Tristan

You don't get it do you? Can't you see what 80% of Australians see?

Labor is introducing a tax on everybody, including those people it once represented and who it once took notice off as members. Labor is then redistributing that tax money to only some in the community. Labor is ignoring the neglible reduction effect on carbon dioxide emmissions.

Tristan all 77% of us (According to last polls) see the navel gazing introverted and now yuppie exclusive Labor Party is taxing us simply to redistribute wealth with no great change in carbon dioxide emissions.

It's as simple as that. You and your unrepresentative mates in the Labor party are now an irrelevance in Australia. Things won't change with the introduction of this tax. Seventy seven percent think Gillard and Labor are liars and no amount of money thrown at that 77% is going to make them listen.

Why don't we just get on with it, have an election and put Gillard and you Labor Party fools out of your misery, cognitive dissonance and existance.

"As this author has argued elsewhere, Newstart recipients are 'doing it tough,' to put it mildly. Indeed, Newstart was $237/week as of April 2011, and has not kept up with a rising basic cost of living."

The point is you're not supposed to be able to live on Newstart. If you could why would anyone work? This concept regularly escapes those in the "social justice" and the "society owes me a free lunch crowd", of which the author is clearly a card carrying member.

"In light of existing punitive active labour market policies, there are no decent or valid arguments not to reform Newstart."

Huh? When will you learn that society owes you precisely nothing? You need to go out and make your own way. There is exactly zero excuse to have been long term unemployed over the last decade. ZERO!

"Real increases to Austudy are also crucial to provide conditions where students can apply themselves fully to study, rather than risk failure or underperformance as a consequence of the pressures of part-time work."

Nope, failed again. Most of us get a part time job you lazy sod, instead of believing that society must provide for you.
If you fail it's your own fault. Not a result of receiving too small of a handout.

When Tristan, will you realise that life is not the way you think it is? Surviving in this world requires hard work, and guts. Two things you clearly know little about.

Cont'd...

cont'd...

Have a look at Europe right now.
The P.I.G.S are fine examples of your social justice crap at work.
The bottom line is someone has to pay for all your little giveaways to the so called hard done by.
The only people deserving of welfare are the genuinely physically or mentally disabled, although in your defence I reckon most hardcore lefties fit into the latter category.

My brother and I were both kicked out of home at 16 years of age through no fault of our own. Neither of us went looking for a handout. We got jobs instead.

From there I have acheived a Masters degree in a real discipline, which I paid for out of my own pocket, and we have both worked our way up through financial services to become the type of people you seek to tax into oblivion.

Grow up and get a job mate. Only then can you appreciate just how inequitable socialism really is.

Tristan,

Labor's answer to everything is to increase taxes. By over compensating lower incomes and reducing tax incentives for higher incomes, this is effectively income redistribution, for which labor is suffering at the polls. Another major reason is that Julia Gillard lied, and trust, which is thrown away is not easily regained.

The carbon tax is very unpopular, and has been so since the vast majority of the world walked away from similar obligations.

The refugee policy is a complete disaster, and the Malaysian solution is worse than anything under the Pacific solution.

Until labor resolves these issues, trivial issues such as disability insurance is not going to register to most voters.

Rechts;

a) re: Newstart the point is that active labour market policies (that some may even call punitive) already exist.You say 'why then would they try and find work?' But if the unemployed have to continually 'jump hoops' to prove they are genuine; and those labour market tests are rigorous, then why not pay the unemployed the same as other pensioners?; And if we're going to promote 'labour conscription' (which really is like something out of 1930s fascist Germany) the least we can do is provide *something* in return.

b) re: Austudy - Again the point is that part-time work can detract from studies - which students and the public are paying for; You may well say "I had to do it, so everyone else should too"; But pushing students into that situation risks the not insignificant investment in their education. Besides which which they graduate they will be paying taxes themselves like everyone else; so why not provide enough for them to get by in the here and now?

Shadow Minister;

The point of the carbon tax is to create market signals to change patterns of investment and consumption.

