[ProgSoc] VSU (Was: What should the exec do? (Was: Scrap VSU info from UTS Union))

Roland Turner raz at raz.cx
Mon Mar 9 21:52:19 EST 2009


On Mon, 2009-03-09 at 09:48 +0000, Anand Kumria wrote:

> Raz,
> 
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Roland Turner <raz at raz.cx> wrote:
> > Again this is ad hominem, plainly absurd (a state can't function without
> > taxes, or something analogous[1]) and is a separate argument (reduction
> > of taxes by government vs. desisting granting monopoly rights to a
> > non-governmental body). That said, there are places which operate _far_
> > lower tax regimes than Australia, and do so with comparable or better
> > community outcomes.
> 
> Really?
> 
> Why wouldn't you name them in that case?

I hadn't anticipated this point being terribly controversial. I live in
one: Singapore.

> > It is in fact your latter acknowledgement is correct; this is the basis
> > for limiting tax collection to that required to fund those services
> > without which a society cannot function.
> 
> Oh please. Since when is the tax collected being limited to those
> services without which a society can not function?

It's not; I was talking about the basis for the argument for. On
re-reading, this was not as clear as it could have been.

> I pay tax in Australia - I definitely do not need a service which
> collects stamp duty but yet my taxes fund this "function without which
> society can not function".
> 
> That is just one of a number of services which I fund but do not
> believe are critical for society to function. Whilst you can probably
> come up with a easy rationale for that particular service,

(chuckle)

In the general sense that, in order to collect taxes a society needs tax
collectors, then this service clearly is a "function without which
society can not function".

Stamp duty is an excellent example of an unjustly structured tax.

> the problem
> with your argument is that whomever defines what are necessary and
> critical services gets to define the playing field.

I believe that this is the problem with Andi's argument; the surest way
to limit the power of a government to determine what is and isn't
essential is to limit its tax-collection powers in the first place.

I agree, of course, that there is massive scope creep in the tax
collection activities of most (all?) welfare states. That said, having
accepted transfer payments as essential, working out where to draw the
line (and preventing incumbent governments from doing so unilaterally)
becomes a near impossible task. Perhaps collecting in taxes about half
of the productive output of a country really has become essential (or
rather, the transfer payments thereby funded have become essential).

> It's a slippery slope which Andi has correctly identified as being
> under the purview of people who are elected.

You are strengthening my argument, no? The more productive output that a
society permits to be collected in taxes the first place, the more power
is transferred away from the people (demos) to the [s]elected (ploutos).

> Andi's theory is that the tax imposed by the Union provides a
> "necessary and critical service" (a social scene).
> 
> So far none of the arguments presented counter that.

Andi has yet to advance such a theory. His argument thus far has been a
mix of his own enjoyment of the previous arrangement and a spurious
attempt to confuse the Union with government.

If, however, _you_ are advancing it then the rebuttal appears
straight-forward: the University is functioning perfectly well without
mandatory unionism (no impact on security, justice, transport, health,
education, social security), consequently mandatory unionism does not
provide "necessary and critical service" that would otherwise not be
provided.

Are you able to suggest arguments supporting the idea that the "social
scene" previously provided under mandatory unionism could in any sense
be considered essential?

- Raz




More information about the Progsoc mailing list