I find it difficult to believe that anyone can list options for social and economic reform in Australia in 2012 without including the long awaited and much discussed National Disability Insurance Scheme.

I do mention the NDIS in so far as I agrgue a similar scheme needs be implemented with Aged Care. But the point was that Labor is already committed to the NDIS - which is good. It's a good policy. The point of this article was to suggest new initiatives Labor should pursue.

*Potential fund-raising mechanisms could include a move to either 75% or 50% Dividend Imputation *

Ah Tristian, you clearly don't understand the law of unintended
consequences. For your suggestion means that people who invest
in companies, should be taxed twice. Meantime those who pour money
into their own homes, earn any profits tax free.

That will give everyday Australians every incentive to invest even
more in their own homes, driving house prices even higher and make
them even less affordable, rather than invest in Australian companies
which create jobs. We'll just leave that to the foreigners, who
can transfer price their profits off shore and pay little tax
in Australia.

You really have not thought this through very well.

Yabby, Australia's one of the few countries in the world that have Dividend Imputation. If the Americans have managed without such a scheme for decades why can't we do the same? (and that's with a higher Company Tax rate in the US as well - as high as 35%) Over $20 billion is at stake and that could go a long way!

Tristan, Australia is also one of the few countries where people
don't pay tax on the profits of selling their houses. No wonder
we have a housing bubble and people won't invest in bank deposits,
where inflation and tax eat it all away.

One of the reasons why American companies have trillions of dollars
offshore and refuse to return it to America, so America earns zilch
on that money and have a deficit blowout which is huge.

Perhaps you had better examine how a company like Google can earn
close to a billion $ in Australia, but generate invoices in Ireland
and pay nearly no tax here. We need more Australian investors
in Australian companies, not less.

I note that the author is unable to cost the broad bulk of his proposed initiatives? Although the US economy appears to be growing again, due no doubt to the fact they have halved their reliance on foreign oil, and continue with Federal fiscal stimulation; Europe seems headed towards another Great Depression; by as soon as 2016?
This is certain to impact of Chinese economic growth and subsequently on ours? We already have to deal with revenue reduction as billions in extraordinary profits are ploughed back into new commodity developments; thereby avoiding a huge slice of expected forward estimates?
If one includes negative gearing, welfare for the rich equals the real welfare for the needy budget. Means testing on education and health subsidies etc, would free up billions; as would rolling back some of the tax breaks for high income earners/superannuation etc?
Given it is so easy for foreign nationals to avoid tax, up to 40% of multi nationals reportedly pay no company tax to anyone? A very different system is required in order to ensure they pay a minimum for the infrastructure they use or gain a financial benefit from? Ports, road and rail, airports, health and education outlays etc/etc.
While one finds the author's evocations laudable; they if espoused as Labour policy, would likely fall into the category of non core promises or entirely unaffordable, without quite massive tax reform and simplification.
Labour could do a lot worse than completely jettison the current convoluted mind-numbing complexity, euphemistically labelled as a fair and equitable tax system; in favour of a single stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax that has no exclusions.
Look at my comments in previous economic articles to see how this would work, raise significantly more revenue in win/win outcomes for everyone except tax avoiders and the avoidance industry; and indeed, make most of what is proposed, both very possible and completely affordable, regardless of Global circumstances? Rhrosty.

Tristan,

(1) I can understand your enthusiasm for the Gonski report. It would certainly be an improvement on what we have now, but there are some flaws in it that a Labor government should really correct. One is there because of the mind-boggling failure of the federal AEU to even see the opportunity that the Gonski panel presented and the direction (i.e., the current Victorian model) that it was always going to go in. the federal AEU thought it was still 1950.

The Coalition-devised socio-economic status model of school funding is such a poor quality measure of need that it underfunds half of our private schools, requiring them to be given compensation, the so-called “over-funding”, to be as well-supported as they were before the SES model. This compensation lifts private school funding to the level of the previous Labor government’s education resources index.

Yet, the Coalition, with its inadequate funding model, gets away with portraying itself as the friend of private schools, while Labor, with its much more generous funding model, is portrayed as their enemy. With the Gonski report completed, we can hope that the Gillard government will consign the SES model to the rubbish bin.

Chris Curtis

(2) While the Gonski report is outstanding in the justice, breadth and rigour that informed its recommendations, there are some areas that need to be reworked or developed further:
1. The school resource standard should be based on an explicit staffing ratio, not an illogical and unnecessarily complicated method of so-called high-performing reference schools.
2. There should be a base funding factor, as introduced by the Victorian Labor government in 2005, rather than size loadings.
3. All jurisdictions should be required to pass on the full Schooling Resource Standard entitlement to each school in which the student who gained that entitlement is enrolled, and such entitlements must be shared in the same ratio by federal and state/territory jurisdictions for both public and private schools.
4. The My School website needs to have its financing section reformatted to show more clearly how the new funding is allocated to each school, particularly if the government does not accept the improvement above.
5. The SES model should be replaced by one based on the fees and other income of private schools, or if the government is completely unwilling to go this far, the SES model should not apply to any school that charges fees below a set threshold.

If you can email me, I will send you a paper I have prepared on the topic.

Chris Curtis

Oh god! Am I in Greece? Is this the Greek OLO? Here we are in the middle of a mining boom, borrowing hundreds of millions just to pay our interest bill, & all our lefties want more spending on their own pet little areas.

Come on folks, think the other way.

China is slowing, & will be effected quite a bit by the inevitable euro crash.

Prices for our main exports are slipping right now, & we can expect them to fall a lot further in the short/medium term.

Manufacturing is headed for the realms of mythology, & is not likely to be employing anyone in the near future.

Academia has over expanded by a couple of orders of magnitude, pushing make believe courses to under prepared students, & government employing thousands of useless pen pushers, can not pay its own bills, without strangling anything that moves.

I'm afraid it will have to be the other way. Don't tell me what you want your country to pay for, tell me what you are going to forgo of what you currently get, because it has to stop.

For gods sake people, grow up, & provide for yourself, just a little, or you will end up with nothing.

Tristan,

your article tells us all exactly why labor is standing at less than 30% in the polls, why it has been destroyed in Qld and is on such shakey legs in Vic and NSW.
Your article tells us you are just not connecting with people in the electorate.
You are one of those members of the labor party that still believes your views are representative of and have import to those people who no longer vote labor because they don't see how your views are relevant to them.

They are more concerned about their cost of living, which includes petrol prices and electicity prices, taxes, excessive government debt, which they know they will have to pay back, excessive bureauracy, which includes wasteful spending on academia and, believe it or not, rejection of deceitful or muddle-headed politicians and their deceitful or muddle-headed spin-doctoring supporters.

