October 25th 2014

  Buy Issue 2935

Articles from this issue:

ENERGY Greens' silence on folly of wind and solar power

CLIMATE Link between climate and CO2 is far from clear

CANBERRA OBSERVED Our farmers under siege from government policies

EDITORIAL Can Australia avoid economic stagnation?

SOCIETY The colossal cost to society of no-fault divorce

REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH Gardasil and fertility: are we sterilising our teenage girls?

UNITED KINGDOM Tories' bid to promote same-sex 'marriage' in schools

EUTHANASIA Will assisted dying apply to 'just a few'?

EDUCATION A high school curriculum that teaches the truth about communism

Reality dawns as Asian myths torn apart

Language is the core of our civilised society


CINEMA A sharp and witty science-fiction thriller

BOOK REVIEW A literary lament for lost love

Books promotion page


News Weekly, October 25, 2014

Family-friendly taxation


Hello from Canada! 

Regarding Luke McCormack’s article, “High time to introduce family-friendly taxation” (News Weekly, September 27, 2014), I too applaud income-splitting for families with dependants, which many of us up here want and don’t have either.

We have held conferences on this issue. (See the website, “It’s Fair to Share — reducing taxes in Canada by sharing income” at: http://sharingincome.tripod.com). 

In fact, there is a women’s rights argument to support it, which we make as follows: 

When women are assumed not to be sharing income and equal partners in the home, they are considered dependants on someone else. This is demeaning. A woman’s role is of equal value to a man’s and, however a couple may divide their earnings and the care of their children, they are a partnership of equals. 

The government should recognise this sharing and partnership, since it is already happening. The tax system is supposed to tax according to behaviour not to coerce behaviour. 

Canada has a similar and very gross imbalance in taxes on equally-earning households, based on how the money was earned and who earned it — two factors which are not really fair. The tax should be on the amount earned. 

If women are not recognised for their unpaid work, then they are not fully recognised in the economy because the care of the young, sick, handicapped, frail elderly and dying is historically women’s work. 

Yes, men can do it; but whoever does it should be acknowledged as helping contribute to an amount of work valued at a third of the GDP. 

This should be seen as the huge contribution to the economy that it is, not just to the household concerned but also by saving government billions of dollars by keeping people who need care out of costly institutional settings. 

The feisty women up here whom I admire are fighting for income-splitting because it is a key way to value women. 

And, hey, we’re making progress! Our government gave us pension-splitting a few years ago and allows income-splitting for households with a handicapped child. We hear rumours that a much broader income-splitting provision may come with our very next federal budget — that is, for all households with children under the age of 18. 

That would be great because it would achieve greater fairness. Currently, the government funds institutional daycare, but not home-based care. 

If, instead, the government allowed greater tax relief for families with children, then the people themselves could decide how and where to raise their children. 

Beverley Smith,
Calgary, Alberta,



NZ’s John Key a conservative?


Given that New Zealand Prime Minister John Key imposed same-sex marriage on his country last year without seeking an electoral mandate to do so, I find it hard to accept the headline, “Roller-coaster election ends with conservative win”, on Bernard Moran’s report on the recent New Zealand elections (News Weekly, October 11, 2014). 

New Zealand’s attitude to the ANZUS alliance and traditional marriage can hardly be described as “conservative”. 

John Barich,
Belmont, WA



Harry Dexter White, Soviet spy


Warren Reed’s lame attempt to defend the Soviet agent Harry Dexter White as an idealist (Book Review, News Weekly, October 11, 2014) is contradicted by evidence from Soviet intelligence sources. 

Reed tells us in one sentence that “there is no evidence that (White) admired communism as a political ideology”, and in another that he “believed passionately in the success of the bold Soviet experiment with socialism”. 

Only an expert in double-think could reconcile those two sentiments. Reed says in Dexter’s defence that he was not a member of the Communist Party; but neither were top Soviet “true believers”, such as Britain’s Harold “Kim” Philby and our own Dr Ian Milner, for obvious reasons. 

White was a senior U.S. Treasury official in the 1940s, and suspected at that time of leaking material to the Soviets and promoting their interests rather than U.S. ones. 

As with Alger Hiss, White’s innocence was proclaimed for decades by the pro-communist Left and by many commentators until the evidence of his guilt became conclusive; so it’s a bit late in the day for Reed to mount a rearguard defence. 

Reed makes the cardinal mistake of accepting uncritically the apologia for White’s political activities, which Benn Steil — the author of the book Reed is supposed to be reviewing — offers us. 

Patrick Morgan,
Boolarra, Vic.



Dumb or dishonest?


May I thank Peter Westmore for his article, “Melting Antarctic ice sheet, or more climate alarmism?” (News Weekly, September 27, 2014). 

The debate about climate change and the “scientific facts” often leaves me cold and angry. 

When we are told the Antarctic ice cap is melting at unprecedented rates, the ill-informed take the bait every time, especially the left-wing ABC. 

Any child who has achieved year 8 in high-school physics could tell you that pure water freezes or melts at 0°C at sea level. The majority of inland Antarctica experiences a temperature range of -30°C in summer to -80°C in winter, i.e., it never melts. On the coast it can range from +10°C in summer to -40°C in winter. The Antarctic summers are very short. 

The ABC and the IPCC are either very dishonest or very dumb.

(Mr) Pat Shea,
Eltham, Vic.


Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am