Excellent analysis. Thanks, Tristan.
"And yet Single Parents will be shifted on to NewStart Allowance (a $56/week reduction) when their child/children reach the age of 12 (down from 16)."
This is most disturbing. Is it definitely the case, or a misreading? If true, what is the Government's rationale?
Tristan? Anyone?

Thanks Alan; The quote is as follows:

"Those recipients will be moved on to the lower NewStart Allowance when their child turns 12, instead of 16 under the old arrangements."

from the following URL:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Groups-question-tough-love-welfare-GQGNM?opendocument&src=rss

Although I did find this:"who were granted the payment before 2006".

So maybe it will affect fewer people than I originally thought.

Nonetheless - it's unfair to put it mildy. And with all the emphasis on 'teenage single mums' Rachel Siewert points out in another article here at OLO today:

"85% of single parent pensioners are over 25yo, only 2-3% teenage mums"

Labor was desperate for savings, but perhaps thought means-testing the childcare rebate would be too controversial.

So it seems they've gone after some soft targets. I think Penny Wong would have liked better than this. In fact I think Wayne Swan would have liked better. From their perspective they were 'backed into a corner' - But doing away with the Company Tax cut would have been more than enough to cover the costs saved by these measures against single parents and young unemployed.

Labor needs a 'big ticket' 'big picture' initiative now - to 'capture people's imagination' like NBN did. All the tight budgets in the world won't save them unless they can achive that...

Tristan why is it that income seems to be the only criteria which you (amd others) take into account when it comes to determining what you consider someone else's fair share of social responsibility is?

There are a variety of factors which impact on people's income. Basic ability and opportunity are two of them but choice is another and often a big one. I know that I could earn more than I currently do by making some different life choices, I choose not to make them. I used to be in a lower paid job and chose to study part time to allow me the opportunity to increase my income.

If I chose to forgo some more of my time to increase my income further why should my responsibility to the community increase? Why is my social responsibilty greater than those who make the choices between work and other parts of life at a different point?

The concept of taxable income is fundamentally unfair because it takes no account of the effort or time an individual takes to earn that income? It takes no account of how they have treated the opportunities that life has given them or what their needs are.

Your talk of a fair share for people in certain income brackets is a flawed concept, it's not fair, at best it's expediant because trying to measure fair may be unworkable.

R0bert

Robert; Agreed the system is imperfect and not always fair - but what to replace it with? Many people are in relatively unskilled jobs - but these can be demanding physically and mentally... Should skill - translating into labour market power - be the sole determinant of income?

If we considered inherited wealth and unearned income from dividends - and restructured the tax system to suit - then everyone could get a 'fairer go' through provision of high quality essential services in health, aged care, education...

Apprently over a million workers get minimum wage $15/hour; And about 20% of Australians own about 60% of the wealth. Meanwhile the WAGE SHARE of the economy has fallen by about 20% since the 1980s. (according to ACTU research - follow the URL below to see the figures I base this estimate on) Something is wrong here also... See: http://left-flank.blogspot.com/2011/05/whats-class-got-to-do-with-it-appendix.html#more

At the very least, though, the usually most vulnernable groups - eg: single parents - deserve support rather than stigma...

And people on Newstart - facing tough active labour market policies; and even 'work for the dole' deserve a fairer go. We must remember the broader context - including a rising cost of living, including extreme housing stress for many...

As a psychiatrist working in a public hospital I'm sorry to be sectional, Tristan, but the mental health funding is not as straightforwardly good as you may think. The limitation on psychological services through Medicare may be sensible but what there is to replace it through direct publicly funded services is murky. There's also a greater shift to "partnerships" with the low-wage NGO sector to effectively subcontract what should be public provision to private operators (even if they are non-profit).

The early intervention stuff is the most worrying, IMO. It is based on very little evidence in terms of producing good results at a population level. Many of the psychiatric problems adults have come from adverse social and family circumstances in childhood, but that is not the same as saying that individually targeted MH services will ameliorate these problems disconnected from progressive social policies (which the government seems unwilling to offer in any serious way).

It's neoliberal mental health policy, with a scary aspect of individual social engineering aligned with the reactionary "social inclusion" agenda. When it is tied into the "efficient price signal" I suspect it will be much less effective for patients and much more deleterious for the conditions health workers face than it currently appears with McGorry, Hickie & GetUp! celebrating having their pet project approved.

"Agreed the system is imperfect and not always fair - but what to replace it with" - I'd suggest rarely fair which is why I object to claims that slugging people with a higher tax bill purely on the basis of income is "fair".

There are those who don't have the ability to increase their income but for most it's a matter of priorities, they may be good priorities but for most there are options.

I don't know that there are practical way's of doing a fair income tax system, I would like to see campaigners such as yourself drop the offensive pretense that what you advocate for is fair though. It's expedient but not fair.

As for directions of reform, for income derived from effort I'd like to see the tax system move more towards the view that time is something which we all get the same amount of each week. Base the tax liability around time.

I don't know what the actual figure should be but as an estimate say 6 hours per week per person. For those working full time their tax liability is 6 hours of income, for those earning a lot less over shorter hours then 6 hours to community projects (or maybe training for a better job). Eg there should be a safety net which gives people options without excusing the capable from responsibility whilst overly loading others with the burden.

The idea needs a lot of fleshing out but as an approach it's a lot fairer than slugging someone working extra hours with an extra tax bill. Different rules would need to be determined for income which can't be tied back to an hourly rate. Perhaps an assumed working week.

It's a starting point for a different way of thinking about social responsibility.

R0bert