem to be based on factual analysis. Building dams along the Mekong River, for example, has been or is being done not only by China but by almost every country where the river passes through, while he author seems to argue only China has done it. China has built many dams in many of its own rivers, not just on the Lancang river.
Further and again, China is not alone in terms land reclamation in the South China Sea, but the author seems wanting to creating an impression that it is along.
Perhaps, the EastAsiaforum editors should be aware of this and should exercise editors responsibility to not allow misinformation to be presented by anyone!
I remember there was a post earlier about countries building dams in the Mekong River on the EAstasiaforum not long ago that provided a much more balanced and detailed exposition of dam building. See here, for example, "New rule-based order needed to save the Mekong" by Nguyen Khac Giang 29 March 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
