On tax cuts for the rich and Panama.

We fight for and against not men and things as they are, but for and against the caricatures we make of them.

J.A. Schumpeter

The ‘Ol Trickle Down™ myth,

You see trotted out by all the Tax and Spend types all the time when their political opponents work towards tax cuts for businesses. And when you take the time to consider the basis of the claim and some of the counter arguments against it, you have to wonder if someone’s missed out on the idea of doing their homework on the subject before opening their mouth and letting us all know the obvious.

The idea behind the trickle down economics has been traced back to William Jennings Bryan in 1896 in his Cross of Gold speech. The term “trickle down” emerged in a column by comedian actor Will Rogers in 1932. These days it’s used to critique the Supply Side school of economics by those who believe any tax cuts for the wealthy or business owners, robs those at the middle and lower portions of the economic scale due to the expected decrease in government tax receipts.

My issue with this claim is when you look into the subject in detail, you find it’s often little more than a political ruse used to goad the conversation in a certain direction. It’s fundamentally lacking, in any serious analysis of the economic situation both current and historically, to claim that any recognised economic identity has advocated this as a means to economic prosperity.

As an exercise that’d help understand this claim is you could simply consult any serious economic school of thought and see if that idea has ever been substantiated as a course of action they’d advise a government to take.

Consider also when you observe the number of political actors across the globe that use this phrase, the dishonesty is amplified. There’s always a need for taxes or borrowing to fund the ideas that our politicians. After all, they have a vision for us and we need to pay play our part, right? And if we elect the right one, we’ll get something back for it, right?

I often wonder if they think that no-one notices that their schemes of wealth redistribution alway seems to have that wealth, first passing through the hands of those in government, they’re supporting at the time. I also wonder if there’s a majority that sees this factor and just accepts it as being how life is.

Now it has to be said that there is merit in the claim in a roundabout way. That cutting taxes doesn’t automatically ensure that wages will increase. But as we know, life ain’t that simple and any assumptions on complex issues like the economy require those assumptions to be founded on a correct basis.

A dynamic that will shed some light on the possibilities of the complexity in economics that I have found, comes some economic history that Thomas Sowell did in his writing on the subject Trickle Down Theory and Tax Cuts for the Rich.  He writes that “under the high income tax rates at the end of the Woodrow Wilson administration in 1921, vast sums of money had been put into tax shelters such as tax-exempt municipal bonds, instead of being invested in the private economy, where this money would create more output, incomes and jobs”.

There’s always more at play then what the critics who focus on singular issues may want to allow to be suggested. It reminds me of those who claim the wage gap between males and females is due to sexism aimed at women. It’s a multivariate dynamic, with when considering the issue of taxes being missed by governments often being due to their own influence.

A while back we had the Panama Papers episode surface internationally in 2015 and the net it cast was world-wide and included links to a number of persons of influence around the globe. Now, the ICIJ website link I’ve cited here acknowledges that there are legitimate uses for offshore companies. I see this as just another example, as Sowell describes, of the effect of tax laws and the methods that the investor class will make use of to avoid excess costs.

The point I’m trying to make here is that, when those political actors behave like they want to give the average punter a fair go i.e. more taxes equal more publicly funded services and therefore promote schemes that are economically founded on these premises. This approach can create the kinds of results that provide the folder for the subjective assessment of the wealthy, that part of society that invests in industry and economic activity beyond a day job when they choose not to play along as nicely as the high tax proponents would prefer them too. They didn’t get to where they are by being stupid. And at the end of the day, it’s often the case that those political actors make tax rules creating the loopholes the wealthy use to legally avoid tax.

Now, there has to be a point at where we recognise the obvious and be willing to compromise and make sense of how things work. And when this challenges our world view, well the that world view needs to take a back seat and give way to methods that make the best of a complex situation.

I’m not backing one side or the other here. I don’t consider myself to be that economically literate (hence the blog). We can have certain services that are better provided by coming together (in the form of ‘good’ government) but the proponents of this method need to recognise the limits of this concept.

The partisan baiting of the electorate needs to be laid bare for what it is and that’s can be a difficult thing to do when we are a polity of taxpayers who expect a return on our taxes. And I realise that your average voter isn’t going to be some well read economist. I’ve tried studying the subject myself and have failed to fully comprehend the subject (and its many schools of thought) but as I’ve said complex dynamics require an honest assessment.

When we give in to an idea like taxation on all and sundry, just because we think that it will reward us with better services thus being a good thing socially, we fail to even grasp the effect of the use of taxes to facilitate those services. Opportunity cost, I’m hinting at you this time.

I’m not pleading the case for some libertarian ideal here, you only need to see how governments can waste huge sums of taxpayer money to provide evidence of that. There needs to be an understanding of the concepts of perverse incentives and unintended consequences that accompany any complicated plan we want to enact. The idea that you have a hammer and every problem’s a nail doesn’t stand the test of time.

