Good article Andrew. Perhaps a better solution would be to raise the tax free threshold. Come on! Who can live on eight thousand a year? When income tax was first introduced, my grandfather didn't pay because the tax free threshold was set above the median wage of the day. Only the wealthy (and corporations) paid income tax then. How times have changed! I propose that the tax free threshold be increased to match the Median adult income of $26,000 / year and that this be indexed to the CPI.

Bootstrapper you're on to something. Yes, times have changed, but not as much as you would think. Average Australians face the same demons as Americans. Taxes, unless going for legitimate and accountable to the penny expenses of government, are no different than the middle ages where the tax collector came to get the masters cut of the goods produced. It's a transference of wealth, nothing more or less.

Government is a burden on the people. Those in power have no idea (nor do they want to), what it really takes to live. Lest we forget the taxation upon taxation we all endure. Sit down sometime and really figure your tax burden. It's not just income tax, it's property tax, sales tax, requirements of certain insurance, communication tax, gas tax; you pay in so many ways. Yet all is not debated, because all do not benefit. Whenever I see any tax argument, I laugh. At some point enough good citizens will say no at the say time and a revolution will begin.

"Viva the revolution"

The only way people can whine about 'tax cuts for the rich' is when the rich are already being taxed unequally.

It seems equality is only important in some instances.

The problem is not many of the rich are being taxed at 47%, such a high tax rate means that people who makes that much are

1. not willing to work as hard (unlikely)
2. finding way to avoid tax (trusts, companies and income splitting)
3. going o/s to work

The amount of people evading tax and going overseas to work has put additional pressure on the rest of the working class to pay more tax. Therefore a high top marginal tax rate does create problems. People like Rupert Murdock are leaving Australia with their businesses and taking employments people in overseas countries.

A high marginal tax rate also makes it harder for Australia to attract skilled professionals like Doctors, since they would much prefer to make their money in a Country like the US, where the highest tax rate is 30%. this creates a lack of doctors in Australia, and a lack of services to the community and higher health cost for all of us.

The top marginal tax rate have to move to make us a more attractive place for skilled labour and to stop these skilled labour from leaving Australia

Patty Jr, I would not have realised from other posts of yours that you are an anarchist. Never having studied anarchist doctrine ( a contradiction of terms?) I don't understand how it is supposed to 'work' (perhaps it's not and that's the point). However, most of us accept the need for taxes to fund government services. We can exercise our vote if we don't like the way the taxes are spent. But most of us want governments to provide more and better services, as the surveys quoted in the article demonstrate.

The problem with the tax system is that it is still unfair. There are so many ways that higher income earners can minimise tax. There is 'churn', where taxes are returned in the form of family benefits or industry assistance for example, losing a lot in the process. The tax system could be a lot fairer. I would like to see an article written about the pros and cons of a flat income tax system and how it could be used for fairness, the abolition of a lot of other taxes and tax rorts.

Thankyou Andrew for an excellent explanation of "bandied about" statistics. I always thought that the figures I saw and heard quoted of what was “average” were far too high. As far I as could see I should have been in abject poverty but miraculously I wasn't. Yes, I congratulated myself for economic management during my undergraduate studies but as I progressed into the adult workforce it was obvious that most people didn't earn very much and most families were dependent upon government handouts and tax deductions. From then I've always questioned why Australian society prefers to take the earnings of the Australian people, like children who don't have the skills to manage their own money, and then require us to deduct and beg in a bureaucratic quagmire to have a proportion of our earnings return to us as if it was a gift. Increasing the tax-free threshold will return responsibility and pride to the Australian people. How high? I personally don’t know I’m so dazed and confused by all the terminology, but the “average” working majority must not have to depend upon a social system of handouts and deductions to fight back to an economic position of self-sustainability? Yes, everyone should provide a portion of their earnings to the betterment of all but please raise the tax-free threshold so those who are "average", “median”, whatever you call it, are not forced to recover their hard-earned money through bureaucratic backflips, nods and winks. Please remove the uncertainty of knowing how much money we really have in our pockets and give the right to personal economic management to the Australian people.

