Peter Lewis’

Comment from Rob Silva – Particularly on the Swiss Model of CIR

South Australia may introduce Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR)

Join the Debate - the ‘Freedom Proposals’ and the ‘Money Solution’

Rob Silva’s comments in large print:

*****************

>Peter Lewis' Compact for Good Government
>
>Hello Rob
>
>I am John Robertson and like you, I received an email from Deanna Gill. I studied the Compact and like it.
>
>I did not know Peter Lewis had a positive feeling for Citizens Initiated Referenda (CIR) but if ever South Australia adopted CIR I would set out to improve the lifestyle of Rural South Australians and others by initiating reforms as a citizen. Your positive and negative comments to help start a public debate on my proposals would be most welcome.

I personally am a long-time supporter of CIR along the lines of the
Swiss model. My feeling is that it allows a much wider set of issues
to be addressed, especially those 'off the radar screens' of the major
political parties. Apart from that, it put some pressure on elected
members to perform.

>
>Law. Australia does not have Human Rights Legislation. SA should lead the other States and the Commonwealth by enacting Human Rights Law. I have first hand knowledge of corruption in SA Law Courts; details can be provided.

Personally, I don't see that enacting Human Right Law will make any
difference. We live under the auspices of the various UN Human Rights
conventions. In reference to your particular case, I can't see how, if
corruption indeed exists in the state courts, it is going to solve
that particular problem.

>
>With excellent Law, excellent businesses and people would be attracted to SA.

I'm not sure I agree. "Excellent Law" would have to make things
palpably better in order to attract people to SA in particular. The law
is an ass everywhere but generally speaking it doesn't stop people
living their lives. As for business, business-cost-effecient law is
what's attractive. This may not be consistent in 'excellent law' for
individuals.
>
>Money: With modern computers it is ridiculous to tax in obsolete ways. 1% tax on all credits (deposits) and on all debits (withdrawals) in the banks and other finance houses would provide the SA Treasury with too much money. All existing SA taxes would be scrapped.

Nope. I disagree entirely on this suggestion. The bottom line is that
the State govt would continue to extract at least the same level of
taxation from the people of South Australia. So it would have to be
paid ultimately by individuals (whether it be directly or through
increased costs on everything). And of course you've lost any means of
managing the 'regressivity' of the tax.

Of course it sounds attractive to individuals because they somehow
imagine that 'big business & currency speculators' will end up paying
all the taxes.

Reply from JR.Taxing All creditsand debits covers big business, pensioners, charities, government departments, etc.More tax would definitely be collected.The Surplus Tax would be lent by SA to the banks for their usual high geared lending (ten times or more the deposits with them).SA would become very wealthy as the loans to banks earn interest and are repayable.The 1% tax rate will have to be reduced in the future, as SA will not know what to do with all of its money.

>
>SA would then lend its surplus money to the banks at 1% who in turn would lend to businesses and home-buyers at 3%. This low cost money would attract excellent businesses and people to create full employment in SA.
>
>People and Corporations evading the 1% tax would be fined ten times the tax evaded and be barred from the low cost money for ten years. In addition, their competitors and others would have the right to claim treble damages in the civil courts for losses suffered by paying their tax while the evaders did not pay tax, so causing unfair competition.
>
>State Retirement Pension: To increase the money movements and therefore SA tax receipts and money available for low cost loans, an Old Age Pension equal to 20% of the Commonwealth Age Pension would be paid. This would attract people to SA, so further boosting business and employment opportunities.
>
>With the SA economy fixed, money would be available for better supplies of electricity, water, health services, education, transport, environment services, police, emergency and human services.
>
>As one example, ample low cost money could finance wind turbine electricity generation. Port Augusta would be a good site as the existing power grid system radiates from there. The Flinders Ranges and Spencers Gulf combine to provide suitable windfarm sites. Off-peak electricity could pump sea water into a hydro electricity dam on the Flinders with the exhausted water from the hydro-electric scheme flowing into Lake Torrens and Lake Eyre. Surplus clean electricity could produce clean hydrogen fuel. The additional lakes water would cause more evaporation and therefore more dew and thunderstorms.
>
>Living in Rural Areas would be enhanced by employment opportunities via the Internet and by the servicing of aged people wanting to enjoy their retirement in Country Towns.
>
With respect to all of the above, I think it is basically premised on
the assumption (perhaps unconscious) that the taxes currently paid by
South Australians would suddenly come from somewhere else. Of course
it won't - none of the above can be achieved without increasing the
overall tax take.

Reply from JR: yes, more tax needs to be collected and this is done by being more efficient and fair AND by attracting more capitalist businesses with SA’s low cost bank overdrafts and safe law.The extra business and increased employment will increase the tax base.The people currently paying less than their fair share of tax will pay more, there is no doubt about that.
>
>So, what do you think?
>
>
>
>Regards
>
>John Robertson

******************

NEXT: 4_ CIR - accountability - law - property investment

NEXT: [Site Map]

Last updated July 30, 2002)