ok a few issues;

To begin with the idea of a public pension fund.

Saltpetre says they "would not be very competitive". But why not? Such funds exist all over the developed world. But insofar as they did not adhere purely to the profit motive - perhaps there's a sensible rationale for that? For instance - internet access for the bush might not be very profitable. But they pay their taxes - surely their needs should be provided for.

There's a related issue also with tendencies toward monopoly, wealth concentration and collective capital formation. Most politicians these days imagine incentive after incentive must be given to the very rich to spur investment. But this creates a self-fulfilling scenario of wealth concentration that is very bad for democracy.

Superannuation and public pension funds are potential responses - so as ordinary citizens we are less dependent on the very rich - and can afford to tax them at a fair rate. But also to extend the principle of economic democracy by spreading economic power more evenly. In this spirit there should be less 'incentives' for the very wealthy to invest in their super (at our cost - ie: most of us); but more public and civil 'collective capital formation' to compensate. A public pension fund could be part of this.

more coming...

'LEGO' has a real go at the very idea of the welfare state, social services, the social wage. But let's be clear: we're talking about basic human rights - to health care, to quality aged care, for shelter and food on the table, equal educational opportunity, social participation without which 'dropping out' of economy and society becomes a vicious circle.

In response:

Firstly - a civilised and decent society will provide for the vulnerable and marginal.

Secondly - welfare already involves punitive active labour market provisions, and yet fails to provide enough for necessity

Thirdly - collective 'social' consumption actually provides better value for EVERYONE - including Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, public transport and roads, communications infrastructure - the list goes on. Without 'collective consumption' most people will have to pay *more* as *individual* consumers. So while we have a 'low tax culture' in Australia, and people don't like tax - Ultimately we're better off for collective consumption.

The Swedes realise this; as to a significant extent do the Dutch, the Danes etc. There's not 'one' monolithic, exclusive model for the economy. A social democratic mixed economy can work and provide high material living standards, social security, a good life...</

Tristan Ewins "Shockadelic - Wait until you're on a public hospital waiting list for a couple of years"

That's the problem. Public provision of basic services means no private companies will bother trying to serve that market.

Who's going to try and offer *low-cost* schools, housing or hospitals when the government is already offering free or cheap services to the low end of the market?
AND if you did try, you'd get walloped with a 30% company tax on your meager profits!

Private services are expensive only because the high end of the market is the *only* market available.

Where governments *don't* provide a service, you readily find private operators selling cheap goods and services, as well as upmarket versions. Low, middle and high end.

Even if you felt the government should assist in enabling access to essential services, that doesn't mean the government has to provide it *directly*, owned and operated.

You could simply pay people an allowance.
They then have a *choice* whether to buy a service and who from.

As for aged care, whatever happened to FAMILIES?
Once upon a time, nobody expected this 'essential' service.
Your folks took care of you.

Responding to Shockadelic re: Aged Care

You obviously don't know the level of intensive and specialised care that is needed for many elderly citizens in the context of longer age expectancy.

Some people require this level of care only for a month or two and then pass away. But others may require care for several years. As I tried to say before: this might involve regular turning, showering, assistance going to the toilet, assistance with eating. This level of care also requires nurses with the appropriate training. I am not exaggerating.

At the moment many facilities are understaffed. There are difficulties in providing the kind of care I describe above with consequences that can be humiliating and uncomfortable for residents.

Understaffing can also mean staff do no make sure residents eat: with extreme loss of weight. Dental care is also a huge issue in this context.

To say that family should take care of it is the betray a lack of understanding re: the intensity of care required, and the necessary qualification of staff.

That these people - the most vulnerable of all - do not receive equal and high quality care is a disgrace. You obviously have no idea what spending several years in these conditions could be like. To turn away from it betrays a lack of humanity.

Air-conditioning, good quality food, dental care, gardens and television - these things should be able to be taken for granted. As should appropriate nursing care. There are a variety of levels of need - and such care should be provided as to minimise suffering and maximise *OPPORTUNITIES FOR LIVING* for those elderly in care.

Quality of aged care, health care, education - should not depend on the size of your bank account... And families with their own work and kids don't have the time or training to commit to *full time care*.

But for everyone to receive the care they need requires resources, and this necessarily means a portion of tax receipts.

I do not have a problem with the welfare state, Tristan, I have a problem with the sustainability if the welfare state, when it is being looted by ever increasing numbers of people, many of whom have been imported from overseas and who have not contributed a penny to the "welfare states" upkeep.

With 800,000 people on "disability pensions, out of a population of 21 million, you don't have to be a Mensa to figure out that something is fishy. Even a Densa like you should be able to figure it out.

My advantage over you, is that I was born in the lowest socio economic class where cheating the welfare state was the primary pastime, after drinking, smoking, gambling, taking drugs, and driving like an idiot. I can only shake my head in pitying wonder that a person such as yourself can get in so wrong.

If you support the welfare state like I do, then there are only two ways it can survive, the first is to keep taxing, and taxing, and taxing all of those intelligent and productive people that every society needs, or to do the Abbot thing and prevent the ever increasing numbers of welfare cheats from looting the system.

As an Australian, I am very angry about the fact that our governments keep importing poverty into Australia with their flaccid border protection policies so that our welfare bill never stops climbing, and our commitment to haelping those Australians who are genuinely poor through ill health or misfortune therefore keep decreasing.

Screaming "tax the rich" to pay for an unsustainable, rort ridden, and ever expanding welfare state full of foreigners is not going to ganrner any popular support, tristan. because ordinary, working class taxpayers like myself know that we are "the rich" which the bleeding hearts are going to rob.

agreed LEGO, Tristan's "rich folk" are not at the top of the pile alone any longer, they stretch all the way down.

It's the same old class warfare to demonise the "rich" as if they are getting something for nothing, they are not, they getting the results of hard work and sacrifice.

So the more the government finds it is unable to manage it's finances, the more it sees the same old ever popular class solution, tax the rich. Except now the rich are not that far above the poor, you're not taxing abstract "rich folk" anymore, it's trades peeople and small business.

Why not get the government to live within its means, to manage on what it gets now, and forgo the temptation to solve everyone's problems, to build school halls as a solution to the GFC, when roads and infrastructure is what we needed.

So rather than live within their means and to cover up the complete lack of responsibility and accountability, the solution is once again, more taxes.

Governments for years have frittered away the wealth of the country instead of investing in infrastructure and services, it is not the fault of the "rich" it is the fault of ALP governments for years all over Australia.

Yes, we need to look after people, but there has to be a balance and incentives for people to continue to employ and be creative, or they will leave, then you will have no one to tax, the proverbial hospital with no patients.

The miners are the only ones who will not run out of money, since they can dig up more, the rest of us are slowly being bled dry as the ever increasing numbers of hands are stretched out for more and more, and Tristan, you can only see that side of it.

When you run out of other peoples money, your society will collapse, is that the plan?