It's a pity that so few Australians earn a six figure sum. Perhaps our tax system has something to do with it?

How people can argue that the top 4% of income earners should be slugged with a higher tax rate even though it raises so little in the way of revenue is beyond me. It seems to be nothing more than spite.

The point of taxation should be to raise revenue. Not to demonstrate spite or envy towards well healed minority groups

Exactly terje

What are the real benefits of taxing 'high' income earners at 48%? It seems to me that people overlook the fact that it raises next to no revenue in order to perpetuate the tall poppy syndrome that is rampant in this country. I'm not advocating eliminating the top tax bracket of 48%-rather it should kick in at a level three to four times greater than what it is now.

The other point is that by whining about the 30% rate for companies and trusts, advocates of improving employment are actually shooting themselves in the foot. For every company/ family trust that is abused there is another one actively employing an Australian. Furthermore the entities that are purely facilitators of tax splitting/avoidance only exist because of the ridiculous amounts anyone is taxed for being a higher than everage earner. Whether average is 35k or 55k is irrelevant to all but calculating the tax free threshold

There are very few wealthy people who support the notion that they should pay the same tax rates as others- the flat tax debate was over before it started for this reason. However as a person who makes @90k pa I'm sick of hearing that i'm 'rich' and watching as a large proportion of my colleagues shift to London, New York, Dubai etc because they are forced to- yes forced because they are trying to save to pay back debts like HECS (unlike all the socialists who picket Woomera rather than earn an honest living).

great article Andrew. From dealings with the tax office in October I gained the impression that they had electronically collated all my PAYG earnings and share dividends for the 1st quarter. I think the technology is in place now to follow the New Zealand system. Its really frustrating dealing with accountants who are not up to date with the legislation and you only know the accountants a dud when things go pear shaped.

Rebates are very unfair to people on low incomes who have to wait for up to 18 months to get the rebate. Generally they end up not spending, because they need the money now and they know if the paperwork is not all in place they will not get the rebate. You have to be well off to spend in order to claim the rebate.

Most people on top income tax rates only get slugged once before engaging in tax minimisation schemes. These schemes really only work when you have more disposable income than your living expenses. Remember Kerry Packer took the ATO to court reduce his $40,000 tax bill, he was successful. If you are worried about the tax burden of the top 3% you are clearly a wannabe because the top 3% aren't envious they are organised.

Andrew Leigh doesn't get to the heart of a very complicated problem (but neither does Treasurer Costello's recently announced four week review of the tax system do any better).

It is worth reading the article by Peter Jonson, "The economic case for tax reform" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4231 for more perspective on the matter.

"The art of taxation is like plucking a goose: to get the most feathers with the least amount of hissing."--Jean-Baptiste Colbert, French Finance Minister under King Louis XIV.

Because of the current Australian tax regime's astonishing inefficiency (I remember reading somewhere that the tax advice industry employs more people in Australia than the motor vehicle industry) and a prodigious 10,000 page tax act that no single person on the face of the earth understands, there may be plenty of feathers, not a lot of hissing, but there is a most extraordinary and damagingly expensive effort and exhorbitant cost.

Is this the right way? Malcolm Turnbull thinks not. Treasurer Costello seemingly has no worries.

Kenneth Allan in a letter to The Australian Financial Review today writes:

"Peter Costello's birthday is not until August 14 so how about buying him a DVD containing the last episode of the Yes Minister comedies. In that episode Jim Hacker is at a loss to understand why the prime minister resigned shortly after the chancellor of the exchequer had resigned. It took Sir Humphrey Appleby to point out that the prime minister stayed in office only long enough to ensure his deputy the chancellor (read treasurer) did not get the top job."

