Peter Hume: <The fact is that the spending commitments of the welfare state are unsustainable and all of the western world will be faced with these kinds of choices over the coming decades.>

Dear Peter Hume,
I meant to add: it's interesting that you think welfare is not sustainable... but obscene wealth is... ?

I also think welfare is unsustainable---as things currently stand.

*number one being the sustainability issue*

Dear Squeers,

If sustainability is your no one issue, how to you justify having
six kids?

*obviously the wealth cap wouldn't work unless it was agreed upon internationally*

So you think people anywhere on earth would not cheat massively,
to benefit themselves and their loved ones? How much do you know
about human nature,Squeers?

* Business would perhaps then be disincentivised to go corporate and global*

So how would those innovative types earn the capital to build
billion $ factories, required for so many things these days, like
microprocessors, refineries, etc? The list is endless. Why should
I not benefit, if an American has a great idea?

*One could still lead a very nice existence with a million bucks in the bank*

Squeers, a million bucks hardly buys a single machine in many
modern production processes. The innovator would have no capital,
to create his vision.

*Having attained your million you could reduce your working hours and pursue other interests, thus creating a vacancy for someone else*

So the most innovative and creative stop innovating and creating.
I would never own a great machine, like a John Deere tractor,
which produces cheaper food for people like you, or for the
poor of this world, for that matter.

Stuff the poor, let em pay extra, you imply.

You really have not thought this through very well, apart from
being a romantic at heart, I suspect.

The need to increase the retirement age is because of the 'aging populations' in the western world.

But why is the 'aging population' such a bad thing here in Australia? Surely it means we are living longer, and isn't that a good thing?

The problem is not an 'aging' population, it is that we are failing to produce enough kids to replace ourselves. We are suiciding, self genocide.

Here we need to give tax reductions for kids so middle class parents can afford the kids we want. Those on welfare are pumping out kids like there is no tomorrow because of the welfare bribes to have lots of kids. Meaning that single mums are pressured into having more kids than they can look after. And the incentives make sure that few get married, as this reduces their welfare paynments.

Also making divorce fairer, because Australian men don't want to become dads... because they are afraid of having their kids stolen by divorce lawyers.

Have a look at this map of world poverty... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

Basically the more red, the more poverty... But the surprise is that it is a map of FERTILITY - how many children are being born.

You know how our government seems unable to fund hospitals, schools and roads, and this is with our population failing to produce enough children to replace ourselves... imagine the problems of fundiong these essential services if the population was not declining, but trippling every twenty years... no wonder they are poor. Worse than schools and hospitals, they somehow they also need to find more farmland too!

50 years ago, perhaps we could have ended poverty by donating 30% of outr income to the poor. But now there are so many more poor that the problem is so much bigger. There are 60 million shanty-town dwellers in India alone, and only 20million Australians...

Why is China becomming so rich and powerfull? The one-child policy. It means they can finally afford to catch up with the infastructire and education that nations need to get ahead and build wealth

The French seem to be living in a socialist twighlight zone.

Some dill has convinced them that no matter how much money you drag out of the national piggy bank... it will be never allowed to be empty by some act of Marxist 'divine' intervention.

They can scream, yell, demonstrate, howl, gnash their collective teeth and rage against reality..but it will still bite them in the bum when the money has actually run out.

AGiR,

You might be onto something. We're not talking about just miners who spend forty years down the mine, but public servants in AC offices, with generous vacation conditions and super. And the yall want to finish work at sixty ? What a bunch of pussies.

Why not a staggered system across a range of situations, under which people who clock up forty years of hard, physical, dangerous, dirty, boring work get to retire at 55, while those in relatively interesting, clean, jobs, in pleasant environments, with all sorts of perks, get to retire at 70 ?

Joe

Dear Squeers......you said:

"Going cold turkey like this will never get up though, so I say just keep hitting the wealthy to maintain that minimum standard---mind that I don't say people who don't contribute should enjoy the lap of luxury, just a minimum standard, including pensioners."

I don't think you live in the real world old son.

HERE is the 'real' world.

Maryland USA "We'll tax the RICH and raise $220,000,000"

Hmmmmmmm ooooo----k......

OUTCOME

a) Rich get sick of over taxation
b) Rich MOVE to Florida
c) Maryland state government LOSES $100,000,000

But of course Squeersy... 'you' are looking to that utopian day when ALL the world is controlled by your mob ..right ? :) so mr rich businessman CAN'T race off to Florida....

OUTCOME

Mr Rich businessman shuts down his business and all the workers are laid off.

RICH businessman "PAYCHEX" founder has a number of homes. He is a BILLionaire.... but he also created something like 12,200 jobs, benefits etc. Do you REALLY begrudge him a bit of luxury ?

What if he gives away 50% of his wealth to charity ? hmmmm ?