They want governments who focus on governing, not ruling.
They want governments that focus on their concerns, not on the concerns of single issue non-mainstream carpet-baggers.
They want governments that are fair dinkum, and who are not into socialist uology and dogma... or any other uology or dogma.

Both most of all they just want governments who will listen to them and who are sensitive to their concern.

Guess where you sit in their estimation.

You are one of those university educated do-gooders who in the past would have been politely told by real Labour people 'thanks but no-thanks' and then been quietly shown the door at local Labour Party Branch meetings.

Why don't you see that?

Obviously some respondants simply aren't reading the article - Because I quite clearly argue for *extensive* Cost of Living relief - for poor and working class families - at least 1% of Male Average Weekly Earnings - or at least $600/year!

Public construction of new infrastructure would also impact positively on Cost of Living pressures as currently the higher cost of borrowing for the private sector are 'passed on' to consumers.

But tell me - how is it that readers see my priorities as 'pet areas', and hence that I am 'out of touch'?

Is Aged Care and the torment our most vulnerable suffer really a 'fringe issue'?

Do mainstream Australian working families really not care about the quality of state education their kids receive?

Do working class families forced to commute via private freeways for hours each day - biting into their family budgets - really not care about the lack of public transport and other infrastructure in emerging suburbs?

Do 'mainstream' families not care about access to dental care, housing stress and unaffordabilty, and economic stagnation in manufacturing, tourism and education?

I think rather it is the Conservatives who are 'out of touch' - who are unable to connect with how these issues impact upon peoples' lives - because the wealthy these are 'non issues'. (because they do not effect them)

The simple truth is that citizens can get a *better deal* in their capacity as taypayers for collective consumption of health, education, transport etc. And for the most poor without such collective consumption they would be excluded entirely.

Again Tristan,

totally out oif touch.

Every voter understands that education, health, transport, emerging suburbs infrastructure, city roads, housing affordability (land release) are state government issues.

Don't you understand state labor state governments have been dumped because of their inaction to solve the problems in these areas?

Interest rates, the rising cost of petrol and electricity are federal responsibilities.
Why don't you see that votes have an understanding that the 'co-operative federalism' that promoted coperation between the labor states and the labor federal government in the areas if the so-called 'collective consumption' of health, education, transport etc. was and still is nothing but a labor spun crock of c..p? ... that costs us too much.

This is just another example why you as a uni educated udologue labor spruiker are so out of touch with voters expectations and why you labor party people are being rejected ... almost universally.

Why don't you just leave Labour people alone and let them decide what's best for themselves.

You've pinched their party and now they have falling or little representation actoss this land.

Vote for them ... but get out of their road ... you are a hinderance to them.

First I have been a Labor member since 1994.

Secondly it is in the power of the Federal Government to provide tied grants to the states in the areas I discuss. States have limited capacity to raise funds as Ballieu is discovering.

The Federal Government *is* becoming more involved in Health funding, and we are moving towards a National Curriculum. As I discuss (if you'd actually read the article) Gonski calls on the Govt to fund 30% of $5 billion. (ie: $1.5 billion)

It's a useful construct for you to say electricity prices are a "federal responsibility". But one of the real disasters for Cost of Living was privatisation of energy assets by State Govts (of both persuasions)... No it is not the traditional way - But it would be possible for the Federal Govt to step in and build/fund new infrastructure. Again because govt is at an advantage when borrowing, and need not pay dividends to shareholders - Hence it can PASS SAVINGS ON TO CONSUMERS.

'Collective consumption' in Health includes Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Do you really propose getting rid of the PBS? Your friends in the Conservative parties would have a fit if they knew you were suggesting such a thing - as the consequence for taxpayers/consumers would be power prices going through the roof without centralised purchase from the drug companies)

Labor is in a bad spot after over two years of incessant corporate media propaganda. You can conveniently ignore it because 'it's not your side' which is suffering - but this is bad for democracy and for pluralism.

Home Insulation also hurt Labor badly; as did Gillard taking so long to implement the carbon tax. (hence giving time for endless and damaging speculation) But the 'public debate' is contrived and constantly being reframed to damage Labor. As I argue - only very substantial new initiatives can 'break through' at this point.

Your suggestion I am a 'hinderance' to Labor because of my 'radical' plan to expand the social wage by 1.5% of GDP is a transparent ploy for pragmatists to adopt YOUR Ideology.

*Again because govt is at an advantage when borrowing, and need not pay dividends to shareholders - Hence it can PASS SAVINGS ON TO CONSUMERS.*

Ah, if only things were so simple, Tristan. Back when Telstra
was a Govt monopoly, they used to screw me 9$ an hour for using
the internet. Nobody cared, because all those Govt employees were
growing fat and lazy on their Govt paycheques and there was no need
to put in the slightest effort. Now show me which Govt departments
work incredibly efficiently and pass savings back to consumers.

Only competition changes things, because people have a habit of
feathering their own nests, when they can. Govt monopolies can.
So human nature remains the problem Tristan, despite your dreaming.

Tristan,Labor are finished.Caput,finito,dead.We need a new political party to replace them.

BTW when I referred to "power prices going through the roof" in the last message I should have written "drug and medicine prices"; In the context I was referring to the Pharmaceutal Benefits Scheme and the prior cobntributor's ideological opposition to collective consumption.

Tristan, I admire your passion and defend your right to express concern for the vulnerable.

However, i side with the view that such days are over in terms of higher welfare spending.

Spending on social welafare is likley to be cut in both the short and longer term.

But this does not mean that fairness cannot be accomodated in the reforms. Indeeed, whether it is Labor or the Coaltion, future policy respectibility (or prowess) will depend very much on good scholars that can help inform public debate and political leaders of how best to make structural reform.

The idea of spend, spend, spend is a nonsense for Australia given its industry structure, relaiance on foreign investment, regional posiiton and so on.

But the idea of a smart and progressive Australia, acting as a smart Western society, remains a real possibility. Justwatch Landline each week and observe just how sharp debte can be.

But yes, life is now that much harder and we can't just take and take, as Hasbeen suggests. There needs to be compromise, just as there was in previous decades when Australans accepted the general thrust of eco reform.

I think Aust does have players that are capable of smart change, including busines, unions and so on, although i increasingly have less time with some of the silly free trade rants. Have faith in democracy and let us make it work with the utmost respect to the people, an aspect that Labor has lost with its carbon tax, perhaps the greatest ever mistake Labor has made.

