If only your "Exhibit A" wasn't mostly selective golden memory tinted by rose colored glasses. The "great uplift" was indeed (mostly) great - if you were a white collar worker in the city, or an industrial worker with a union. For the laborers down on the farm, the topic of discussion, not so much.

Pretty sure it was proportionally at least as good - probably better - for unskilled labour.

And even then the "great uplift" wasn't powered by smaller profit margins or worker's rights - it was powered by rising salaries, employment, and consumer spending. (Emphasis on the last.) It couldn't last, and it didn't.

You need strong worker's rights for (sustained and economy-wide) rising salaries, secure employment and, consequently, high consumer spending.

You can't have low prices, high quality, and high wages for the worker - pick two.

You can, but it means smaller profit margins and strong worker's rights.

Exhibit A: the couple of decades post-WW2 in the USA. Capitalism's golden age, the greatest relative uplift in quality of life in human history.

Or is your argument really that there fundamentally aren't enough physical resources for everyone to get high quality goods ?

They have however maintained a farely solid voter base through recruitment of a younger generation who sadly don't seemed informed enough to see greens for what they really are.

The only remotely mainstream party in Australia politics with a progressive, centre-left, social democratic policy base ?

Pretty sure that's why they're getting the youth vote - because they're the only party that give a shit about demographics after baby boomers and have policies with a view past the next election.

Greens really are part of labor now, the only time they vote against labor is when they see a chance to gain publicity or popularity.

The Greens have a well developed and mature policy platform. They promote legislation that aligns with it.

no offense but it sound more like you are the one getting their information from Rupert to have such a positive view of them.

Murdoch portraying the Greens favourably ? You live in a very different world to me.

I think the biggest indictment of them is the fact even my highly pro environmental friends refuse to vote for them as they see them as only a destructive force towards environmental sustainability and see either coalition or labor as a better choice for the environment.

I'd love to hear the rationale behind their thinking.

Because I'm at a loss how two parties promoting growth at all costs, overconsumption, exploitation of the environment (stripe-mining Coal, CSG, dumping of spoil on the reef, etc) could possibly lead to a "better choice for the environment".

I think you are thinking of the greens from more than a decade ago. The Greens haven't stood for that for a long time. They are basically part of labor and push for policies for short term rather than taking consideration of the long term effects or goals.

Here is the Greens policy platform.

Tell us about which parts bother you.

The greens having power would probably do more damage to human decency and DEFINITELY more damage to the environment and the prospects of a sustainable future (if you destroy business you can't head to sustainability, you head towards being a 3rd world country or Greece).

Yes, obviously they'd do far more damage than the "growth at all costs", "destroy the middle classes" pro-oligopoly parties.

The real-world equivalent of this would be a little drone following you around recording where you went, who you talked to, where you went shopping, when you did it, etc, etc.

I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Would you ?

They are all pretty much scumbags. Not even most environmentalists vote for the greens anymore as they are little more than an extension of the labor party, focused on short term thinking and power plays.

Greens an extension of Labor ? Now there's a chuckle.

Sounds like you get most of your political information from your local Rupertarian.

I'm sure a few hardcore greenies have abandoned the Greens as they slowly morph into a generalist centre-left social-democracy party, but their share of the primary vote has remained pretty constant for a decade or more.

If these people were actually conservatives, then they'd try to maintain the status quo, not introduce new controls, etc.

They are conservatives. They want to go back to the good old days of Feudalism.

Progressivism is how we escaped that history and created democracies, free speech, equal rights, and the like.

if the Five Eyes slurp it all up anyway? They already have access to these data, why bother making ISPs keep it too?

So it can be used domestically and legally.

This is about intimidating political opponents, whistleblowers and copyright infringers.

I like bias... they don't mention that the labor party all voted it through as well.

Of course they did. There's barely been daylight between Labor and the Coalition for 10+ years.

Greens only opposed it after they learned labor wouldn't [...]

Huh ? The Greens have opposed this from the get-go.

Hilarious. The only mainstream party opposed to the right-wing neoliberal authoritarianism that's been destroying the western world for decades, and they're "scumbags".

Hope you don't have any allergies shovelling that much straw around.

All taxes get paid by the people purchasing products and services.

Taxes are paid by those against whom they are levied.

Those entities may try and recover that cost elsewhere. They may or may not be successful in doing so.

If you tax only the rich, the poor will pay the differences.

So you don't think anyone will step in and provide equivalent products and services at a lower cost than established players because they're prepared to accept a smaller profit margin ?

Ie: markets don't work ?

There are plenty of rich people who don't own and run businesses, or have substantial income and wealth outside of their business interests.

and no, you cannot address that with any legislation because congress does not have the power to do so.

Firstly, the world is not America.

Secondly, even in the US, between local, state and federal Governments, they can legislate nearly anything they want to. If, of course, they want to. But there's been little interest in trying to build a better society since the neoliberal right took over the western world in the '70s and started pursuing the greatest wealth transfer from the

And it's all completely irrelevant to the original claim that "all taxes are regressive".

Uber is run by libertarian psychopaths. Their thought process - though they would obviously never say it in public - is "nobody made you get into the taxi, tough luck".

Even the slightest voluntary attempt to try and ameliorate the risk involved would be an anathema - "nanny state regulation" or some such bullshit - to them.

Given the life and pay of a taxi driver, I'd go with "sweet fuck all".

People calling in "political favours" to be a *taxi driver* ? Did you even think about that before you wrote it ? Do you think garbage collectors get jobs through "political favours" as well ?