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!