What should we expect if Howard opposes tax reform?

I never thought of myself as an anarchist. Good point though, I guess I do sound like one. I'm frustrated with bureaucracy, that's it. I'm frustrated that people who work for government are not rewarded for nor or they encouraged to use initiative to solve local problems. I've experienced and seen lives hurt unnecessarily by government that does not respond in a compassionate way because of paperwork. Paperwork becomes more important than people.

As for taxes, Yes services must be paid for. I understand that. I also have seen an incredible amount of waste in the name of government service. And lest we forget corruption the sister to waste. As government has grown, accountability has gone in the ditch. I just don't see that government is good when there are so many problems it creates through inefficiency, waste, and corruption.

If I'm an anarchist than so be it. I want people to get tired and demand that government be ethical, accountable, and stop catering to big money. Is it wrong for me to want government to work right?

Yes I can vote and I do. The fundamental problem with that premise now in this century is that there are so many more people that representation on a national level is not feasible. How can one politician possibly represent conservatively 100,000 people. There are not enough ideas in common to make that practical or realistic. Hence I don't feel represented at all.

Are you seeing my point? Am I completely wrong here? Is it wrong to want a system that works like it ideally is supposed to?

I don't have the answers. I do know that getting back to fundamentals is a way to fix it. Accountability, enforcement of ethics laws, smaller government, simplification of tax system, encouraging personal responsibility, we must be willing to hold politicians to a standard higher than what they presently give us.

Patty Jr.
I agree with most of your opinion, however poverty is a major issue in Australia at this time. I am one of the fortunate poor, who was able to work for 40 years hence my computer. Thankfully My family have no debt, but also live on a pension, so no chance of advancement.

wre, Arjay,
I find it interesting that those who recieve large amouts of remuneration, are the people argueing against the wealthy paying the top rate, the reason for the imposition of same, is that the median Australian wage is $26,000 p.a. which is a fairly low reward for services rendered. Those on $100,000 or more are obviously able to pay more, in in fairness should.

Every man woman and child now pays G.S.T. which obvioulsy hits low paid families much harder than it does wealthy families. If the tax on personal income is to be restructured, it should involve a lessening of business deductions, to pay for it.

I know people who are living on rice with fish pieces, merely to survive, any further lowering of their living standards would see them perish, should they perish so a wealthy person can have a tax cut? I think not.

Bootstrapper,
You are spot on the money, the wealthy can well afford to pay, companies have so many deductions that the poor indirectly subsidise, it is criminal.

I am not anti-business, I merely feel that business should stand alone, in their endevour to make a profit, it should not be subsidised by those who earn $26,000 p.a. if a business cannot survive on a stand alone basis, it should not be in business.

In reality this situation is such that an employee, subsidise the company they work for, without the benefits enjoyed by their employer. I understand I will face some hostile comments, however I invite fellow posters to show me where me where I am wrong, with sensible arguement.

Shonga

As far as I am concerned if a business cannot afford to pay a reasonable wage to its employees commensurate with the cost of living index, it has no right being in business. Once upon a time the costs of a service or product included all expenses involved in production ie wages & salaries. Now it appears that employees wages are considered some kind of an impediment to production rather than being a part of the process. It is a weird kind of double think that defies logic.

I mean why do company shares frequently sky-rocket when staff are sacked? Often a company which does this then has to out-source for staff to do the work which was originally in-house. I have done a lot of temp work for organisations who had to hire large groups of temps to cope with the grunt work when they had sacked too many staff. In fact, one such company I worked for ended up rehiring many people they let go because they had lost so many people with specific skills that temps couldn't replace.

I am aware that much out-sourcing is to countries where wages are lower. But for how long? Surely as countries like China and India become more and more 'westernised' they will demand more of the 'western' style of living. For how long do companies think they can really exploit low income workers?

And back in the land of AUS how long do the low and middle income groups have to support the wealthy via the GST?