I guess what I’m arguing for is that ever elusive balance factor when it comes to governments spending our taxes. The problem of just how much is too much or too little is a complex scenario that isn’t solved by baiting people with a single sentence response to a solution that is a damn sight more complex than that type of response.






I was on Twitter yesterday, while I was supposed to be busy doing more important stuff and came across an advert by WordPress about their support for the SSM Dog and Pony show we have going on at the moment in Australia.

While I was scrolling along, I also noticed another Twitter user mention that WordPress has used their platform to apply the widely known, multicoloured symbol the homosexual community uses, across the top of their users pages.

Well, the lazy blogger in me decided to get back to my part-time writing and what do I see?


Screen Shot 2017-09-02 at 12.13.18Fkn LOL.

I see that my page has been modified, without my consent mind you, to engage in this little promotion.

Initially, I penned a somewhat vitriolic spray aimed at this nonsense but I’ve decided to bin that attempt and give it another go because I ain’t to happy with this kind of thing but I’d like to be more civilised about the presentation of my views, even though it still leaves me generally disliking the whole situation.

Ya know, manners and stuff.

Now, I understand that the platform is owned by a private entity. We’ve seen similar arguments play out before with Twitter and YouTube users complaining about these companies influencing content on their platforms. I understand that it may be the case that it’s perfectly legal for the owners of these platforms to engage in this kind of activity.

That aspect’s not the point I’m under any illusions about.

To put my point into perspective, I’m studying a business diploma at the moment and one thing I’ve had the chance to go over is the business/customer dynamic. It’s here I think, the imposition this platform is making, falls fowl of any respect for their customers. A smart business decision-making process should screen this idea out of the business strategy. Especially a business that exists in assisting with encouraging conversations within the market place of ideas.

I’ve got my views on the SSM debacle here in Australia and I call it a debacle due to what has become of the marriage contract in a lot of Western countries ages ago and also the usual political posturing we always see on whatever topic that happens to be doing the rounds at the time.

It’s because of this I’ve really got no time for the SSM idea. As someone who’s been in a common law relationship for the best part of a decade plus, I understand that the law already has a favourable position towards non-traditionally substantiated relationships. That point seems to fail to gain any traction in the debate around this topic for some weird reason.

Hence, my calling it a Dog and Pony show.

The reality is there’s little more than simplistic posturing going on with what has happened here at WordPress, which for all the parties involved can be counter productive. Some folk don’t like being told what to do or what to think irregardless of the message. As for me, I thoroughly loathe the whole SJW mindset. And to have something like this imposed upon you by a service provider you’re paying, adds insult to the small injury it is.

As annoying as it is for WordPress to do this, I don’t see it as a massive issue. I honestly think it should be something the users of the blog site should be offered the use of not forced to do so by some desk sitter else where. The whole exercise smells of a nanny state mindset, which upon consideration of the total of the exercise is plainly pathetic.

But anyway, life does indeed go on.

Something about those numbers.

It never fails to surprise me when I hear of the claim “we need more female CEOs” in the workplace.

I’m always left asking the question: Why not more plumbers, police and ambulance operators?

I’ve recently been working my way through Warren Farrell’s-The Myth of Male Power– in which he details the risks in the workplace of which men routinely take the burden. He describes this societal dynamic as “My body, not my choice”.

It’s an interesting concept.

I remember seeing a graphic on the wall of the medical centre at a recent work site I was on stating that the current workplace fatality rate was above 90% for the males in the industry in Australia.

Every construction site I’ve been on, in the 17 years I’ve been in this industry, has a gender imbalance of males. Why is that the case? Does the feminist academia and political scene have something to say about this aspect?

Dr. Farrell offers the concept of the financial womb that males provide society. And with that the comes the risks of injury and fatality that each sector of the economy inherently contains.

Tonight, I’ve read a blog post by Jim Rose detailing the workplace injury/fatality rates by gender in New Zealand for 2015.

“all but three of the fatal workplace accidents in NZ were men”.

Here’s the link to provide some support to what I’m talking about,

Workplace deaths/injuries in New Zealand for 2015.

As the saying goes, this ain’t my first rodeo. I’ve been on enough of this projects to know better and I’m slowly racking up a number of jobs I’ve walked away from due to safety concerns.

And it’s hard sometimes when you consider the old “harden the fuck up” cliché and the financial aspect of the role you take on as a male worker.

I’ve had female friends (in defence of the feminist stance) describe this as an aspect of the famed patriarchy doing its thing and I believe there’s a part truth there in that claim.

But what stuns me is the lack of realisation, that there’s a whole lot of women in our community that’ll go along quietly with this, as the economic security provided by that patriarchy supports the matriarchy that walks hand in hand with it.

This to me, is one of the more spineless aspects of feminism.

