The definition of neo-liberal is a movable feast, but I suspect Dr Tomlinson's definition is along the lines of someone who wants to balance community needs with expectations, with budgets - that is someone who wants to govern, as opposed to grandstand. What society can afford, as opposed to what certain groups may consider to be their right, is not his problem. Fortunately his like will never be in government. My chief concern is he might be allowed near the front of a lecture hall.

Forest Gump put as succinctly as it is possible with the observation, stupid is as stupid does; and given Keynesian economics had created a period of unprecedented post war prosperity. And only dismantled by neo libs with fixed ideas about earning your own income?

Ideas which they seem to believe just don't apply to them; given most of them "earn" theirs, it would seem, from the bent or broken backs of others or sweat of other brows or the patently purloined ideas of others?

There is a christian tradition of simply tithing 10% of your income so as to provide a not for profit fund for the provision of some christian charity for those less fortunate?

And basically if everyone including all the current tax avoiders and most multinationals, tithed 10%, we could all have enough to get by without anyone having the unmitigated hide to wince?
Rhrosty

Onward Christian soldier, let's split: you hit the elusive neo-liberal monster while I tackle the one from Loch-Ness.

But wait, miracles do happen and when one shoots long enough in all directions, eventually they will hit the target.

...As the author did when writing: "The only way that we could get close to providing appropriate compensation would be if the government were to introduce a Universal Basic Income paid at a level above the Henderson Poverty Line."

Yes, I have written many times in support of a Negative Income Tax.
Yes, we can afford a guaranteed Universal Basic Income for EVERYONE (which for most of us will take the form of an income-tax offset rather than direct payments).

But in turn, all other welfare perks must be removed: government should stay completely out of health, education, arts, sports, business-subsidies, etc. so everyone can decide for themselves what they should do with their money. Everyone will have a minimum amount of cash to begin with, then if they want education they could spend some of it on education and if they want health then they could spend some of it either directly on health or on purchasing an appropriate health insurance.

(and if one wants more money above that minimum, then they could either start a business or look for employment)

---

"increasing the rate of a GST to 15% won't be the end of civilisation as we know it"

In that case, why bother!?

---

Curmudgeon, sorry but his communist kind have been in government every day since about 1972. his communist pipe dreams are so deeply embedded in the land of OZ that even LNP governments introduce communist policies every day.

Rhosty, sounds easy when you say it fast but 1, everything you & the article author complain about was inflicted on the land of OZ by communists, NOT conservatives.

http://mailstar.net/xTrots.html

2, tithing 10% of YOUR income to YOUR church was for more than one purpose. EG, education, health care, life insurance, social work, welfare, arts, entertainment, sport or social & congregation cohesion or development was church business.

Yuyutsu, not a bad idea, the Australian Democrats had GMI on their policy books 30 years ago. But now that i am older & wondering about incentives for work, there may be better ways to skin the cat. EG providing a commune to the poor, to live in.

imacentristmoderate

I would take issue.. the author is a different type of extremist to the one's in govt. If you think the one's in government are bad - I don't disagree on this point - you may change your tune if Tomlinson is put in charge of anything. Admittedly this is a moot point, but its one of those nightmare scenarios that keep anyone with sense awake at night..

Notice how the statist
a) does not define neoliberalism?
b) does not define the State?
c) confuses the State with society, and society with the State, without any explanation or justifiction of this sleigh of hand?
d) confuses consensual with coerced transactions?
e) does not state what any of the optimums are that he claims to know, nor how he knows what they are?
f) does not give any explanation for his assumption to know what is the foundation and centrepiece of his entire political ideology, but which he just pretends deosn't exist?
h) just conveniently ignores that he has a vested interest as a dependent member of the ruling parasite class - ideology propagation branch?

The article is just more of the professional government fundament-licking class, writing their usual back-to-front non-critique of the principles of liberty and proprety, misrepresenting all they discuss by grotesque caricatures, and assuming that in the State we have magically found an all-good, all-caring, all-knowing, all-competent, selfless disinterested moral and economic superbeing? It's the statists, not the libertarians, guilty of throwing guys out their government helicopters, fool.

Real fairy floss stuff, and laughable if it weren't for the author's corrupt vested interest.

I suggest instead of exhibiting your ignorance so badly John, you read Human Action by Mises and get back to us with your rational refutation.

(Note that's *rational*, not misrepresentations, not assuming what's in issue, not double standards, not self-contradictions, not just sliming over the issues of aggressive violence that you advocate, not just squarking emotive slogans. You can start by actually representing the arguments correctly, fool - if you can.)