Scout

It is a complete fallacy that 'the poor support the wealthy via the GST'. Firstly, next time you go shopping take a look at the 'GST items' on your receipt and you'll notice that no luxury items such as bread, milk, vegetables etc don't attract the GST. Secondly, it is an economic fact that BOTH middle and high income earners are taxed to such an extent that welfare in this country is in effect replacing a substantive tax free threshold.

It is also inaccurate that Australia has to lower wages to compete with places such as india for 'outsourcing contracts'. Firstly the shares in large companies rise on the back of redundancies because of increased efficiency. Secondly the reason many workers made redundant find it hard to reenter the work force is because small to medium enterprises have had little incentive to take risks. Thirdly once a redundant worker is on the welfare cycle there is little incentive (because of tax) to find work.

The upshot of all of that really is a simple economic sollution: broad based tax cuts, a higher tax free threshold, gradual reductions in welfare and extreme reductions in tax deductibles. An efficient, incentive based taxation system equals an efficient, incentive based economy. Those on the 'rich' v 'poor' train tend to be anti any proposal that benefits all income brackets- we hear all about the 'wealthy agenda' but I wonder whether it is really the 'tall poppy agenda' that is stifling this reform.

Shonga,
You solicit arguments to show where you may be wrong.
Well if you are implying by your post that companies should not be allowed special concessions, deductions and other forms of grants and in return all workers should be subject to the same flat rate in tax, then I fully agree.
However if you claim companies should stand alone, but …err.. poor people should still be given special concessions, deductions etc, then hey! where’s the justice there?
Aren’t we supposed to be living in an egalitarian society where all people are treated equally. The Rule of Law and all that.
Andrew Leigh’s main argument was that the majority of Australians don’t want to give tax breaks to the rich so that therefore should be the end of it. Really? It’s not like the decision is whether to go to war or not.
Codes of conduct should be about being colour blind, gender blind, class blind, whatever blind, whenever government interacts with its subjects. Treating people equally should be one of the most fundamental tenets of our system.
I always fascinated how some people can view rich people as nothing more than objects to be pilloried and plundered. They are rich, so then it is “only fair” that we should take some of that wealth, as much as we will democratically decide to take.

WRE

You need to take another look at GST.

Interesting take you have on luxury. So gas, electricity, water, etc,tradesman to repair aforementioned services and not to mention TAMPONS are luxuries are they? I could cite more examples but I hope you get my drift. They all charge GST. Take a look at your last utilities account, my friend.

Now another thing that defies logic is in order to compete with third world countries Australia must become a third world country. Is that what you are saying? Australian workers should live on a dollar a day so that we can continue to be a part of the booming world economy. Can't wait to see how that pans out.

Oh BTW at the same time Australia is retreating into feudal conditions, third world countries are aspiring to first world standards. We are in for intereesting times.

Edward Carson

- I don't think that Shonga has that POV at all - it is the scale of inequity between the wealthy and the rest he objects to. There is nothing equitable between a CEO earning 60 times the income of a bottom line worker. There is nothing wrong with executive staff being highly paid for their skills, but when they move in, sack 100's of staff and complain about paying a reasonable living wage to lower level staff, well, you don't have to be Einstein to know that the system is top heavy and the most vulnerable are being exploited.

:0)

I believe there is a curious state that arises, whereby people captured by kidnappers end up, over time, identifying with the cause of their captor, during or well after the ordeal. I believe this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome, following a bank siege there in 1973, in which the hostages sided with the robbers and resisted rescue.

There is another effect that may apply here, called learned helplessness (for example, see http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html). We just keep on accepting over time what we are initially taught is the Way Of Things.

If I was a ruler of a country, I would quietly laugh myself pink as my subject citizens used tortuous psychological efforts as their way of coping with the cruel imposts I placed upon them. Rather than turf me out of my castle, they are so noble, obliging and humble that they quietly go about trying to re-order their affairs and even their emotions, so as to cope with the cruel tax laws I have visited upon them. Heck, they even voted me into office to impose such laws on them.

