When one regrets a promise they made, the honest thing to do is to ask those to whom the promise was made whether they are willing to release them from that promise.

Max's article is about fairness but he doesn't define it or give any idea what he means by it. Presumably everyone just knows what fairness means - it means what Max wants it to mean.

In particular Max gives no reason why it's okay to threaten to cage and rape people in order to force them to submit to the confiscation of the fruits of their labour, so that coercive monopolists can give it to political favourites, which is what Max seems to be advocating in the idea that "lower income groups" are some kind of natural priviligentsia, entitled to live at others' expense.

"One such value - perhaps the most important because it is arguably the foundation for the above rights - is the principle that a government must treat all citizens with equal concern for their interests and equal respect as members of the community."

So does that mean you oppose progressive taxation, Max? It's obviously inconsistent with treating all citizens with equal concern for their interests and equal respect as members of the community, isn't it?

Does fairness matter?
Well of course it does, as does true justice; inherently, one and the same thing.
And never ever in the eye of the beholder JKJ!
Otherwise we would tolerate honor killings, and the stoning to death of ACCUSED NOT PROVEN adulterers?
The government had other FAIRER means at their disposal, such as making professional tax dodgers; pay a fair share, or failing that, some tax!
An given those that avoid AND BY THE BILLIONS, include major multi nationals, with budgets bigger than many sovereign nations; not before time!
Albeit, making them pay a fair share, still requires real reform and courage, and a good deal more than just laying out the granny killing GST; that actually allows it!
One can't imagine how any living/eking out a bare existence on a paltry pension, can now afford to heat, or more importantly, cool their homes?
When power bills that used to be around 4-500 dollars a year, are now around a thousand+ a quarter!
And the granny killing GST component, has risen from 4-50 dollars a year, to now nearing 4-500!
That's the fresh fruit and vegetable budget for a year, for some, but particularly, those now shelling out more than a single pension, for a Sydney bedsit!
Bursting at the seams, bloated billionaires, just don't need all that assistance; or Blatant Bull, merely masquerading as a fair and equitable, inherently fair, tax system!
But particularly, when real reform, would hand a much fairer deal to those who currently pay most/all of our tax!!
The real measure of nation, is how well it treats its less well off!
Rhrosty.

The bit that amazes me aout Abbotts parental paid scheme, is that people actually believed he was going to deliver. I mean, anyone can make a promise, but, in this case, where it takes money, that simply was not going to happen as long as our bums point to the ground, in fact, labor made sure of that and it will now be up to the third generation to come to provide taxes surplus to our needs, if ever. I say this because labors last two stints in office have accounted for the next two generations taxes. It, the scheme has been the greatest con I've seen for a while.

As for fairness, there's no such thing as in this country you're either a giver, or a taker, and the givers, the top 20% of earners always complain about their taxes being wasted, while the takers are never satisfied with what someone else has provided.

The thing is that while most of us have enjoyed what's been gifted to us from governments (tax payers) these gifts have now become entitlements to many.

The only way forward is to stop the entitlements and move towards a society that is assisted if and when they help themselves. Of cause there are exceptions, but a 25 yo who has not bothered to gain experience is no such exception.

The other point very few seem to acknowledge is that we are now fast approaching a zero car industry country. This will have implication on our employment like none of us have experienced, so while the budget emergency may seem to have retracted for now, what about in 2016.

Labor don't have the answers, because there's no one in line for the top job, and their leader is about as popular as a dropped pie.

Of cause we can call on the top 1% tp pay more in taxes, but. Considering they create most of the jobs here, either directly, or indirectly, it would be a game move if we threaten them with the big stick.

Fairness will never happen.

'fairness' is only ever in the eye of the beholder. Some teachers/nurses working for $80000 a year think they are hard done by while others are more than grateful for a good pay and many holidays. Some on welfare feel its unfair they only get a few hundred a week while others working hard see some spending their taxes on drugs, cigarettes and bludging. Does fairness matter? Probably not nearly as much as keeping one's word. Successive Governments have been very poor at that. In an age where wedding vows mean nothing to people, employers/employees show no loyalty to each other and sleazy lawyers reward laziness why are we surprised that Pollies represent those who vote for them.

@runner

Just for you http://youtu.be/gDnE-5lD7w8 ;-)

With even some National and Liberal Senators opposing Paid Parental Leave (PPL) long may it be blocked. Twas Abbott's main pet project.

plantagenet,

for once I and many conservatives agree with you that Abbott's PPL is a ridiculous scheme. In fact any scheme that encourages mothers to dump their kids off at a young age if foolish.

