Say, Tristan, I forgot about The Greens.

Sorry about The Greens not really embracing your kind of socialist agenda. Don't want to let the cat out of the bag and remind you that they're really all about saving the environment, as well as a small matter of marriage freedoms. I've no problem with their agenda, until it starts getting corrupted by Labor's bribery.

NSW has put some writing on the wall, for those who would see. The Greens have got so carried away with holding the balance of power, and, with a few of the independents, are rapidly moving to oblivion.

I could give some advice to The Greens, but I'll resist.

Saltpetre; I’m no spin-doctor – I always call things as I see them. I’ve never had a ‘political career’ – and I dare say I never will. I’m a grassroots activist trying to make a difference from the relative margins.

Also: We had an exchange about small investors at my blog ‘Left Focus’ as well – where I also published this article. In addition to aged pension reforms I’d already suggested, I responded there that I believe small investors could be bypassed via a means test – and I think that would be fair enough too. If it could work with welfare, why not re: dividend imputation? (for $10 billion it would be a worthwhile investment; and I regret not mentioning that idea in the original article)

Pls note also that there are countries with higher levels of Company Tax than Australia do not have dividend imputation at all. What you call ‘draconian tax hikes’ refers to $10 billion in the context of an economy worth over $1 Trillion. In other words *less than one per cent.* And then I’m also suggesting some of the money taken be reinvested locally via a public pension fund. But the kind of scenario for aged care I related is only too real for a great number of people and will not change without money

What you say about “industry being the engine” is fair enough – but it's an engine driven by the efforts of workers - while our most wealthy people can make do delegating to their financial advisers and living a life of excess; And this is not an excuse to forget the marginalised and vulnerable who Abbott would punish as a wedge against Labor.

Tristan,

We have Industry Super Funds, and they do quite well maximising workers' contributions (a large portion of which comes from the industries they support). I can't believe you would think that some government-run Super fund would be competitive, particularly if it is under Labor management - given the fantabulous efforts with the Education Revulsion and the Pink Batts fiasco.

Industry is the engine, and workers are the cogs that drive it. Yes. When you threaten industry, you directly threaten those and many more jobs. The only solution for Labor, or any other government, is compromise for the common good. We are all in the some basket - industry needs workers, and workers need jobs. Don't bite the hand that feeds. Don't kill the golden goose by trying to remove all the feathers.

Fairness and equity. We are in a global market, and there are plenty of hungry hounds out there. Sure, there is room for improvement in wages and conditions, and in productivity. You just have to maintain a reasonable balance, and provide the right commercial environment. Better jobs, greater innovation and enterprise can only be achieved if we pull together. Improvement provides increased tax revenues, which then provide for improved services and support. If you want to point a finger at deteriorating services, you need look no further than a procession of state Labor governments - NSW included.

Methinks you rush too hard towards a socialist nirvana, while I'm quite satisfied that the majority of thinking Australians would reckon that, if only we could have a sensible government, we aren't doing too bad, not too bad at all.

Always room for improvement, but there are many worse off than us - no welfare, no aged care, low wages, no health care, no home, no job. Be careful lest we be seen as gluttons.

Well, its like this, Tristan.

Australians really do believe that we are taxed too much already. Has that sunk through your overly thick cranium?

The last thing that Australians want to hear about is some idiot blathering about how we should be taxed more to pay for "social equality". Australians consider that this term "social equality" means that the productive, the intelligent and the thrifty have got to put their hands in their pockets once again to subsidise the counter productive, the stupid and the profligate.

The Sydney suburb of Auburn, which is almost entirely Muslim, has (according to the Sydney Morning Herald) the highest rate of long term unemployed in Australia. If you think that I am overjoyed at being taxed more to pay for the "social equality" of imported foreigners, who seem to be very crime prone and work shy, then Tristan old mate, you need to have your head examined.

If you want to do a story, Tristan, how about one which asks why Australia is importing poverty and endemic social problems instead of trying to solve the problems we already have?

This is a rich country, Tristan, and I would like to see the deserving poor paid a higher pension. But unfortuantely, the cry has gone up all over the world that Australia is a soft touch, and that the Australian welfare system is easy to cheat. I have personally seen a Muslim woman in a full burqua telling a social worker that she just can't seem to get a job as a receptionist, and the social worker nodding his stupid head sympathetically.

So, for a left wing journo like yourself, who probably led a sheltered life, and who can not understand why working people vote Liberal, the reason is because we do not want to be taxed, and taxed, and taxed, in order to prop up a very expensive left wing multicultural fantasy, where "social equality" exists for all.

Tristan, Your response to Shockadelic, (Posted by Tristan Ewins, Friday, 8 April 2011 7:18:27 PM) is an absolute shocker. Rather than respond to the issues you went on an utterly dismissive rant of fear, uncertainty and doubt with:

<< Shockadelic - Wait until you're on a public hospital waiting list for a couple of years in pure agony - to provide the slack for the wealthy to engage in conspicuous consumption; Wait until you're in your mid-late 80s and spend the last few years of your life in an understaffed facility, living in conditions of pure indignity, without enough nurses to turn you or take you to the toilet, with rotten food - and no variability in terms of your diet or your environment (not even a garden) - and all to pay for tax cuts for that top strata that is supposed to 'create wealth' - after you've been working all your life... (and now society 'cannot afford' your human dignity) >>

Please promise us two things. One, that when you have finished your PhD you will come back and answer some of the questions asked of you and two, please stay away from Australian industry.

re: the Austrian School; I seem to remember Hayek describing the economy as an 'organism' that met all challenges if left to its own; That meant no unions, no tax apart from to fund the police, army, courts etc, no welfare state or social wage, no labour market regulation, rejection of a mixed economy etc, etc. Again - the idea was that the 'organism' would respond appropriately to every situation if only left to its own natural 'equilibrium'. About the only form of social solidarity Hayek recognised was the family. 'lest we be crushed'.

I response I look to those countries with threadbare public sectors and welfare states, and deregulated labour markets. There's the US situation where people go bankrupt if they get ill and could not afford health insurance. And people working in fast food and retail on about $6/hour. Fully deregulated labour markets can provide full employment - but at a *terrible* cost. To see this as desirable can only be in an abstract sense - which obscures the position of those who 'pay the price'.

Then I look back to the 19th Century and wonder - What if there'd never been an 8 hour day? What if there were no OH&S standards, and kids were still working in mines and cleaning chimmneys? What if there was no social housing an tens of thousands more were living on the street in Australia alone?

I know a bit about Hayek - But I'm far from convinced. For those who are interested, I recommend 'Hayek versus Marx - and today's challenges' by Eric Aarons. I wrote an 8,000 word critique (or thereabouts) a couple of years back - but couldn't get it published. Honestly I don't know why. But's it's a really good read from an original thinker with a life-time involvement in Left politics. Have a look if you want to be challenged.