But if there is some modest redistribution to low and middle income groups along the way is it really such a bad thing?

For decades there HAS ALREADY been redistribution - from low and middle income groups to the upper middle class and the outright wealthy.

This had occurred with a falling wage share of the economy; incentives for wealthy private investors - esp re: superannuation; structural changes in the tax mix that have made it flatter and more regressive; introduction of user pays mecahnisms that operate like 'flat taxes' anyway, discriminating against the poor; constriction of welfare and especially Newstart - with unemployment benefits plummeting are a proportion of the minimum wage.
(see: http://inside.org.au/why-unemployment-benefits-need-to-be-increased/ )

So after all these years of redistribution from low and middle income groups TO the wealthy and the upper middle class (the top 20%), a modest degree of redistribution, here, should be seen as a tentative move towards some kind of 'correction'.

And the redistribution against low and middle income groups all these years means any modest moves in favour of low-middle income groups ought only be the beginning; to be complemented by other policies - progressive restructure of the tax mix; curtailing the 'user pays' principle (for instance: stop the privatisation of roads and other infrastructure); an increased minimum wage etc.

Tristan, you are so full of INIUBC.

Tristan,

Nearly every single article you write reads like a big government spending wishlist. In this case, it's about greatly increasing payments to pensioners, students and the unemployed. I suspect that the amount of money that you want to have spent on things that you want is indeed limitless.

Of course, how you always propose to fund these extravagant plans always involves higher taxes. And higher taxes mean that people have less money to spend on keeping jobs in the private sector. The result, is slower economic growth, high unemployment and higher inflation.

The Whitlam government was an experiment in your version of social democracy, with recession, high unemployment and 17% inflation being the result. Within three years the Australian people wanted Labor out of office because they had stuffed the economy with their high taxing, high spending agenda.

Has it not occurred to you that your ideas have already failed

AJFA; Under Whitlam there was inflation, yes - *mainly driven by an Oil Shock that was completely out of the government's control.*

As for the expansion of welfare I'm suggesting; I don't think of it is being 'massive' - as you say; I'm suggesting $25/week more for the disabled and pensioners'; The $50/week more for unemployed is more significant yes; But there's a lot to be made up for there - with unemployment benefits having been reduced drastically in relative terms. (again see: http://inside.org.au/why-unemployment-benefits-need-to-be-increased/ )

I don't see this as 'squeezing the private sector' either, in the sense that the unemployed and other pensioners remain consumers; their added purchasing power will remain within the economy.

Also what you call 'massive' is relative; Specifically I'm suggesting an expansion of public expenditure by 1.5% of GDP this term of government. And that's to include money to support NGOs in areas like aged care who need extra funds to give effectively equal pay to women in the sector. (hence my reference to the ASU campaign)

Our levels of social expenditure are well below European and even Canadian levels. What I'm suggesting is a long way from the 'state socialist bogey' which is brought out any time anyone argues for some expansion of the social wage and public sector. And in fact 'the state' shouldn't be taboo; but is an essential part of a balanced mix which also includes the private sector and (preferably a mobilised, critical and active) civil society.

For the record I'd like to see social expenditure including services, welfare and infrastructure expanded by about 4.5% of GDP over the course of three terms of government: possibly stabilising at around that point. Even then we'd be some way from reaching the example provided by Denmark, Holland, the Nordics including Sweden...

And for the record I believe in an extensive private sector to provide "flexible determiniation of needs structures via market consumption". Though it would be good to see more democratic collective capital mobilisation in the private sector; as well as a greater role fo co-ops and mutualism.

"but it would be reasonable to assume the costs could be easily absorbed by individuals on $80,000/year."

actually I'd prefer to work with the assumption that the costs could be easily absorbed by individuals who vote for them.

So much of the Tristan's writing seems to be based around the idea that he and those who think like him can decide what's fair for others to pay. A lot of middle income earners are starting to wake up to the fact that if you want to overcompensate others then the bill's not likely to stay with the big end of town, it will be passed back to wage earners who don't get over compensated.