Whether we pay more or less income tax, whether we educate ourselves better, whether we try to compete with cheap offshore labour, it’s all a big joke: Australia has oodles of wealth, plenty for each person to have their fair share, and yet we all willingly continue to give it up to the dictates of the first robber-baron that manages to con us into voting for their tax system.

Who’s in charge of this country: us or them? If we allow our ample wealth to be taken from us, and then re-distributed in a questionable manner, and we just go along with it (Stockholm Syndrome, learned helplessness), then in whose hands does the power to change this state of affairs lay?

That’s why you are on an invalid pension Shonga and Scout is a Bureaucrat. Just recipients of others hard work and Think of it this way Scout and Shonga. When every buisiness in Australia is bankrupt, where do you think the Looters steal the money from then? To feed you, you would not rate on their scale of priority of Looting, so you would starve like the rest of us. In days gone , in another place, RUSSIA, someone call people “Useful Idiots” however, “Useless Idiots”, was intended, just scribed in the wrong way.

Increase the threshold to 30 thousand and sack State Governments. Australia is not booming, it is in declining and fast, checks for bankrupt’s . It is nearly here. And Andrews article. Fairdinkum mate, by the time you are 24 years of age You should have gotten over all the Moocher drivel, I see it is still plays in your consciousness, not gotten over it? then it is a pathological sickness. You should re do economics, Looters will never save anyone, they destroy everyone. So what economic are you subscribing? “Post Modern” Dreamer :

All- your contribution to reasoned debate is, as ever, unique. It was very kind of you to include your home page link. Knowing your identity means other contriibutors will be in a position to appreciate this: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1411685.htm

Please, just once, try making your comments coherent. Lose the inappropriate capital letters. Improve your spelling. And stop making inane comments such as "You should re-do economics mate". I suspect Dr Leigh's qualifications in the subject are superior to yours.

Take my advice, and perhaps you might be taken seriously for a change.

Scout:

Explain to me how you could possibly deduce from my post that I advocate reducing the pay in worker's pockets?! If you are a bureaucrat then you are a big part of the central economic problem facing this nation- superfluous and incompetent public servants doing terribly inefficient jobs.

In addition, your GST argument remains totally inept. The only flaws economically of GST in Australia are that (a) distribution among states is problematic; (b) the process is too cumbersome; (c)income tax rates are not commensurate. Providing people aren't taxed in numerous other areas (as they are now) what could be fairer to the poor than a 'user pays' system

Here is a take on tax distribution that is interesting. It is attributed to a Professor of Economics at the University of NSW.

Apologies that it goes over two posts.

THE STUPIDITY OF GREED
You've heard the cry in the last couple of weeks from across Australia: "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is accepted as fact. But what does that really mean?
The following explanation may help.....
Suppose that every night, 10 old school mates go out for dinner at La Porchetta's. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way they pay their taxes and it went like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.
* The fifth paid $1.
* The sixth $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.
All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said:
"Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to give you a $20 discount."
So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. (cont...)

The restaurateur suggested reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
* The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100%saving).
* The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
* The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
* The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
* The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
* The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free, as now did the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but Fred got $10!"
"That's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that Fred got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should Fred get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded Fred (the tenth & richest) and gave him a real hard time.

The next night the Fred didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.

Just so that I'm not misunderstood, I proposed raising the tax-free threshold as a means of achieving greater efficiency. It simply isn't possible to raise a family on $26,000/year. So, people on that income or less will inevitably be seeking rebates, grants and all the other 'benefits' that are available. It would be far more efficient simply to eliminate these things and just let folks in the lower income brackets keep what they earn in the first place.

