Max, you write as if 'fairness' means whatever your opinion of it is. You forget that everyone else does the same. The result is that there is no kind of objective standard. You also ignore the fact that what you advocate will be backed up by coercion, which means you have not established that there is any "right" to what you are suggesting.

If your theory was not nonsense, then the best thing to do would be to make the tax rate 100 percent for everyone, and simply get the government to give an equal amount to everyone, on the ground that this would supposedly be "fair". All it means is that you haven't thought through what you're talking about. You're just gabbling empty-headed slogans.

Hear hear and well said Max.

This is far and away your best article!

Now if we could just get those with the tin ears and recalcitrant born to rule attitudes; to take some of this on board, we could not only return the most egalitarian country in the world our forbears created, with their blood sweat and tears sacrifice; but an inherently wealthier one into the bargain!

Think, we were once the third wealthiest nation on the planet, and a creditor one at that!

The real problem for our so called leaders, is a (plain as the nose on your face) visible lack of vision (sorry about the pun) and their ability to listen to invariably counterproductive advice/tea party garbage/first past the post, post?

If the poor have more they spend more; the first consequence of which is, the (merchant/manufacturing/building class) rich get richer, in real terms.

And policies designed to quite deliberately or downright dumbly, increase universal ingrained endemic poverty, have just the opposite effect!

Talk about not being able to see the economic forest for the economic trees; or through a very expensive cloud of very costly cigar smoke!
Or shooting yourself in your own economic foot!

It is said that the legendary Whoslem bird flew in ever decreasing circles, (endlessly reducing revenues) until it disappeared up its own fundamental orifice.

And in economic terms, that is where we (government revenue) are heading, without sensible and long overdue (tax and other economic models) reform!

Arguably all one can expect, when the apparent choices are boiled down to Tweedledum, or Tweedledumer?

"Its the economy stupid"! And when you get that right, it's also inherently fair!

The economic handbrake, austerity, slows it down, whereas the accelerator, properly applied stimulus, speeds it up!

I mean, one can trade ones way out of bankruptcy, but never ever shutdown ones way out of it!

We need as never before, to build income earning (literally pay for itself) infrastructure!
Rhrosty.

JKJ. the problem with the view you expound above is that it precludes any consideration of a generalised solution. I suspect it may be that you see talk of "fairness" as being insufficiently "rational" to easily analyse and thus you scoff.

On the other hand, a fairly simple analysis is available via game theory and behaviourist economics if it is assumed that the majority of parties are capable of being educated and informed so as to be able to exercise enlightened self-interest in their choices.

However, that analysis does require some consideration of "irrational" but valid choices.

Once upon a time, in a land far far from here, I had an uncle complaining he had paid over 6000 income tax, on an income of under 11000, pounds that is of course.

He was utterly amazed when I said I wished I had paid that much. He thought I was mad until I explained I had paid only 80 pounds on my 1050 income. Just out of uni, I was still under the average wage, although not that much. Yes we once hit the high earners very severely with tax.

My uncle retired not that long after, at 54, as it was he said, not worth working 70 hours a week just to pay tax.

For those with short memories it was Keating who did most of the tax reduction on high income earners, to stop the rot of them stopping work, or moving their interests offshore. Those who enjoy the gentle, but extremely well paid life of an academic, should stop this envy of the hard workers.

Personally I think we should charge all people with beards half their net wealth in tax. Surely I am not the only one to realise those with beards, so many academics, see themselves differently. They have some strange that their reflection is of a wise old all knowing professor. They even think they have become the receptacle of all wisdom, when actually they have merely become prickly.

Max, go have a shave, & have a good look at yourself, possibly for the first time in years. You will perhaps see the fallacy of your communistic thinking.

Sounds good to me, Hasbeen. I reckon I'm due about $50,000 based on 50% of my net financial worth at the moment.

Mind you, I do have a beard, but it's quite small and neatly trimmed, almost like a sailor's...

Craig Minns

"JKJ. the problem with the view you expound above is that it precludes any consideration of a generalised solution."

No it doesn't.

The problem is rather that Max has not identified any problem, has not shown how any question of fairness is indicated, nor how any proposed solution would be make sense, let alone be justified.

JKJ, would you mind expanding on that (leaving the author's position aside for the moment)?

I'm struggling to grasp your meaning in relation to "fairness", rather than as an expression of libertarianism.

CM

It's in response to the author's article, so I can't expand on it other than in relation to that.

He hasn't established that there's anything intrinsically "unfair" about the fact that some people have more property than others, which is just another way of saying, that human society exists. There might be; or there might not be. But nothing he has said shows that there is; nor that anything he proposes would be fairer even in terms of his own definition, which he hasn't given. The article talks of fairness as a political "principle"; but the author gives no criterion, other than his own arbitrary opinion, by which anyone could judge whether any given policy is getting closer to, or further away from, the achievement of that principle. Talk of equal respect doesn't answer, because if that entitles everyone to an equal share of what you produce taken under coercion, then it's not equal respect is it?

Craig I twice walked out of the Mooloolaba yacht club change rooms, after shaving off a few months passage making growth of facial hair, to run into the same friend, who pronounced each time that I "Looked 10 years younger without that beard".

The second time his wife was with him, who said, "yes, much better too". Nothing about good mind you, but better.

Haven't worn one since.

Again more references to Tony Abbott's, now abandoned, totally unfair PPL. Well that is the exact scheme Liberal or Labour gave to the Public Service. So which party did that and if so, why, as everyone says it is unfair for a non public servant to get.
Of course it begs the additional question why not save money by getting rid of the PS PPL too?
Does it apply to Politicians by the way?
Questions, questions? Any answers?

I'm still waiting for an explanation to justify the ruling in Brown v Board of Education. What was wrong with black and white schools each getting the same per capita in funding. It's not as though each school got funding equivalent to 15% whatever of how much all the individual school's parents earnt.