Chris;

First thankyou for responding politely and respectfully. I will try and return the favour. :)

You say the days of higher welfare are over; By that do you include Newstart where we are around the worst in the world in supporting the unemployed - despite strenuous active labour policies? And keep in mind the reality that those on lower incomes are more likely to spend their money and provide stimulus for the economy.

Also I think the idea that cutting welfare is 'inevitable' would be convenient for the Conservative side of politics - as they have locked themselves into an austerity framework in order to pay for tax cuts which will do the Australian people and the Australian economy no good in any case.

Recall also that we are down the lower end of the spectrum when it comes for the size of our social wage and tax base. And take areas such as dental, pharmaceuticals, aged care - where collective consumption would give people a better deal. Why 'leave it to the market' if this increases cost structures for consumers? And there's a similar case to be made re: infrastructure.

Also I don't understand how our industry structure would mean we can't sustain a progressive tax-transfer system, avenues for collective consumption, more efficient public-finance of new infrastructure etc. Also if there are particular sectors which need assistance to remain competitive why not run a discriminatory industry policy?

Tristan 10 years ago I had one bridge toll to pay as I drove around Brisbane, something I now only do when completely unavoidable. I paid the toll when I crossed the thing, like a good little boy.

Now I have to have a white electronic gizmo stuck to the windscreen of my car, as I kept getting caught for non payment of tolls. It seems every time I go near Brisbane I get caught with an unpaid toll, as all those roads I paid for with my fuel taxes years ago, & have used for years, have been sold to someone, & I have to pay for the bl00dy things again.

They were sold because, in a time of plenty, a Labor government went broke, & couldn't balance the books.

Mate, please don't include efficiency & bureaucracy in the same sentence, they just don't belong together. If you don't believe me, ask a few citizens of the old Soviet Union.

Tristan,

Thank you for this excellent article. I would also like to congratulate you for remaining polite and civil while others seem to take a rather personal tone against you. I guess you can comfort yourself with knowing that when people do that unprovoked it generally means you have said something worth saying.

It has been proved by thorough and rigorous research that a society which distributes its wealth more evenly enjoys numerous benefits: lower crime rates, better education and health levels, happier citizens (www.equalitytrust.org.uk & “The Spirit Level”).

Your call for an ambitious and far reaching social programme aims to meet these goals so we can all enjoy such benefits. As far as I can see you are not oblivious to the costs or impediments of putting them in place, but see that they are outweighed by the incredible benefits. I agree.

There are many ways to raise the costs for these programmes. $1.7 billion a year currently being spent on a futile war in Afghanistan. $5 billion just promised to the IMF for a bail out to Greece, of questionable value. The possibility of a higher mining tax, bank super profit tax, and removing the superannuation rebate rort. The money is there for the taking to fund these initiatives.

The steady rise of the Greens in Australia and across the world shows us that there is a voting public hungry for the sorts of policies you mention. Commentators who talk blithely of the day of this sort of spending being over are likely those of the neoliberal bent who prefer small government and the market controlling most of people’s lives. They make these predictions repeatedly in the hope they will instil a feeling of disheartened resignation in the reader. But as Cole Porter sang – it ain’t necessarily so.

Tristan, keep calling for good, long term policies that reach out to the ALP voter of old. This is the true direction for ALP’s survival. If it continues to try to be the “diet coke” to the Libs “coke”, then it is truly doomed.

Tristan,

I dont necssarily disagree with some of your suggestions. I agree that newstart is inadequate and so on, although i have no problem with a tough mutual obligation sstem.

What i am saying is that resources are also needed for non-social welfare needs, such as infrastructure and so on. Hasbeen is right. You can't just keep taking and taking and then give to social welfare. You need resources to boost or encourage productive activities and their is a lot of welfare which has lttle purpose. Even my mate says it is ridiculous that he can buy a million dollar house and then receive the full Family A and B benefit.

Where i agre with the left is that we need to alter the balance between production and consumption which relies on credit and cheap foreign goods. I dont think we can go on the way we are.

I also hope that the answer is not to simply to rely on mining and credit and hope for the best like some of the galahs out there suggest

Chris,

"Even my mate says it is ridiculous that he can buy a million dollar house and then receive the full Family A and B benefit".

An excellent point. John Howard created a "culture of entitlement" to state support through the creations of payments such as this, and most of these still exist and we can ill afford them.

I totally agree, let's means test those Family Tax payments so your brother is no longer eligible, as well as others, like the first home buyers grant. And let's get rid of other middle class welfare, such as the super rebate and the private health fund rebate.

These programmes are inequitable and costing the Australian government billions of dollars every year. By getting rid of them, we can fund the sort of projects Tristan discusses as well as creating a fairer society, and making sure that welfare and handouts are reserved for those who truly need it.

*The possibility of a higher mining tax, bank super profit tax, and removing the superannuation rebate rort. The money is there for the taking to fund these initiatives.*

You sound like the typical green voter, Lets Talk, all heart and not
the foggiest understanding of the law of unintended consequences.

So let me explain a bit of it for you. People react to whatever
you think is "there for the taking". It is exactly why we have such
high house prices in Australia, as I tried to explain to Tristan.

But lets take your example of a "bank super profits tax". So who
would ulimately pay this? Not banks of course, for they are mere
paper entities. Most bank shares are owned by super funds, who
manage them on behalf of every single Australian who has a super fund,
like you for instance, if you happen to work.

So you want to take money out of peoples back pocket, their savings
in their super fund, and give it to those less inclined to work.
Next there will be a call to increase the super levy, to increase
workers savings!

Super funds of course will look at these diminishing returns and
decide to invest their money offshore, where there is no bank super
profits tax. So we'll let overseas investors invest here and they
can transfer price their profits out of the country, with no need to
pay much tax at all here.

No wonder that companies such as Saab and Volvo are not even owned
by Swedes, but by foreigners such as the Chinese, who will no doubt
pinch any IP they can and perhaps eventually move those factories
to China. The rich Swedes fled too, they live in Switzerland or
Monaco.

What people like Tristan should be doing is learning the new skills
required by industry and become taxpaying citizens who benefit the
country, rather then trying to figure out how to screw more out
of those who keep our economy going.


If you want equality, just go to Cuba, where everyone is poor

Tristan,

you are out of touch and are one of the dwindling few uologist left in the labor party.

Mate, from my perspective, I should be encouraging you... but I see that nearly 30% of the electorate, many my friends and neighbours, no longer have representation in our parliament in Qld. Why do you think your agenda is more important than my friends and neighbours concerns? Is it so important in fact that you think you know what is best for them?
Just how arrogrant and rude is that attitude?