The claim for money and power, inherent in feminism’s edicts, in pursuit of the ideal of equality, is baseless until they recognise the risk/hazard factor that exists in the modern economy regarding the grunt work that makes the wheels of industry turn.

I’ll believe that the average feminist has the courage of their convictions, when I see the gender imbalance on construction sites, weighted in favour of their claimed equality and we all see as a society women embracing employment outside of the usual occupations that females seem to dominate.

Some how I don’t think we’ll be seeing any changes soon.

Trad’s ad.

They’re at it again.

There’s a State election coming up soon and that lot are squaring off over their pet issues and making public displays of the bents and biases.

One of these displays I’ve observed recently was Queensland Labor’s take on their opposition to the State LNP’s plan to oppose any recategorisation of lever action shotguns in line with the recommendations of the recent NFA meeting held recently.

I could do a take down of their idiocy piece by piece but as it turns out…someone’s done the hard work for us all.



Well done to the team at NIOATV for this effort.

The useful idiot.

This guy, being only 20 at the moment will not surprise me at all, if when he’s in his forties, be a major spokesperson against the ideals he currently expresses. 
I’ve seen this kind of thing evolve, in my meagre 36 years, in people a lot older and learned than me and I always find them a great source of introspection on the issues they found concerning as the young idiots they used to be and their ability to contrast their previous naivety with other’s poorly founded understanding of contemporary issues.
These destructive factions within our society, provide us the function of the useful idiot and with these young idealistic sorts, as they continue to offer a value to our future, in the same way I’ve referenced the in the general example I’ve given above.

It’s a subjective example but I think we’ve all seen this sort of thing in our observations on the goings on in the lives we lead.

And I’m in no way excluding myself here. The only reason I’ve made this post is I can see my own ignorance, if even on a lesser basis than the young chap on display in the story linked below but all the same. Stupid is as stupid does but I honestly think he’ll change his views over time as we all do and this’ll be of a great value to our community.

We all have regrets along our timelines, the stupid choices we’ve made and the results that come from those decisions. Some more than others but you make your choices and build on that the best you can.

In other associated news, it’s good to see the Australian Greens Party chewing own their own faces. The sooner this part of our polity is laid bare and dealt with via the democratic process the better.

More elections and sooner please. 


Thoughts on the Melbourne massacre.

Recently we’ve had another tragedy unfold in our nation.

Details are definitively unknown at the moment but with the loss of lives the impact isn’t so undefined.

I’m sure they’ll be a lot of speculation as to the causes but from what we now have heard about the perpetrator we again see a familiar pattern of known behaviour leading up to the culmination we’ve witnessed on our T.V screens.

It’s at times like this I’m instantly reminded about the references to persons committing these crimes, that I hear within the MRA and firearms owning community about these people not being dealt with in an appropriate manner.

This country doesn’t deal with these people in effective manner it seems and continues to focus on either the tangential factors in their lives or take an ideological point of view on the causes. Neither approach is delivering the required results.

That re-enforces the need once again to realign our methods of dealing with these cases in order to sustain a more effective means of securing public safety. 

The old paradigms (regarding our current methods of dealing with these issues) of which I am only vaguely aware off need to be challenged, their weaknesses analysed and addressed.

This effort (if we manage to understand it’s need) will be another brick in the wall of what we call our civilisation. It’s a long, hard fought process but it’s up to all of us to ensure that wall is a strong one.

The weekend just gone.

Due to my recent redundancy, from there project work I usually perform as a tradesman, I had the opportunity to visit Brisbane and be a part of the only unhindered screening of Cassie Jaye’s Red Pill documentary in Australia so far.

For all of you that haven’t had the opportunity to view this one, I’m going to offer my unqualified recommendation.

It is thought provoking, revealing of both sides of the debate, as much as the selected groups had their edited opportunity to speak and in my opinion it offers an opening, with our common cultures, into this scene that the average punter may not not usually get to find.

I would like to view the documentary a couple of times over in order to offer a more thorough review but as this is something that is happening all over the world at the moment, I think we can hold off for a wee while and get back to it at a later date.

That said, I believe that would be a worth while analysis even if it is after the fact.

I’m going to wait until I have the the chance to see this effort again before discerning its influence and defining and critiquing its arguments until a later date but I’ll leave with offering my sentiments about this film.

If you have the chance to view this movie, do it.

If there are protests around the viewing of this film, where you have the opportunity to see it, brave that snot and go along and get amongst it, the opposition will only make it more worthwhile.

The Q&A session we were offered after the viewing, with Tom Golden and Paul Elam added another dimension to the discussion and rounded out the effort of the group, Men’s Rights Brisbane, who organised this effort successfully and it served its purpose well.

This Q&A session is available here.

It’s late here and I would like to add more but for the time being I think this enough. The effort that Cassie has put into this film and her supporters will go on to develop the cultural situation between the genders and offer all of us the basis to develop our position a better grounding of our understanding of this factor in our civilisation.