I wont support any change in the GST without democracy reform.
I believe a balance of power should exist where if they make laws for us, then we make laws for them.
I want them to balance the books by law.
I want them to stop saying they have the support of the people when they don't - preferences should be optional - place a zero.
I want the end of the 2 party system - its just pass the baton.
I want a new electronic platform for voting and campaigning.
I want an end to buying democracy with campaign donations.
I want politicians to start using video-conferences and stop flying around the country in helicopters to fundraisers.
We should give them mobile offices, so they can do their jobs whilst traveling.
I want them to be put in jail with a 3 strike rule when they do the wrong thing, and I want the prison built in advance to remind them the people aren't joking and that they are here to serve us.

How long till the next 'travel rort' saga - will it be their fault or ours?

I don't even know what the Liberal and Labor party's stand for anymore.
Labor supports immigration - Why would the party who traditionally stand up for the Australian workers support immigration at a time when manufacturing in our country is dying?
Or conversely; Why would the party who traditionally supports business oppose immigration when immigration helps keep wages lower and provides overseas workers?

Its an upside down world, and inverted reality.
I won't support any more power or control over our lives and futures without us too having more power and control over their lives and their futures.

Getting rid of the woman that Tony had unequivical support for has gone, now Tony says she has done the right thing for Australia.

When you think you are confused, you are probably right.

Armchair, you don't seem to have thought through that list of things you want. Making preferential voting optional would delay the end of the 2 party system, as the major parties tend to put each other last.

Balancing the books by law would be catastrophic for the economy. It would remove the government's ability to invest in our nation's future. It would exacerbate economic cycles, and more likely than not they'd find the law impossible to comply with as cutting spending would result in declining tax revenue.

And it's austerity, not immigration, which destroys jobs.

Murray, you state that “It is therefore inevitable that the tax base must be widened and taxes increased if the government is to continue meeting its commitments.” As others suggest, you have this the wrong way round. Here’s a letter I sent to The Australian on the topic on 30/7:

“The first thing to recognize in any tax debate is that activity in the non-government sector is subject to competition which drives customer responsiveness, productivity, cost-effectiveness and innovation; and that government does not face these positive incentives (“Raising the GST is not the answer to the states’ woes,” 30/7). Yet that protected government sector now accounts for 38 per cent – three-eighths – of GDP: a huge proportion of our economy is not subject to the pressures which drive better living standards for all.

“The question is therefore not how to fund an ever-increasing role for government, but how to redefine and reduce its role so that it is less of a drag on the community.”

Maybe more later.

Hey Aiden,
I must admit I'm not very well learned in the area of 'cause and effect' of financial mechanisms and of fully understanding an economy.
I sometimes make ill-informed or ignorant comments without fully understanding the repercussions of what I am suggesting.

My comment is based on an ignorant 'the principle approach' rather than a true understanding of how things work.
(At least I admit it)

The principle that you don't spend what you don't have.
If you can't afford it, then go without.
That you don't borrow for something that decreases in value.
And that its only ok to borrow for something that increases in value or if you get a return greater than your borrowing costs.
That things never get any cheaper so all you can do is earn more.

Why not create a foolproof system where we stop wasting money on stupid unnecessary stuff and work to pay off debt permanently and always have more money coming in than whats going out?

Why is it good to spend what you don't have?

As for voting and democracy, I think about things that might strengthen fairness and democracy as opposed to systems that dilute or erode it.

- But I admit I never said my ideas were well advised or well thought out.

Hey Armchair,

When the government has more money coming in than going out, it means it's taking more money out of the economy than it's putting in. Sometimes that's a good thing, as too much money in the economy results in inflation. But too little money is even worse, resulting in mass unemployment. And ultimately the money has to come from somewhere, so if you reduce public sector debt you end up with the private sector in more debt. Google "sectoral balances" for more information.

Efficiency of government spending is a separate issue. Obviously more efficient is better, but there's very little agreement on what constitutes "stupid unnecessary stuff".

And our voting system is one of the most democratic in the world. The only thing that keeps Australia dominated by two parties is that most Aussies vote for one of two parties.