If you want to impose your views then start your own party aqnd leave the labour peoples party to labour people. Without you and your ilk they, as a couple of prominant former Labor Politicians have suggested after their official enquiries, The Labor Party would reconnect with it's base.

Why's that so hard to understand? It seems you've the same attitude problem as the current labor apparachick politicians and powerbrokers.

imajulianutter,

It is not possible in the word limit to deal with your claim that state Labor governments have been dumped because of failures in “education, health, transport, emerging suburbs infrastructure, city roads, housing affordability”. However, I can say something about the Victorian Labor government and education. Its achievements in education were so good that, for the first time in the 44 years I have been active in politics, education was not an election issue. The Coalition did not campaign on it because Labor had invested $3billion in rebuilding schools in the state, given us the best-staffed primary schools we had ever had, restored the traditional academic disciplines of history and geography to our schools, set up a professional registration system for teachers, the Victorian Institute of Teaching, brought in the Victorian Certificate of Learning as an alternative to VCE and done much more. It did all this while running a budget surplus every year and cutting state taxes by more than $2 billion as a percentage of GSP.

You can find a longer list of Labor’s achievements and the previous Coalition’s mess at:
http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/462500.aspx

You can find longer discussions of the Victorian election at:

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/27/victorian-election-live-2/comment-page-23/#comments

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2011/01/01/2011-episode-one/

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/29/after-the-blast-2/comment-page-11/#comments

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/11/29/after-the-blast-2/comment-page-20/#comments

One poster points to Labor's fate in Queensland as proof Labor must move to the Right, abdoning social wage expansion. With this sort of mindset we never would have had Medicare or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

And yet the issue which really message Labor up in QLD was privatisation. Three prominent unions turned against the party as a consequence. What could have been merely a defeat was turned into a rout.

Labor leaders have to ask the question whether they stand for anything. Progressively ceding all political ground of principle to the ideological opposition is not a good way of mobilising your constituents.

Privatisation impacts on cost of living and hence hurts Labor's core constituency. This shouldn't be a matter of "Labor Right vs Labor Left". We're all supposed to have a commitment to social democracy. For those in the Party who don't - they have to ask themselves what they're really there for. I'm there because I want to make a real difference for social justice.

BTW - the term 'out of touch' just seems to be a term of Liberal propaganda; ie: something which is systematically said again and again with the hope it will 'sink in' with repetition.

Sorry I meant "messed Labor up in QLD".

Tristan there comes a time with every pendulum, when it has swung as far as it can go, & it is tine for it to go back the other way. Your social democracy has done this. The entitlement, handout mentality has taken over, & all those who are really mostly a waste of space, now expect to live as well as the hardest working individuals.

Welfare has to be given, not demanded & taken. Surely those providing the assistance should expect some advantage from their hard work. If there is no advantage for you & your family, why do it?

There are so many who's only reason for being "unfortunate" is that they are lazy, that many get sick of handing out.

When the bloke struggling to pay his mortgage in the back blocks of the gold coast sees a housing commission development in millionaires row, on the beach front, he starts to wonder, how far the help has to go.

Perhaps it's time to demand a little less, before that pendulum comes roaring back & hits you in the face.

Chris C,

You see to put a lot of faith in the opinions of Crikey contributors. I tried their site, a free trial.

I was atonished they expected me to pay to hear labor spin.

Mate you make things sound as though Labor should still be in power in Vic, NSW and Qld. Why can't you see, judging by the actual election results, you and Crikey's contributors opinions are trash in those states?

Yooowhooo Tristan, it's imajulianutter from Queensland. I don't think labor should move to the right at all.

I think they should just ditch you leftie uni educated ulogues and your idealised tomfoolery and focus on the needs of people who work for a living, who struggle to pay car regos, electricity bills, for petrol, to put clothes on their kids and their own backs, to educate their kids, to pay their rents, and to save for their own home.

That you say that is moving to the right just shows how out of touch you really are.

imajulianutter,

I’m not putting any faith in Crikey contributors. I am putting faith in my own statements, which is why I linked to my contributions (i.e., the ones under my name, which is given on my posts to the sites linked to and which I gave in my first post on this thread). I said nothing about NSW or Queensland, in which Labor was rightly defeated. I simply provided detailed evidence that your claim that Labor was turfed out in Victoria because of, among other things, education was untenable, the evidence being Labor’s record of achievement, which I gave fact by fact, and the fact that the Coalition did not make education an issue in the election, a statement I supported by copious quotation from election analysis. If you think the facts I gave regarding Labor’s achievements in education are not so, you are free to provide alternative facts. If you think Labor’s education record was an issue in the Victorian election, you are free to quote from news article from the time showing that to be the case. It is so easy to make an unsupported assertion and to keep making it until everyone believes it. I prefer to hear some facts. Your statement that my opinion is trash is just another assertion, easy to make and impossible to prove because to prove it you would actually have to produce detailed evidence that I was substantially wrong, and you have not produced even a little bit of evidence that I am even slightly wrong. Labor did spend more than $3billion in capital expenditure on schools – it’s in the budget papers. Labor did leave our primary schools the best staffed they have ever been – it’s in the statistical reports. And so on.

The threads I linked to on Crikey do not require any payment.

I did not say or imply that Labor should still be in power in Victoria. Labor lost the election for a number of reasons in its own control, but education was not one of them.

The person calling themselvs 'imjulianutter' suggests Aged Care is an 'elite issue' - a 'fringe' issue. I wonder - does he have family? Has he seen some of the worst of the facilities the aged have to live in? Does he have a clue?

He then proceeds to talk about Cost of Living conveniently forgetting the attention I pay to that specific issue in the article. No doubt he would like us to think Cost of Living pressures are because of the Carbon Tax. But that tax isn't even implemented yet. Privatisation is a much greater influence - but again that's not convenient - because of his Ideology.

Believe me I am aware of how difficult it can be to pay the bills. But tell me - what do you think CAUSES these cost of living pressures? Again there is the Howard housing bubble; there was privatisation; there's the price of oil going up... What would you do about these?

In Victoria there is also the desalination plant - which was built as a Public Private Parntership. That I think was a mistake.

And there is unemployment from the 'two speed economy'. What would you do about that? (ie: the two speed economy) I suggest an active industry policy - effectively cross-subsidisation between sectors.

