Robert; I do try to do what I think is right - though I don't claim my judgement is perfect. What you argue about the tax system being partly dependent upon hours worked (not just income) sounds fair in principle - But you'd have to worry about such a system being rorted... And such a system might not consider other personal circumstances. (eg: illness, family, carer status etc)

Also as a minimum I think all people deserve shelter, nutrition, social inclusion, quality education and health care, quality health care. I think this is the 'base' upon which we should 'build upwards' for everyone....

Tad; I understand many people are first stricken my mental illness in their 20s; Isn't it best to get to people quickly before some kind of major trauma which could have effects the remainder of their life? (hence the emphasis of 'Headspace' centres) But it does bother me that this has to come from savings elsewhere from other meritable programs... I've never understood 'social inclusion' as reactionary - though maybe I'm just not well enough read there. Could you elaborate? At worst I think there's a problem in so far as it's taken as a *replacement* for equality...

All welfare, inevitably, leads to high effective marginal tax rates.

Even for those on $150000 a year it seems.

I WANT MY FTB!

Sounds like a Dire Straits song...

Scrap the lot, and just tax us less in the first place. Sure heaps of Lawyers, tax accountants and public servants will become redundant but they could be better employed doing something useful anyway. Election bribes will become harder to target too!

I DONT NEED MY FTB! What WE need is a tax reform. In so many areas.

I'm with r0bert. I could, at a blink, earn $20k-30k more, but I do not wish to wear a suit in order to do so, or even commit $5000 (Tax deductable I'm sure!) and a few hours a week for 6 months to do a course.

Maybe Tristan, I can claim some sort of benefit for psychological problems due to my crippling aversion to suits and responsibility?

I hate suits because they are uncomfortable, I have Daddy Issues, an Anti-authoratarian complex, and philosophical objections (But maybe they're just justifications for the other issues); There's enough material there for an entire conference of psychiatrists. Then there's that quote I love about when you wear a suit, you're publically declaring whose side you're on!

Am I being socially excluded? I think I am! I'm sure some suit wearing 'aspirational' will pick up the bill for me? Where is the empathy and altruism!

Though I do believe there are no people on $150k who would let a bit of tax or loss of benefits come between them and that $160k salary and a stepping stone to their $175k salary. No risk there. The risk is more for people on $25k or who know if they have another baby they wont have to turn up to Centrelink to justify why they shouldn't have to put their 1 yr old in child care.

It's all about perceptions and expectations. The Rodent created the expectations, the perceptions is all that's left to work with.

Just hide it in bracket creep like they've been doing for the last 30 years.

Tristan
"Agreed the system is imperfect and not always fair - but what to replace it with?"

To the extent it is not fair, it should be abolished and replaced with nothing.

"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?"

At least that way it is decided by society on the basis of how those people's work satisfies society's wants, as decided by society, and on the basis of *peaceful* relations. But you haven't given any reason why it should be decided by you, on the basis of *violent* relations.

"If we considered inherited wealth and unearned income from dividends..."

People who invest capital don't have to. They can just consume it all. If they do so, they will be in the same position as workers who don't invest but consume all their income. By investing, they accumulate capital goods which increases the total amount produced for all to share in. The profits of such investment disappear, but the benefits to workers and society in removing the maladjustment of the factors of production is permanent.

So you haven't given any reason for regarding income from dividends and unearned.

Peter; For your average worker with money in superannuation - yes there is a sense in which returns in that context are earned. But for large investors who have inherited their tens of millions or even billions can the same be said? In all cases there is expropriation of surplus value; But at the same time someone who works hard and invests deserves a fair return on that investment...

Regarding the "violence" you mention (I'm assuming you mean taxation enforced by the state); There is the opposed scenario of workers forced to sell their labour and have surplus extracted; and in the case of unskilled workers to do so at poverty wages on pain of destitution. (especially if there is a 'reserve army of labour' impacting on that person's bargaining power; or anti-union legislation limiting collective bargaining and the right to withdraw labour...)

So there are many forms of "violence"; The state power is based upon violence of a form whether it pursues liberal, conservative, fascist or socialist interests and ideology... But the state is something we cannot do without... Some forms of "violence" are not as bad as others...

You’re trying to have a bet each way. If a worker has superannuation then he is a capitalist and his “expropriations of surplus value” are unjustly taken from someone else, according to your logic.

Your appeal to a mythical class of obscenely rich plutocrats who are to be bled to pay for your handouts is false, since the tax you advocate is not confined to such, is it? The money comes from ordinary Australians who have decided to put in the extra work or take on extra risk to earn more, and who have no significantly different living standard from the people you want to give away their property to.

Your idea that the actually physical violence you advocate is somehow justified by some notional violence elsewhere is complete nonsense. If Houllebecq decides to earn more, he’s not being “violent” to anyone, and neither are his employer or client or consumers in paying for his services. It’s a complete furphy.

Similarly your appeal to a class of desperate poor at the brink of starvation is nonsense. Even if it existed, which it doesn’t, your argument would not apply to anyone not in that class, which just happens to describe everyone you want to favour with your forced redistributions. Workers are not “forced” to sell their labour, and their employers receive no more benefit of their services above the market rate than you do. Their employers, more than anyone else in the world, relieve their unemployment, and if anyone is to be forced to pay for topping up workers’ income it should be you and everyone who agrees with you.

By your Marxist logic, the CEOs of major banks are being “exploited” because, being employees, they are workers forced by the prospect of unemployment and poverty into employment in which their surplus value is unjustly expropriated.

You also have not taken any account of the extent to which government is actively causing the problems of poverty and disadvantage that you are trying to solve by more government.

Why shouldn’t everyone “deserve” free food, clothing, shelter, transport, communication and entertainment?

Peter; My point is that there should be a baseline of material living standards and social connectedness as a human right. This is partly determined by contextual expectations and needs.

re: Wealth distribution - apparently 20% of Australians own 60% of the wealth, and the bottom 20% own 1% of the country's wealth - according to recent ACTU research. And I think if you took that further ( as I think NATSEM has in the past) to the top 10% you'd see even greater concentration. I don't think wealth concentration (and the associated power) is a "myth".

I think ordinary people investing earned income deserve a return on that investment. But for the wealthy, I don't think they should be able to live on those profits forever. I believe there is a certain injustice in expropriation of surplus value. But there is a conflict between the reasons for ending exploitation, and the right of ordinary people to a return on investment. There is no perfect answer.

But there are alternatives - such as mutualism and co-operativist enterprise - which should be encouraged.

And clearly a wage labourer who has surplus value extracted from the proceeds of the products of his/her labour is not in the same posititon as a salaried corporate executive on a $10 million salary. By comparison with the exploitation of a wage labourer, I think the returns for corporate executives are out of proportion with their actual contribution...