On the issue of 'tax cuts for the wealthy', my impression is that what people are objecting to is the fact that the wealthy pay less than their 'fair share' thanks to the very complexity of the tax system. By all means, cut the top marginal rates, but this must be acompanied by a signifigant simplification of the tax code and the elimination of most of the allowable deductions that people can make. As Terje said, it's about raising revenue, not punishing the rich.

One final point, we need to tax the revenue from speculative activity far more heavily than we do at present. Speculative activity contributes nothing to the overall creation of wealth and diverts resources from those activities.

An absolutely superb post from Craig Blanch- it is precisely on the money (pardon the pun). Australians have to wake up to themselves before the brightest amongst them decide to leave because of the tall poppy syndrome. I for one am sick of resenting the fact that the wealthy can never do enough in the eyes of many who have never done anything to support there countryman.

Craig Blanch, your logic is to be respected. Yes, we should be careful not to scare off the few bright people amongst us (Fred et al), lest we impoverish our tribe’s chances for ongoing wealth creation.

Wait a minute, though. Why does Fred have such wealth, to start with? Yes, I know, the Super Rich People of our world are always to be respected, people who never exploited a fly on the way up, and who play on the same field that us poorer cousins do….. ; )

But here is more my point: even if Fred did generate it in a ‘fair’ and legal manner, is it wise to allow one person to maintain for themself such vast stretches of the sum total?

The idea that one ape in the jungle owns (or ‘earns’ or 'invents') for themself all the good stuff, which thereby forces the nine other apes onto the meagre leftover scraps, strikes me as a strange one, one particular to humans only.

Little wonder there are nine other, poorer diners at the table: whilst Fred has all the positional advantage, it’s no surprise that the other nine diners have little room to enrich themselves, since they would need to figure out a way to tempt the gifted Freds to hand over their source of superiority. Try competing with Fred and the positional power his superiority affords him!

Surely, we can think of a better way to reward the best and brightest amongst us, whilst at the same time better ensuring that their activities happen in a context that doesn’t see them disproportionately favoured to the point of unbalancing what ought to be a natural distribution?

Doesn’t it strike everyone as strange, that the current end result of free market capitalism is that precious few apes have ended up cornering a disproportionately large share of the jungle? If we let this game continue on its trajectory, do we really want to end up with a situation where a single ape owns 99.999% of all the world’s wealth?

'When the going gets weird'......

Your name certainly is an apt description of your posts. What you seem to be saying is it really sucks that the state distributes taxes but that it also sucks that the state doesn't take more taxes from the wealthy....You're not a member of the Chinese Communist Party are you?

"As for taxes, Yes services must be paid for. I understand that. I also have seen an incredible amount of waste in the name of government service. And lest we forget corruption the sister to waste. As government has grown, accountability has gone in the ditch. I just don't see that government is good when there are so many problems it creates through inefficiency, waste, and corruption."

Bureaucracy is a necessary evil and will continue to exist as long as governments exist. We can only hope to minimize inefficiency.

My problem is that we are lagging further behind the United States, Japan, and most of western Europe in terms of infrastructure. Tax revenue continues to be churned, not invested. In fact, I would dare go as far as to say that Australia doesn't understand the meaning of investment. And no, diverting resources away from more productive sectors into an overpriced housing market is not an investment as it exacerbates Australia's (already chronic) economic imbalances and does nothing to boost long-term growth.

When_The_Going_Gets_Weird:

To address some of your issues:
(i) "…even if Fred did generate it in a ‘fair’ and legal manner,"
To begin posing the question with "even if" underlies a given that Fred is, of course, a crook because he is rich but, for the moment, we will assume he is not. Not exactly an objective view. The pious sanctity that is the realm of the Association of Preferred Victim-hood does get wearying.

(ii) "…is it wise to allow one person to maintain for themself such vast stretches of the sum total?" In whose wisdom, do you think, could we trust with the resumption of wealth from these people? Those that haven't got what it takes to earn it? Those that can't be bothered earning it but criticise those that do? Those 'advocates' of the poor that use them just as shamelessly as the prostituting bourgeoisie to push their own ideologies?