Ah, the glorious Socialist Left. Spending money they don't have on schemes that have some merit but with little or no consideration of where the money will come from. It reminds me of the Whitlam years. Certainly the Gillard government is as incompetent as Whitlam's government even though it may be a little more sensitive to economic realities.
The mining tax will provide a temporary boost to government income but it is financially dangerous to commit to major on-going expenditures (such as on a 3% rise in superannuation) when the income stream from mining will start diminishing once China's economy cools down. And the carbon tax is being used as an opportunity to restructure the Australian tax system, even though it is a tax designed to reduce over time as CO2 emissions decline. Very dangerous and there will only be one consequence: a return to a financially prudent Liberal government.

Chris,

I supported my statements with one fact. Election results.

They are an assessment of governments performance and an expectation from oppositions.

True my statement was general but point me as to your evidence voters didn't vote on the basis of my assessment?

That is impossible to do. Neither of us can know what is in the mind of voters and for you to try to 'prove' on the basis of your 'facts' that voters didn't toss out Labor because of it's performance in education is impossible. Could it have been the federal trashing of grants to private schools and the resulting increase in state contributions have had a negative effect on some Victorian voters?

'The threads I linked to on Crikey do not require any payment.'

Of course they don't ... but you have had to subscribe to Crikey. I don't do that because they are overwhelmingly a spruiker of labor spin... and i see all too much of that for free.

Tristan,

The overwhelming perception is that the focus of labor governments has been on the things poor and poor working people find irrelevant.

Take a look at the election results and the poll standings.

It matters little what you say. I merely pointed to how these traditional labor voters see things.

You won't change their minds with the arguments you are spruiking to me.

If as a uni graduate you are finding it difficult to make ends meet then that says something about the uni degree you completed and your view of the world.

I never matriculated and have no difficulty paying my bills.

Somethings wrong isn't it?

Yabbi,

The bank super profit tax is only one of many ways that the government could raise funds to pay for the types of highly beneficial policies Tristan lists.

You claim that I haven’t “the foggiest understanding of the law of unintended consequences” in relation to the banks super profit tax.
That “law” simply says that sometimes social or environmental policies have unplanned effects, as well as planned ones. I understand that very well. Some of those effects will be beneficial, some not. It’s the role of those who design policy to analyse those before a policy is put in place. This will mostly government employees (who seem to get a bashing from a lot of neoliberals on the basis that they are “lazy” or “inefficient”; whereas in my experience those characteristics are just as prevalent in employees of private companies).

I agree with you that it is a good idea to analyse a proposed policy to see what its consequences might be. Then you can weigh up whether those make it worthwhile. Unfortunately the analysis you offer is weak.

You claim that a bank super profit tax is not a good policy, because of the effect it may have on superannuation fund holders. This relies on 2 premises. First, that any bank super profit tax will have a significant effect on people’s super entitlements. And secondly, that this effect will be so negative as to outweigh the other (planned) benefits of the taxes to Australians.

- continued next post_

- continued from last post -

You have failed to establish either of these premises. Firstly, not all taxes of a private company result in lower dividends to their shareholders. Instead of doing that, a company could make efficiency gains. Where might the big 4 banks find some fat to trim? Well, I propose they start with their senior management salaries, which are famously colossal in size.

Secondly, you claim that “most bank shares are owned by super funds”. Do you offer any proof for that claim? I imagine that in addition to the super funds, there are many wealthy individuals and private companies who own shares.

To the second claim, you do not offer any proof as to *how much* the super entitlements of your *average wage worke*r would be affected by bank super profit tax – and that’s if they are affected at all. I suspect it would be minimal.

Superannuation fund benefits are not spread equally amongst Australian society. A single mother getting by on a pension with occasional low paid part time work benefits from their fund much less than a businessman in senior managmenent. So there will be many people who will not be affected at all by any “knock on” affect from the bank super profit tax, and those that are negatively affected are the most able to bear any of this (likely negligible) burden.

Lastly, your objection basicly amounts to an argument that no Australian company should pay any tax, because it might negatively affect someone, somewhere, who belongs to a superannuation fund. This is patently absurd. Using that logic, there should never be any company taxes in Australia at all.

And if that’s your opinion, I suggest you move to Liechtenstein, or perhaps one of the many low-tax jurisdictions in Africa.

Though I may visit Cuba on holiday I might just as well visit Sweden, Japan or Norway who are all wealthy countries with a much higher rate of wealth and income equality than Australia, and who consequently enjoy the many social benefits that flow from that. Go to www.equalitytrust.org.au for details.

Bernie; there is detailed consideration of where the money will come from; from winding back superannuation concessions; from winding back Dividend Imputation to 75% or 50%; But raising Company Tax by 1% (which Abbott also plans on doing); by restructuring income tax; by implementing super profits taxes where appropriate. From all this I suggest after the surplus was achieved (even if it is only a political imperative) it could still be possible to be left with $15 billion for new social programs. That's ONE PER CENT of an economy valued at $1.5 TRILLION. If this is not possible then what is?

Many commentators seem to be interested in how these initiatives will be paid for by Australia, and to expect Tristan to give details of that.

I have already given my opinion that there are numerous potential income streams. Tristan no doubt has some ideas of his own.

However I should note that many politicians with much more access to policy experts than Tristan feel free to promise initiatives without explaining how they will be paid for. Tony Abbot's Liberals are famous for that.

I would also point out that some areas of spending seem to go under people's radars, and not at all connected to the immense effect they have on dispersing precious taxpayer's revenue.

I give as an example the $1.7 billion dollars currently being spent every year on the war in Afghanistan. The cost of that war to Australia currently exceeds $7 billion dollars.

The value of this spendingt is highly disputed. I don't remember any discussion of costings takeing place before the Liberal government committed Australia's troops to Afghanistan (not to mention Iraq). There are many other examples.

I suggest that a call for costing seems to be highly selective for many people, and depends on the worth they see in the project at question.

imajulianutter,

You say that I “have had to subscribe to Crikey”. I have not had to subscribe to Crikey and I have never subscribed to Crikey. I just post on Poll Bludger every now and again – and for free.

Election results are a fair assessment of the public’s judgement of a government’s performance, but you listed a number of factors which you said explained those results. I replied re one state and one of those issues, with specific facts. The facts on Victorian Labor’s achievements in education cannot be disputed. The issues that were covered in the election are also facts, available to anyone who perused the media. The evidence that education was not an issue that cost Victorian Labor the election is contained in the posts I linked to; viz, the many times that other issues are mentioned but education is not. I understand you to be a Queensland resident, so I do not expect you to have daily access to the 2010 election campaign in Victoria.

