Formersnag, is any form of income redistribution a form of communism?

Every government taxes and shells out money on the basis of its own sense of the common good. Is that communism?

If nature is allowed to take its course, the rich get richer very quickly as do the poorer get poorer. What determines who deserves to control capital versus who deserves to be hard-working but poor?

Simplistic, dichotomous categorizations don't cut it if you want to find solutions. You have to appreciate the shades of grey and the difference between leading a minority government full of shades versus simply taking an opposing stance. The minority Gillard Gov't is on its way towards reforms that make some majority governments of the past look tired and lazy.

A carbon tax and a mining tax will help make this country great and if we resile from these reforms we will not be serving our children. We can not afford to just be "relaxed and comfortable" in the world ahead.

Hay Lucifer how on earth do you manage to get to have such muddled thinking.

From the first part of your post you appear to want to be a Robbin Hood, take from the rich & give to the poor. Not exactly sure you can get away with the claim that it is for any one's idea of the common good. More about buying more votes than it costs from what I've seen recently.

Anyway, you're all in favour of redistributing the earnings of some downward to make the poor richer. Then you want a carbon dioxide tax.

Now I can't know if you are naive enough to believe that it will only apply to the big polluters, or that any compensation will work for any longer than it takes for a new topic to catch the public imagination, but it would appear so.

As it will end up applying, particularly when it gets to carbon dioxide trading, it will cost the poorest a much greater percentage of their income than the rich. Not only that, but the derivative trading it will lead to will make a small number of very rich much richer. Does not appear to suit your objective at all.

A mining tax is very similar. The rich will decamp for pastures greener for their mining business, leaving much less wealth to spread around to your needy, 'cos it just won't be happening in Oz.

I can only assume you are a teacher or a bureaucrat, if you can't understand these simple principals.

"Anyway, you're all in favour of redistributing the earnings of some downward to make the poor richer. Then you want a carbon dioxide tax."

Income redistribution is something every Gov't in Australian history has done, Hasbeen. It's for the greater good

A carbon tax will not change the distribution if other measures are taken. Look at the whole package, Hasbeen, instead of just focussing on the taxation of emissions part. It's for the greater good

You may be happy for miners to make a killing on the back of our resources being sold off cheap. The idea that Australia can extract a fair price for resources as market prices rise or fall appeals more than the current rip-off. There doesn't seem to be any drop in business activity in the industry with aquisitions and take-overs barrelling along because mining wealth redistribution away from them will result, but it's for the greater good.

We are one Australia, for richer or poorer, and its time the self-interested stopped squealing about it, for the greater good.

sorry, didn't preview. After "...barrelling along." should come "The big mining states don't like it because mining wealth redistribution away from them will result, but it's for the greater good."

Rudd was most probably doing the things a real Labor Prime Minister would do, with things like the original Mining Super Profits Tax, and his environmental campaigns etc, and with his demise went the real Labor policy agenda.

Years of neglect in area's of infrastructure/skills left by the Howard Gov't, meant that money from mining super profits was needed, sensible, and could be channelled into public infrastructure, health training, education spending, etc. A perfectly reasonable idea for mine. It was Rudd's presidential style that was the problem apparently.

As for Keating , he was the Architect of the modern Australian economy, and after having created the conditions for wealth, lost an election to Howard in 96, allowing Howard to step into a golden economy and spend the next 13 years re-distributing the wealth and benefits to the wealthy.

Today we see Keating on the board of the China Development Bank and Howard promoting his book. That says something to me.

Rudd had obviously fallen fowl of the media and Gillard has not had a honeymoon and the media bashing has been relentless. It is important to note that 70% of Australian media is owned by Murdoch (what happened to the cross media ownership laws ?), and this has been a major factor in the opinion and the viewpoint of the voters expressed in loaded polling.

As for what Julia stands for, my problem is, that I find it's hard to differentiate between Gillard's views and Abbott's on many things. That is a truly worrying thing.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12566#217304
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12566#217348

Luciferase, yes all forms of compulsory redistribution is communism. Between 1945 & 1965 we did not need as much of it anyway because we had more family owned small & medium sized business, farms & co-ops, less big businesses, less foriegn ownership.

The big end of town in the land of OZ today is now 10 times as wealthy as it was in the 1950's because of communism. "Socialism is the royal road to power for the super rich". Co2 tax is stealing from the poor, giving to the "6 RED signs" family, Soros, etc, they already owned 50% of all the worlds wealth in 1850, but apparently that is not enough, they want it all. Why else do you think they invented left wing politics, wealth redistribution?

No, some governments only collect moderate amounts of tax to pay for essential services & don't shell out much at all because they dont have any poor, have full employment with reasonable wages.

Nature was allowed to take its course during "the enlightenment", the poor became the middle classes, especially in the land of OZ, the rich almost disappeared. Between 1945 & 1965 Australia became the closest the world has ever seen to a classless society.

All that was destroyed by Comrades Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd & Dillard.

Simplistic, dichotomous, categorizations are exactly what the closet communists have been using to steal from the poor, give to the rich.

i have found the solutions already, UN do every "reform" of the last half century. Confiscate the wealth of every closet communist family, namely every member of the RED/green, getup, GAYLP/alp, Socialist Alliance, trade unionist & redistribute it the poor. There are plenty of homeless people out there who could live in the palatial waterfront homes of Comrades Whitlam, Hawke, Keating, Krudd, Dillard, Combet, Garrett, etc.

What ever happened to a statesMAN, standing back, encouraging "the people" to "do it for themselves, stand on their own 2 feet, ringing bells"?

Do you "THINK" for yourself? Or cop the Spinganda of your "dear leader" sweet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDMXe_BY9Y&feature=player_embedded plant's breath co2, want more.