(iii) "The idea that one ape in the jungle owns (or ‘earns’ or 'invents') for themself all the good stuff, which thereby forces the nine other apes onto the meagre leftover scraps, strikes me as a strange one, one particular to humans only." Where would we be without Darwin, eh? But, WTGGW, you got it wrong again but thanks for playing anyway. There are many sections of the animal kingdom that have a very real and incontestable hierarchy in who gets what. The lion springs readily to mind.

(iv) "Little wonder there are nine other, poorer diners at the table: whilst Fred has all the positional advantage, it’s no surprise that the other nine diners have little room to enrich themselves, since they would need to figure out a way to tempt the gifted Freds to hand over their source of superiority. Try competing with Fred and the positional power his superiority affords him!" Of course, how could we leave without the piece de resistance of all true advocates of victimhood: It's all Fred's fault!

WTGGW, your concerns are not without foundation however, tearing down the achievements of others does little to elevate those that are TRULY in need.

Got to pick up Dresdener's comment about all government departments being inefficient and perhaps corrupt.

I have worked in many organisations, government and private and I have found Mobil and Coles Myer to be the most inefficient and Health Insurance Commission the most efficient. HIC is one of the few organisations that have installed computer systems on time and on budget. Notable computer stuff ups include Westpac, Mandata. So no I can't see any reason to sell Medibank Private to the for-profit sector.

I think efficiency directly relates to accountability and rigid heirarchical organisations with plenty of money are more concerneed with internal politics than customer service.

A country the size of Australia with a population of 20 million can efficiently run a single health insurance system, a single superannuation system. The duplication of administrations for super funds is wasteful and having worked for the super funds I found their administrators were not investment wizards. Sadly the average person is going to get badly burned by our super hodge podge and it won't bite until they are elderly and perhaps sick or frail.

I am not sure that the heads of corporations are worthy of their obscene salaries, yes they should be paid more that the lowest worker but multiples more than the prime minister. NO - and don't increase the prime minister's salary.

"Doesn’t it strike everyone as strange, that the current end result of free market capitalism is that precious few apes have ended up cornering a disproportionately large share of the jungle? If we let this game continue on its trajectory, do we really want to end up with a situation where a single ape owns 99.999% of all the world’s wealth?"

No ape owns a "large share of the jungle". They just made more jungle than others.

Wealth creation is not zero-sum. In other words, for one person to gain wealth, another does not have to lose it. In fact, an increase in one person's wealth usually adds to the wealth of others.

"And so the Bible says the "Anti-Christ" will reveal himself".

A Non-believer. Your master!

"Doesn’t it strike everyone as strange, that the current end result of free market capitalism is that precious few apes have ended up cornering a disproportionately large share of the jungle? If we let this game continue on its trajectory, do we really want to end up with a situation where a single ape owns 99.999% of all the world’s wealth?"

GT beat me to the point. As he says: “Wealth creation is not zero-sum.”
Compare capitalist free market countries to controlled economy ones. What was West Germany to East Germany, South and North Korea, Taiwan and Cuba. The wealth obvious from the higher GDPs in all the former countries has not been stolen but created.

Also W.T.G.G.W., how have you travelled in life such that you come to the point of asking the question, apparently without shame: “is it wise to allow one person to maintain for themself such vast stretches of the sum total?”
Apparently if there is a practical justification, you have no qualms in expropriating a significant proportion of a person’s honestly acquired possessions.
What’s next? Sydney is becoming too crowded, so we will choose a million of its less productive residents and forcibly move them out bush somewhere.
Approximately fifty people die each year waiting for organ donations that never come, so from now on we will randomly pick healthy looking people off the street, strap them down to operating tables and “donate” an organ they can spare to those wanting.