I have no idea what your “federal trashing of grants to private schools means”. The Coalition brought in a funding model, the SES model, that is so bad for private schools that it underfunds half of them, yet it poses as their defender. Labor had a model that funded them more generously, the ERI model, and which continues to apply to half of them because they are so badly treated by the SES model, yet it is portrayed as the threat to them. I expect the Liberal Party’s scare campaign on private school funding to collapse once the Gonski implementation details are announced.

The real problem that all state governments have is the expectation for better services, lower taxes and no debt –no government can make those three things work together, as Ted Baillieu is finding out now. When he fails to “fix the problems”, he too will be gone, and at some future date the Labor government that replaces his will also be gone. That’s how it works.

Chris you go on about everything but the election results? Aren't they the key fact here?

It's not about how successful labor's implementation of good policy.

It's all about public perception and how the public votes.

That tells us how we all feel about labor and it's performance.

You don't have to pay a subscription to Crikey. Wow. Then why do they always want to charge me for access? Are they free to those they see as labor spin merchants?

-

*It’s the role of those who design policy to analyse those before a policy is put in place. This will mostly government employees*

Well there is the rub, Let's Talk. Govt employees mostly don't have
the foggiest idea as to how smart investors think, or they would
not be Govt employees. So they generally stuff it up and the debacles
are for all to see in the real world. But by then its all to late.

Somehow you think that smart and productive people will just sit
there and get screwed by the likes of you. Well I have news for you.
They will react in ways that you have not even dreamed of, it they
think that you are being unfair, to feather your own little pet nest.

*Well, I propose they start with their senior management salaries, which are famously colossal in size*

This is where you show your ignorance. Even if all four CEOs of our
biggest banks worked for free, given that their gross assets managed
amount to a couple of trillion $, that would not even be a pimple
on the bottom line. But one wrong decision by any of those 4 people,
could easily cost the bank a billion and that would be paid for by
average Australians who have a super fund investment.

*Secondly, you claim that “most bank shares are owned by super funds”. Do you offer any proof for that claim?*

I am not here to write you a detailed report, Let's Talk. You would
have to pay me for that. It is common knowledge in the financial
world

imajulianutter,

I have no idea why Crikey wants to charge you for access. The Poll Bludger site existed long before it became part of Crikey. I just clicked on http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger and went directly to Poll Bludger. There is no subscription or fee. You can try the same. If you can’t get on, I do not know why. I make comments because I registered years ago before Poll Bludger had anything to do with Crikey.

I do not go on about “everything but the election results”. I mentioned poll results: “Election results are a fair assessment of the public’s judgement of a government’s performance”. I made a specific argument that education was not the cause of the Victorian Labor government’s election loss. In order to make that argument, I gave links to show that Labor’s education policy, which I detailed, was so successful that the Coalition did not even campaign on the issue and to election commentary that did not bother mentioning education, something that has been an issue in every previous state election I have observed – and that goes back more than 40 years. Had Labor performed as well in the other areas you mentioned as it did in education, it would still be in government.

People’s perceptions are formed partly by the media, and the media published attack after attack on the Victorian Labor government but refused to publish letters pointing out the falseness of those attacks. I have given examples in the links above.

Also, do not forget that Victorian Labor lost by only one seat and the current opinion polls put it behind only 49-51 on a two-party preferred vote.

*Govt employees mostly don't have
the foggiest idea as to how smart investors think, or they would
not be Govt employees. So they generally stuff it up and the debacles
are for all to see in the real world. But by then its all to late.*

- Yes of course. The GFC was all the fault of government employees, wasn't it. Not rich execs in highly profitable finance corporations being greedy. No, they're too smart to fxxk things up that much.

*Well, I propose they start with their senior management salaries, which are famously colossal in size

This is where you show your ignorance. Even if all four CEOs of our
biggest banks worked for free, given that their gross assets managed
amount to a couple of trillion $, that would not even be a pimple
on the bottom line. *

- A pimple well worth squeezing, and good evidence that big 4 banks have plenty of fat ready to trim.

*I am not here to write you a detailed report [on Big Bank Shareholders], Let's Talk. You would
have to pay me for that. It is common knowledge in the financial
world.*

Well then allow me to offer you some information - for free! I know, actually sharing information (or anything) without charging for it is bizarre to you, but hey, I'm all heart.

Top Shareholders of all Big 4 Banks?
HSBC Custody Nominees (Australia) Limited
JP Morgan Nominees Australia Limited
National Nominees Limited
Citicorp Nominees Pty Limited

The biggest of all of them?
Mega International Bank HBSC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc
17.46% of ANZ 13.59% of CBA 16.86% of NAB 14.88% of WBC

"As of 2011 it was the world's second-largest banking and financial services group and second-largest public company"

Oh yeah, I'd weep if anything the government did cut into their profits and paid for much needed Australian services. That would be such a terrible unintended consequence.

*The GFC was all the fault of government employees, wasn't it*

Nope, the GFC was the fault of the American people. They voted for
George Bush twice and Bush turned the SEC into a toothless tiger.
The rest is history.People get the politicians which they deserve.

*A pimple well worth squeezing*

A pimple simply does not matter. Being penny wise and pound foolish
does not get you far.

*Well then allow me to offer you some information - for free!*

Well I should hope that its for free, when its so flawed, lol.

Perhaps you should check what nominee companies actually do, they
are of course not the actual owners of shares. Many super funds use
them for a host of good reasons, to hold shares on their account.
HSBC provides financial services such as that, as do our banks.
Fact is that Australian workers have around 1.3 trillion $ in savings,
which is as much as the whole ASX is worth and banks make up for
around 25-30% of the ASX.

If the poor really want a few billion a year extra, they should stop
throwing those billions down the pokie machines, making Australians
the worlds biggest gamblers. If they spent that money buying bank
shares instead, they not only would be paid a dividend, but
participate in improving the Australian economy, as well as their
own lives. But of course, people like yourself, think that you are
entitled to something for nothing.

Yabby,

We are discussing the banks and their shareholders because I suggested that a bank super profit tax was one way to fund Tristan's suggested projects. I listed other ways, such an increased mining tax, a closing of the super rebate rort, reduction in military expenditure, eliminating the health insurance rebate, etc etc. I could add more, such as removal of commonwealth funding for private schools (such as Geelong Grammar).

You have chosen to focus on only one of these income streams, perhaps the one closest to your heart, the profits of our big 4 banks.

You have claimed that this would not be good for Australia because of the effect it would have on "Australian workers" superannuation entitlements.

