Home News

GEA Library At Head Quarters Bassendean PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Monday, 05 November 2012 12:11

GEA have a broad range of publications dealing with Classical Economics and their significance in today's world of economic chaos. These treat land and other natural resources as distinctly separate from capital, such as buildings and machinery.

Writings cover employment, monopolies, ownership of mineral and other natural resources, and elimination of deadweight taxes on labour that result in unemployment and poverty. These are proven ideas of how to bring in a wholly different approach to economic thinking which has been buried for decades by the Neo-classical Economists, who wish to maintain the status quo, which has placed most wealth in very few hands"

Books are available on loan to members and some registered borrowers, i.e. other libraries, at no charge.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 15 April 2015 11:18
A Win For GEA - commentary by President PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Tuesday, 29 November 2011 22:10

At the time that GEA made a submission to the Henry Review into Taxation little was made of its passing in the association yet it has turned out to be a great winner for us in promoting Georgist philosophy. The Mining Rental Resources Tax was however wanted by the Rudd Government because it is a sure revenue builder not so for the Georgist philosophy behind it. Yet GEA can now be thankful our submission is allied with others of Georgist ilk because the Resources legislation is expected to pass the lower house in Parliament. Of 187 substantial Recommendations made by Dr Henry and his committee the Rudd/Gillard government was only interested in the Mining Resources Rental Tax so that really stands out.

The chances of legislation passing the Senate to become law ought to be reasonable in spite of the coalition's  very strong opposition; for a defeat could spark an unpopular general election in which further damage to the poor polling  of the Opposition is likely, so it ought to be wisely avoided.
My further comment is how relatively easy it is for governments under the Westminster system (examples are UK, NZ, Canada, Australia) to pass legislation compared to the American Republican system. It is a comment Americans have ruefully admitted for at least many decades. The bargaining and general political processes in respect to getting all parties to agree to legislation is similar in some respects for these competing systems yet the American's can only look on with wonder when they observe the Australian Parliament's successes.
A particular doctrine of liberal democracies such as USA and Australia is the separation of powers between the arms of government such as the executive and legal arms. Our Westminster system performs a better job. Does it make you wonder why we should change to an American style Republic, with it's politicised Head of State as so frequently advocated? Georgist's keep on with the processes including lobbying and surely crowning successes will be achieved.
Talk on anti-monopoly and social justice PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Wednesday, 25 April 2012 20:57

The GEA is holding a talk on anti-monopoly and social justice in their headquarters (1/20 Old Perth Road, Bassendean)  on Friday  04/05/2012 (commencing 7.30 PM).  Speakers will be Tom Maxwell and Stuart Dunstan. Come and join the debate. The admission is free!

Last Updated on Monday, 05 November 2012 12:26
Carbon tax? Yes, but... PDF Print E-mail
Written by Administrator   
Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:25

The Carbon Tax debate has made the popularity of the Labor government sink to a new low. Australians fear that it will have a negative impact on the economy (jobs) and will reduce their income. Lower income earners are most concerned, because they fear that the tax will put the heaviest burden on them.

The principle of pollution taxes is just. The capacity of the earth to process pollution and waste is a limited natural resource, and every human being has a birthright to an equal share of this resource. For a long time we have been polluting and wasting far beyond this natural capacity, causing damage for which we will eventually pay an economic price. It is only fair that those who take more than their fair share (the biggest polluters) are penalised; while those that pollute less should be rewarded. In theory, this is a socially responsible scheme of resource distribution, because richer people generally pollute more than poorer people. For those who pollute no more and no less than their fair share, nothing changes. But this is only true if we take both sides in to account (the penalty as well as the reward).

We support a tax on carbon emissions, but only under the following two conditions:

1. The extra revenue collected by government must be fully used to reduce income taxes, in the first place taxes on the lowest incomes. The government's proposal should be clear on how the extra revenue will be spent, which is not the case. It should be proposing a tax shift , not a tax increase. This way we should not fear for general economic shrinkage, because the increase in tax on some activities will be compensated by an equal decrease in tax on other activities, making room for new opportunities. We also do not have to worry about any social damage, because the lowest incomes - who are the smallest polluters - will get net benefit out of this. It is a misconception that the government should invest revenue from pollution taxes directly in to green energy, If the carbon tax proposal was tied to an income tax reduction scheme, it would get much more support from the people. Investment in to green technology will follow automatically, if we give more incentives to innovation and less to destruction.

2. Along with a carbon tax shift, there should also be a land value tax shift, simultaneously. Carbon emissions are closely linked to the economics of land and location. Urban sprawl, caused by land speculation, increases car usage. Heavy taxes on labour and capital wipe out the local economy, and land monopoly gives way to giant corporations who decide what we must consume and distribute products over long distances. A land value tax will benefit the poor, the middle class and the small, local businesses, and will stimulate a more efficient use of natural resources. Without a land value tax, any improvement in the quality of our ecosystem will only raise land values and benefit land owners.

If these two guidelines were followed, tax reform could lead to exactly those incentives we need to improve green energy technologies and build a healthy, clean economy. That is a truly free market solution.

Last Updated on Thursday, 16 June 2011 15:46

Page 2 of 5
Copyright © 2017 Georgist Education Association. All Rights Reserved.
Joomla! is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL License.