Circuit breaker seem's to be another way of saying "Pork Barrelling"

R0bert

Robert; well all kinds of governments have to decide what their tax/spending mix is going to be.

Under Howard spending didn't really fall; but it was shifted to what some call 'middle class welfare'; with people on high incomes entitled to a private health insurance rebate and so on.

I am suggesting increases in welfare, yes. I've already argued why I think this would be just. And I think this could be provided with a fairer tax/expenditure mix - relieving those on low-middle incomes, and hitting to top 20% incomes group.

After this could those in middle incomes pay more tax some time in the future?

Well - only if they're getting value for money. If tax provides a form of 'collective consumption' - eg: for education, roads, health - that gives voters a 'better deal' than if provided through private providers and markets - then those middle income groups would actually be better off. Even though there are some areas of consumption better provided via private markets for the sake of flexibility and innovation.

re: a 'better deal' eee for instance my earlier article: "According to privatisation consultant KPMG, "the rate of return on publicly owned electricity generation capacity [was] 7.1% in Queensland and 10.6% in NSW, while corporate investors wouldn´t touch electricity generation until the rate was 15%." ( http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12125&page=0 )

But I remember Robert's usual claim that the tax system is unfair - as it doesn't take account of how hard we actually work for our money. That's a legitimate question; But again I don't have the answer. (Although I don't think hitting the disavantaged should be part of any answer)

Not only will we pay high taxes, companys will raise prices, then CPI will rise, then the banks will raise interest rates , morgages will go up, more people homeless, more government handouts, its never ending.
Cant someone come up with something that wont cost the earth!

Tristan hitting the genuinely disadvantaged should not be part of the answer. Working out who is disadvantaged and who is just along for the ride should be.

R0bert

Tristan,

$11.5bn is not just a signal to the market, it is a complete reorganisation. $30/t will wipe out any profits the brown coal generators make, and all their company equity, without providing any incentives for others to provide alternative generation. There is a risk of the largest generators simply cutting back capacity and letting a power shortage drive electricity prices through the roof.

Secondly the rise in energy costs are going to raise all costs, the payment to lower income earners is going to strongly drive inflation, which will be met with rapidly rising interest rates.

The middle class welfare you mentioned were tax incentives for people to use health providers outside the public sector, which has been successful in reducing government expenditure in that area. The same applies for private school funding which has spectacularly reduced the cost of schooling.

Given the already record debt and rising inflating, all your additional spending will result in further inflation, increased taxes and further erosion of non mining industries.

The 70s were a period of stagnant growth coupled with high inflation primarily caused by a rapid rise in energy costs. We are looking at the same again.

I believe there will be a short-term 'once off' price inflation impact; but like with the GST the market will adapt and stabilise.

re: cost-of-living, though - that is covered by compensation.

Although the cost of investment in renewables that follows cannot but be passed on in some form - Whether you accept this generally rests on whether or not you believe something needs to be done about climate change.

re: the private health insurance rebate - I think it's reasonable to suppose people on higher incomes can afford private health insurance without a subsidy; And the condition of public health in this country is such that they will take out private health insurance anyway.

Tristan

Your spruiking shows you have just some much in common with the world's worst example of a socialist.

Adolph Hittler was a socialist and led the National Party of Germany ... that led to fascism.

He started out spruiking equality through social engineering of social policy and went though a stage of deciding what was best for his people until his ultimate determination ... the final solution.
He was the ultimate populist ... during his rise, and once he had power he just continued to socialisms ultimate conclusion. Gillard has similar traits, just look at how she recently ignored the will of the Australian people when she rejected the majority vote of the peoples voice ... in both our senate and our parliamemnt.

That's dictatorship.

Thankfully most of us learned the lessons of history and reject utterly those who think they know what's best for us all.

That's why labor is polling 27% and the greens 10%.

The fat lady is singimng for labor and bob brown.