Firstly, we know that not all the bank share profits are going into superannuation funds. Much of it finds its way into the hand of wealthy individuals, in Australia and overseas, through share investment, without super funds at all.

Secondly, when superannuation equals 1.3 trillion, any reduction in the share value that of the Big 4 banks would (to use your language) be but a pimple -the funds have numerous other investments which would dilute the effect.

And because the working poor will have have the smallest funds, any such effect (small) would automatically be borne by those who can afford it most - holders of larger funds.

In short, the average worker is likely to see very little difference at all in their super entitlements as a result of a bank super profit tax. They would, however, see its beneficial results through the sort of services Tristan suggests which a bank super profit tax would help pay for. I think you know this.

I don't think you're actually concerned with Australian workers at all Mr Yabbi. Your comments make clear you are principally concerned with the rich end of town, those who "deserve" all their wealth and should be protected from paying any of it for services which might be used by the rest of us. In that, we have a fundamental difference in values.

*I don't think you're actually concerned with Australian workers at all Mr Yabbi.*

I certainly am, Mrs Talk. Those millions of mums and dads who do the
right thing, get out of bed, get a job, get qualified, start a
business etc. The miners, shearers, mechanics, trckdrivers and all
the rest. They paddle their canoes and help themselves. I am
simply against those who stand around saying " I want, I want, I want,"
because they feel a sense of entitlement, for what everybody
else has worked for.

I am for those self funded retirees, who worked all their lives,
saved their pennies, did the right thing all their lives, who you
now seemingly want to call rich.

I am not against taxation at all. I am against super taxation,
when those with their sense of entitlement, want ever more, for
doing ever less. I believe that Govt assistance should be for
those who cannot help themselves, not for those who are too lazy
or can't be bothered.

So its kind of simple, Mrs Talk. Get off your butt, help yourself
and don't throw all your money down the pokies, then you can afford
the dentist.

Yabby,
One third of all Australians can't afford to see the dentist:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-01/dental-care-disgrace-back-under-the-spotlight/3981822

Many of these will be what are known as the "working poor". Some of them play the pokies. Most don't.

Those will include some shearers, mechanics, and truckdrivers.

It will also include telemarketers, waiters, shop attendants, social workers, super market check out operators... lots of different professions that help our society out, but who don't earn a lot.

The working poor won't include any miners, because mining is one area of the economy that is doing fabulously well, though only employing 2% of the workforce.

And yes, that third will include many, many people on NewStart, or the Disability Allowance, or the Aged Pension - people you seem to think unworthy of assistance, if not perhaps worthy of your derision and hate.

Don't try and pretend you support even a large number of *workers". The people who would notice any sort of difference to their super entitlements, or to their share portfolio under a bank (or mining) super profit tax would be a very small minority of the population.

The group you are so hasty to protect has a disproportionately large of people born with a silver spoon in their mouths - the Pratts, the Murdochs, the Fairfaxes, the Murdochs and the lesser versions of these families - who were wealthy the day they were born.

And for the rest, they will have used just as much luck and privilege as hard work to get them where they are.

The people who you are so keen to protect are doing just fine, they can afford to give more, and they really don't need you to stand up for them

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/8684.0

Oh come on, Let's Talk. Australians in 2005 lost 15 billion $ on
gambling. Where is your evidence that the "working poor" mostly
don't gamble? In my experience its exactly the working poor who
do gamble, that is why they don't have the money to go to a dentist.

People make choices every day and some simply don't care about their
teeth, until they have toothache. So if you want to really help
the poor, limit the pokies and the poor will save billions.

If you take a close look at the statistics, you will find that there
are actually very few rich people in Australia. But you read their
names in the paper and arn't even aware of it, because envy gets to
you first. Fact is that people like the Pratts and Murdochs can
just as easily domicile their tax affairs elsewhere and pay little
tax in Australia.

If you really want to raise more taxes, I pointed out in my first
post, where it can be done. International companies like Google,
Apple and similar, can easily transfer price their profits out of
the country and pay little tax here. If the Govt was serious about
raising extra revenue, they are free to change the laws and do
something about it.

I'm about fair taxes all round, not just suggesting dumb taxes,
because other options are too hard for the bureaucrats

Yabby,

Firstly, is your position is really that a third of all Australians can't afford to visit the Dentist because of gambling problems? That is really quite an extraordinary claim, and much stronger than mine, which is simply of the same third of Australians, *most* don't play pokies. Consequently, you have the burden of proof I believe.

I come in contact with people in that "lower third" wealth group every day in my job. I wonder, how often do meet these people in your job? Do you have any knowledge about gambling addiction?

Secondly, your statement "take a look at the statistics and you'll see there a very few rich people in Australia" is close to meaningless unless we agree on what "rich" is. There are always less rich than poor of course, but that hardly supports your arguments at all.

What is more meaningful is to look at Australia's wealth and income distribution and compare it with countries of similar wealth. We come are slightly more equal in distribution than UK, considerably more than USA, but have higher income and wealth dispaarity to almost all the rich European countries, bar Portugal. Especially if we use Japan, Norway, Sweden or even Germany as models, our rich are large in number and are quite wealthy. See www.equalitytrust.org.au for more details.

The other interesting findings on recent research is that, as services improve and wealth/income equality increase in wealthy countries, *everyone* tends to share in the social benefits. So, if Australia moved towards those European and Japan models mentioned above, even our millionaires could enjoy lower crime rates, a better health system, better educated population, better public services etc. Compare that with all the social problems in the USA, which shows that even a huge GDP doesn't help your society much if you squander it on wars and let social services lapse for fear of taxing the rich.

Lets Talk, my point is that Australians are the world's biggest
gamblers and lose 15 billion a year. It is not the rich losing
their money, or they would not be rich. But plenty of pensioners
play the pokies. In WA, where the pokies are severely restricted
to only one spot, West Australians only lose a third of what
people in place like NSW and Victoria lose, as the ABS statistic
shows.

I had a look at your equalitytrust figures, but you quoted the
website wrongly, its from the UK, not AU. Its a great example
of statistics misused for a political agenda, which might impress
you, but not me. Throw a country like Singapore in there, which
is a low tax country, as is Switzerland and everything changes.

For instance they try to blame teen births on income inequality.
The fact that the US is the most religious Western country on the
planet, the fact that many kids receive no sex education, many states
do their damndest to ban abortions, unlike say Holland, your stats
ignore all this and try to justify it with income inequality.

Drugs, it must be income inequality. Australia leads and of course
WA has the highest use of amphetamines in the country. Funny that
WA also has some of the highest incomes in the country and anyone
who wants a job can find one tomorrow, if they try even a weeny
teensy bit. Nope, it must be income inequality.

