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?