jack mccoy

@TMFScottP Taxes are deleted. Fact.

'Taxes paid by hard-working Australians should support Australians' is a nice line. But I wonder who the taxes paid by non-citizen permanent residents is supposed to support? #BudgetReply2026

@MarkoMatvikov How does this wash when according to the RBA and all the other mainstream pundits spending is too high? Either ppl have to much money or they don’t can’t have it both ways

It’s incredibly refreshing to hear a major political party propose income tax indexation in my lifetime. I think it can transform an economy much more than people think because: • Workers keep more of what they earn to save and invest • Businesses have customers with more disposable income • Governments can’t rely on taxing income higher by stealth It leaves more money in the hands of people and businesses to grow the economy - and forces the government to focus on productivity to fund new spending.

@DrCameronMurray @GrahamY Pent up demand will easily absorb any temporary increase in sellers.

@GrahamY If investors sell, won't prices fall? Seems good for those renters who want to buy soon

Pity the poor renters. Fiddling with NC and CGT will tax rental properties more heavily, so there will be fewer of them, and rents will rise. $83 a week on our research. It will increase rental stress and take them even longer to save a deposit. This isn't intergenerational equity, it's incompetence. /2

@joshhaughto @GreenTyler27 Every time the gov spends it does so by creating new money. When taxes are collected they’re simply just deleted off the spread sheet. The deficit is all the money they have spent minus what they have taxed. Thats it. Totally sustainable hence why it doesn’t stop

@joshhaughto @GreenTyler27 Taxes delete money. All money (fiat) is created every time the gov spends. The money to pay taxes can’t exist unless the gov spends first.

My issue with Gary Stevenson’s analysis is that the guy talks constantly about inequality, but far less about currency debasement, monetary expansion, asset inflation and the incentives that are created by central banking and government debt. If you continue to ignore the role of money printing and credit expansion in driving housing, equities, and cost-of-living pressures, then your diagnosis of the problem is very incomplete. If someone like Gary can openly discuss inequality for hours on end without seriously addressing fiat expansion, debt monetisation and currency debasement, it raises serious questions with me about how deeply they understand the root causes of modern asset inflation in the first place.

@joshhaughto @GreenTyler27 There is no money without central banks. You don’t understand fiat currency

@GreenTyler27 He talks about symptoms as if they’re the disease. The disease is central banks increasing the money supply. Everything else is downstream from that - inflation, house prices, wealth inequality. Fix the money, fix the world.

@GreenTyler27 You don’t understand fiat currency or central banking

@biglibertyguy @en_jeade @MickamiousG The point is that a gov is not restricted by tax revenue. The real resources and capacity limits of the economy are the limits of spending.

@biglibertyguy @en_jeade @MickamiousG I’m not saying to do that. I’m simply outlining how a fiat currency system operates. The money to pay taxes can only happen after the gov has spent/created the currency first. It’s a point of logic

To the Labor, Greens & Socialist (Left Leaning) voters, genuinely asking. Why do you keep voting this way? Is it the economic benefits from government? The inclusion the government offers? Other reasons?? I’m genuinely curious.

@biglibertyguy @en_jeade @MickamiousG The gov is the currency issuer. All $AU Originates from the gov in the first instance. Gov spends first and then taxes back 2nd

@jackmccoy76 @en_jeade @MickamiousG What do you think funds government?

@biglibertyguy @en_jeade @MickamiousG The gov doesn’t have to take anything away from someone else. The belief that taxes fund gov therefore we can’t have nice things is the reason we get such poor policies and why ppl accept austerity.

@en_jeade @jackmccoy76 @MickamiousG Are you asking if I think the government should steal from other people to provide for my kids if I die? No.

@biglibertyguy @MickamiousG Not interested in “a closer metaphor” Just answer the question, or don’t

@jackmccoy76 @MickamiousG A closer metaphor to leftist policy in that example would be me coming and cleaning out your fridge because your neighbour is hungry. Which, no, I wouldn't do.

@biglibertyguy @MickamiousG Instead of a chore it’s dinner. What if they had to both do something to get dinner but one child is significantly disadvantaged through no fault of their own. Hence they cannot complete the task. Would you just let them starve? Or would you equal the playing field?

@MickamiousG I have to imagine it is some warped sense of fairness. Like when one of my kids gets a reward for doing a chore, the other one expects the same reward despite not having done the chore because it's only "fair" if they both get the same thing.

@DrCameronMurray But I thought privatisation is so much more efficient? You make it public again and prioritise education over profitability. Since the gov is the currency issuer. Finding the money is not an issue

My opinion is that most university degrees are too long, and that everyone at universities knows this. In fact, they even know which subjects are fillers and could be dropped, and how to accelerate others. But their business is selling more subjects. How do we change this?

@MarkoMatvikov The 60 gets deleted. It doesn’t go into a savings account where gov spends from later. Every time the gov spends it does by creating new dollars. When taxes are collected they just get deleted. It’s all just a spread sheet. Ask any central banker they will say the same thing

@jackmccoy76 I don’t disagree with any of that - my point is simply that the $60 on your example is all tax revenue.

This isn’t just the story of how our taxpayer-funded ABC could be funding itself with royalties from Bluey. It’s about our government repeatedly doing bad deals and creating an economy that prioritises lazy comfort over risk for reward. Here’s my favourite part - which echoes what many of us have been saying for a long time. Thanks to @gearside for the video.

@GreenTyler27 For a currency issuer it is totally sustainable. It’s how it’s supposed to work. Spent/created $778B Taxed/deleted $733B Deficit = $45B Gov deficit = private sector surplus. The gov added $45B to the economy.

This is what a year in Australia looks like give or take: Revenue: $733B Spending: $778B Deficit: ~$45B Biggest costs: Welfare $235B Health $114B Education $98B Defence $62B Other major costs: Interest on debt $47B NDIS ~$37B Transport & infrastructure $56B Other programs/services $68B Bond market (cost of money): AU 10Y: ~4.97% AU 30Y: ~5.35% We spend ~$106 for every $100 we earn. We all know that you can’t keep spending more than you bring in without dire consequences.

@MarkoMatvikov Gov spends $100 If it taxes $60 back that would = a deficit of $40. The gov deficit of 40 is the private sector income. If the gov taxed the full 100 back the private sector would have $0. Deficits are normal and sustainable

@MarkoMatvikov No. Taxes come second. Gov spends money into existence first and taxes them back out later. If the gov doesn’t spend first then there are no dollars in the economy to pay tax with.

@MarkoMatvikov Also it’s not funded by taxpayers. The budget gets voted on in parliament and if it passes then treasury instructs the RBA to credit the appropriate accounts. It has nothing to do with how much taxes are collected.

@MarkoMatvikov But then you will only get things that are profitable. I’d rather they focus on what’s in the public’s best interest. Independent, investigative and local news and journalism over some host in a Sydney studio trying to piece it together