Frankly Lets Talk, you have been sucked in.

Yabby,
I don't think you understand fully the methods used by the creators of the equality trust website to come to their conclusions. You've had a quick look at the website and, because it's conclusions don't sit we'll with your beliefs, you hastily dismiss them. This says more about how fixed you are in your beliefs than the quality of the study.

I suggest you read their book "the spirit level". They have a section devoted to answering points raised by their critics. Your points are among them and they dismiss them effectively I think.

For example, you claim that a single jurisdiction on a single issue, say WA on drug use, disproves their theory. Not true. Even if what you say about WA is true (and I'd need more data - for example I'd say WA does have quite high income inequality - that's what's at question, not wealth) it doesn't disprove the findings. The study is across many countries and cross referenced with data across every US state. Their conclusions are made using the "line of best fit" and the results are clear.
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/drug-abuse

The same applies for the addition of countries like Singapore or Switzerland. The researchers go into some detail to explain there choice of countries and how these additional jurisdictions do not invalidate their findings.

Sorry, its you that have been suckered by your neoliberals masters do you can't trust real data when you see it.

Ah Let's Talk, so now you want me to read another book, to explain
the flawed data. Perhaps you can explain it to me, like my first
point, and I can think of dozens more.

There are many, many things which affect culture, you seemingly
want to blame the lot on one thing. How foolish. Sounds more like
the zealotary of a fundamentalist Xtian kind of thinking, then
anything too rational.

So lets take teenage pregnancy. Do you really think that lack of
sex education, lack of abortion facilities, lack of family planning
in general, have nothing to do with the differences between say
the US and Holland?

I've frankly debated some of these topics to death in the past and
I can tell you, if you bother to inform yourself, there are many
cultural issues involved, not just your narrowly focussed, political
agenda point of income inequality.

There are many reasons why countries such as the Nordic countries,
Germany, Switzerland etc have done well, from tertiary training to
the weather. You want to lump it all into one single point. How
gullible of you.

You remind me of a climate denier yabby: you'll desperately look around for any explanation for a set of data other than the simplest explanation which best fits the empirical evidence, because - you can't handle the truth.

Basically, societies work better for most people when extremes of rich and poor are not so pronounced. People are happier, healthier and better educated on those countries. It makes sense, and those studies are good proof.

You should perhaps concentrate on the people you care about - rich people - and leave the rest of the country to people who are genuinely interested in politics. I suggest a career in finance.

*you'll desperately look around for any explanation for a set of data other than the simplest explanation which best fits the empirical evidence*

Sheesh Lets Talk, that sounds just like the creationists and their
simple "God did it" explanation. We won't question the data being
full of holes like a sieve. We'll just become true believers.
I'll just stick to intelligent points of reason, thank you.

*Basically, societies work better for most people when extremes of rich and poor are not so pronounced*

That is exactly why we spend huge amounts on welfare and have
taxation systems in place where Govt spends around 35% of GDP.
We help those that cannot help themselves. But if that keeps
rising to the point where it stifles innovation, stifles
entrepreneurship and effort, it becomes counterproductive and its
all downhill, as countries like Sweden discovered in the 90s, when
their economy started to collapse, they changed direction and
started to deregulate an overgoverning beaurocracy which was
stifling progress.

* rich people - and leave the rest of the country to people who are genuinely interested in politics.*

Actually its working people that I care about, not rich people.
Those who go down mines and all the rest. Not those feathering
their own nests in politics or the gullible who think that they
know what is best for everyone else.

My mistake Yabby. You're not just interested in the rich. Your kindhearted care and empathy extends to miners as well.
LOL!

My kindhearted care and empathy extends to those who get out of bed
and help themselves, or those who cannot help themselves.

I'm sick to death of spongers who say I want I want I want, because
I should be entitled.

That's right Yabby, keep peddling that tired old line that says rich people are deserving heroes and poor people are evil lazy scum. That means that by making the rich contribute more, we're being really mean to them! Oh no!

A poor miner neolibs like to bravely defend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5pmbicsvhQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

And here's a job for you if you don't have the head for numbers for finance: http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/04/bank-therapy-super-rich-occupy-wall-street

Let's Talk, its workers who are deserving heroes, its lazy scum who
expect others to work for them, as they are too lazy, who are the
problem.

I suggest that one day you get out from behind pushing your pencil
around a desk and go down a mine to see what miners really do down
there underground, covered in crap each day.

The enemy of the hard worker has never been the unemployed: it is the greedy capitalist owner who refuses to share by distributing profits, either through wages or tax.

If the likes of Reinhart and Palmer - multivillionaires- paid their proper share, there would be much more available funds for the project Tristan espouses (some of which were recognized in the latest budget ) and for the men in the mines to continue to earn well.

Your formulation of worker vs unemployed is false.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/forgotten-people-elites-and-class-warfare-once-were-warriors-nick-dyrenfurth-4842

*If the likes of Reinhart and Palmer - multivillionaires- paid their proper share*

Err how to do you know that they don't pay their proper share?
Last time I checked Palmer was talking big numbers and projects,
but was not actively mining anything. Reinhart is still developing
mines.

The tax laws are there to be enforced by the tax office and if the
tax office is not doing its job, don't blame anyone but our
politicians

Meantime we do spend around 130 billion on social welfare, hardly
a pittance. If less were on the gravy train, there would be more
for those really unable to help themselves. The lazy are stealing
from the unfortunate.

For someone who is busy working and (paying exorbitant taxes) you seem to have a lot of time to post comments Yabby. Just like Clive Palmer can find time for any old crazy scheme. Corporate welfare system.

Ah Let's Talk, but I am semi retired and no welfare involved.
Ive paddled my own canoe in life too. The problem with your
proposed system, is that eventually you run out of other peoples
money to spend.

As I indicated above, the Gonski report is one reform that will help Labor. My thoughts are at http://community.tes.co.uk/forums/t/576719.aspx. The bibliography is awaiting moderation for some reason.

There's plenty of other people's money to go around, all ready to be spent on services that will benefit other people:

https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node%2F19&pubid=999&act=display

*There's plenty of other people's money to go around*

Only if you are kidding yourself and ignore the law of unintended
consequences, Let's Talk.Academics pushing pencils around desks,
do not make it so.

For or course people who create wealth get tiered of being robbed
and move their innovative skills and wealth creation skills elsewhere.

Next you will be screaming that you want a job. I remind you that
without some entrepreneur to create one for you, you might be
scratching.