Houellebecq:
"you have used class in two different arguments to imply anyone who is rich is likely to have a less than empathetic view of the poor, using it as a justification to pay less tax".

Have you heard this breaking news (though hardly new)?
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31248913

I'm not saying "anyone who is rich", but it does appear to be pretty damn close!

Tax minimisation/evasion is ubiquitous (sorry, more words, that means "everywhere"). I do it! It's not something any of us morally evaluate, we just pay as little as we can, right up to the filthy rich--though I can't get out of it the way they can.
Many of us do morally evaluate those dependent on comparatively modest free services, or living in squalor on welfare, however. Not a tad hypocritical?
Did you hear Alan Jones on Q&A last night talking about the superannuation perks and what they amount to in terms of lost tax revenue?
To argue against this reality is to manufacture your own bullsh!t.

This is a bit exhausting squeers. I pity anyone else reading along. Are you drunk?

I reply as a courtesy, but I am keeping eye contact and moving away slowly.

'rather than offend you further I'll keep the obvious inferences to myself.'

I am not offended, and I have no idea what the obvious inferences are.

'should one respond to argument ad hominem?'

Not aware I have made such an argument. I made a simple point that your statement revealed a prejudice comparable to the prejudice you objected to in butcher. You're the one who started on a character analysis, I responded in kind. I was neither offended nor intended to offend.

' what all these words and names are I keep dropping in my efforts to impress?'

I said it came across that way to me, and self-deprecatingly mused you should stick to pop culture if you wanted me to be able to follow, let alone impress me. I have no idea of Eugine Onegin, White Rabbits, Thomas Piketty, Montaigne et al. I have little interest in enlightening myself.

'But no, I'm grateful and chastened and shall reflect deeply on your criticism.'

Yeah, I'm sure you will. I've only battled on to this long in morbid curiosity and also in trying to decipher if you had conceded the one simple point. I'm not there yet but I'm happy to cut my losses.

' I'm sure if you "really" think your "gripes" through, you'll find them wanting. '

Pertaining to the waste of tax through bureaucracy? I'm no economist, granted, but I don't see it as revolutionary to reject the notion of the government taking money in tax to give it back to me in welfare. Or to bemoan the duplication I mentioned at state/federal and private/public.

'You might even be embarrassed'
I am, for both of us in this 'conversation', this passing of minds in the night.

I cant watch QandA anymore as I cringe too much.

'To argue against this reality is to manufacture your own bullsh!t.'

I don't and haven't. See you around.

Thanks Houellebecq. I realise 'tis all a bit of a lark for you. It is for me too really, as I don't believe in the system, left or right. I just play devil's advocate and try to make people (and myself) think.

Just one thing before I say adieu. When you say,

"Pertaining to the waste of tax through bureaucracy? I'm no economist, granted, but I don't see it as revolutionary to reject the notion of the government taking money in tax to give it back to me in welfare. Or to bemoan the duplication I mentioned at state/federal and private/public".

You are aware that small government is the beloved of neoliberalism? I'm doubtful this is because they hate waste and inefficiency. It's more that they hate regulation of any kind, capitalism being for them the only rubric we need. Ethics, ecology, Human rights etc. are quaint but redundant.
Neoliberals don't live in the real world; it's more like legoland and their economics is more like a computer simulation than "human praxis" and "social production". It's a kind of virtual world called ceteris paribus (well that's a good name for it) where nothing is allowed to interfere with economic dynamics, which even stand in for physics.

There are none so blind...

But thanks for the chat : )

Squeers, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, but seriously, how can you draw from my comment 'lazy layabout single mum with 5 kids to 4 fathers' that I despise all single mums.

It's like unemployed, there are unemployed, unemployable and their are bludgers. Same goes for single mothers.

Now I accept that mistakes happen and some single mums can have kids to separate fathers, but not four times without some serious questions being asked.

One way of addressing the social tags is to quarantine all welfare, including pensions (with the exception of old age or vet affairs) unemployment benefits, single parent benefits, even child support payments that simply take away the freedom many have today whereby these funds can be too easily wasted.

While on the subject of taxing the top end, people often get miss led about big end taxes, because unlike employees, who pay their taxes before they claim their deductions, businesses claim their deductions, then pay tax.

He's a scenario.
PAYG income $72,000 tax approx $18,000. Deductions, living away from home etc, say $5000, net tax is now 18%.
Of cause the media are renowned for not allowing the truth to get in the way of a good story.

rehctub,
All I've said is single mums tend to get tarred with the same brush, hence it's a cliche.
I'd have to question your sense of discrimination though when you say,
"I accept that mistakes happen and some single mums can have kids to separate fathers, but not four times without some serious questions being asked".

What if it's not a mistake? What's wrong with different fathers if she's a good parent? We live in a world now where gays and all sorts of other couples/singles can have kids, so I think you're imposing old fashioned moralities.
But then I guess you're also saying four bastards while on welfare looks like bludging off the system, or making a career out of having babies, albeit a poor one. So granted, for sure there are issues that are or should be a worry if the farm's a going concern.

TBC

I was also suggesting above though that rather than seeing this purely as a rort, we should look into the formative lives of such people; at why and how they end up in such predicaments and how they can be empowered (to use the jargon) to take charge of their lives.
Trouble is, the PC jargon assumes empowerment is potential for everyone.
I say it's not; that our growth paradigm (economic growth requires growth in demand which creates an unsustainable surplus. Marx called this 'surplus labour', which kept wages and conditions low, but in the welfare era this surplus, the unemployed, becomes an economic burden) necessarily 'creates' the very 'rump' the neoliberals want to punish. I.e. neoliberals either believe or want to foster the illusion that full employment is possible, ergo that the unemployed are recalcitrant.
The mass of those unemployed is in constant flux as it's members move in and out of the workforce--which can't possibly sustain the population to any qualitative extent (full-time). The rump is thus composed of temporarily unemployed, itinerants, and a more or less permanent welfare underclass.
Of course unemployment is much higher than official figures suggest, with the underemployed, those pensioned off for dubious reasons, and a growing body of students, 'retooling' for the workforce, as well as the long-term career-unemployed.
But not only are there not enough jobs, not by a long shot, keeping these cohorts in rude health adds up! They generate growth in the services sector, but rather than these making real profits, they're a drain on capital investment to the extent that governments can scoop the required taxes off the top.
Hence the need for cuts! Pure economic rationalism!
The whole system is broken. But the Darwinist-neoliberals still believe and want to go back to the fundamentals.

But I'm pissing in the wind.