Hi runner

In appreciation for us being as one on this point here's another religious skit http://youtu.be/umRRCkspaQU .

Regards

Pete

The fairness to help yourself to the taxes of other people is not fair at all.

We have to have a better idea of what is "fair". Is it fair that the majority, many of whom we can presume might be looking with envy at anyone richer, can decide what is fair for those richer?

And here we have the nightmare of a longer lived democracy; that once we legitimise the rule by the majority, we have opened the floodgates to plunder of the better off by the worse off

... all in the pursuit of fairness, you understand.

Yes, fairness matters. And it is fair to say the better off (not the fairness gestapo) can decide how to spend their earnings, and the worse off can go earn their own or accept whatever handouts they are given without the intelligentsia going all huffy about "fairness'.

Too right Col. The vast majority, who are takers, would gain much more respect from the givers if they would just appreciate the efforts of them and drop the tall poppy masks.

Fairness? What is fair? Some will surely say; in any situation, “fairness” is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder. In some respects that may be true, but Australia, more than other countries, prides itself on, being fair… it espouses “the fair go”. It barracks for the underdog, holds foolish authority, braggards and egotists in disdain. It sees itself as a classless society. Or did.

Does fairness matter? Yes it does if we call ourselves an egalitarian society. Or if we wish to strive towards becoming more egalitarian. But in Australia, as the saying goes; some are more equal than others. As an Australian I see this as where the “fairness” comes in. At a very basic level it is about “playing by the rules”, biding your time and not pushing in front of those already in the queue. That’s only fair, right?

Is it fair to keep a section of society living under the poverty line? Is it fair to exclude people from employment due to their age?

Today’s polity, has to me, sunk to new lows. The quality of our representatives, year after year, seems to be diminished. The quality of their advice and from advisors likewise. Politics has become: incestuous and isolationist. It has become divided like never before, where the good of Australia and Australians are not the prime motivation of the political parties and their members. Where hatred and lies are espoused daily. This cannot be good for our future.

For example; Labor now sees itself as excliusively a Progressive Party and the Conservative voices within it have been silenced. If I was to start another party it would state:

Clear thinking, straight talking, and a “fair go” for all Australians.

The Conservative Labour Party of Australia defines its CONSERVATISM as: a political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change, or simply change for its own sake. The Party recognises the majority “conservative” nature of Australians and as such sees Conservatism as the core tenet of the party.

Doesn’t that seem fair?

Fairness is largely in the eye of the beholder.

It is unfair that someone has more money than someone else, or is it unfair that someone that works harder and smarter than others gets the same?

The collapse of communist countries showed clearly that without incentives no one would be prepared to work harder, nor take risks. Similarly, economies that concentrate wealth in the hands of the few waste human capital and also eventually collapse. The optimum is somewhere in between where the most disadvantaged are protected without removing the incentives for the entrepreneurs to produce the wealth.

Where Australia is now in my opinion is on the verge of swinging too far to the left. Labour costs are pricing workers out of a job, and welfare and health costs are consuming nearly all the budget. Productivity is dropping and so are real incomes.

Fairness should matter but what I've noticed is those who think the government can do it successfully tend to be very selective about what it means. They will make claims about fairness but when gross unfairness in the impacts of preferred policies are raised those who raise them are attacked for being wingers, selfish and little effort ever seems to be extended to understand any unfairness that does not fit within preconceived notions.

In regard to the issues raised in this article. Yes Abbott's version of Paid Parental Leave is silly, it's pointed out that there is no criteria on the basis of need. Our entire tax system ignores the concept of actual need and runs off assumptions that often don't apply.

The person who does not need much income is taxed very little (or not at all and may receive money from the taxpayer). The person desperately needing income and working long hours to try and get that extra income pays extra tax at a high rate. There is nothing on the tax form to allow for a reduced tax burden because of need for the money, no obligation on those not seeking payment via Centerlink to pay an amount of taxes to tip in their share towards social responsibility (other than via GST and other end usage taxes which are far less than income tax in many cases).

Those who spruke fairness as justification for further penalising those working to gain income so that those who have made choices that don't allow them to support themselves get an easier run are generally very selective in what's considered fair.

R0bert

If the PPL goal was simple short term "Fairness" then a simple flat rate may be best. It is arguable though if a long term Fairness is the goal then an income related system is needed. Abbott is surrounded by smart capable women such as Peta Credlin, many of which are childless or leave it possibly too late. Is it fair to prevent smart women from having children?