Australia's current economic and budgetary problems are the direct consequence of the hysteria of spending by the Rudd and Gillard governments. Tristan Ewins wants to resolve those problems by spending even more.

No wonder the socialist left is an intellectual wasteland.

How else to explain Ewins's cheer leading for the catastrophic waste of money that was and is the NBN, the unfunded moral posturing that was Gillard's legacy in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the unfunded parts of the Gonski nonsense?

Gonski contributed not a single original thought. Not a new idea since the Karmel report of the 1970s. And the billions of dollars that have been spent since have delivered massive declines, not only in literacy and numeracy, but in the ability to construct an argument based on evidence, analysis, rationality. Ewins's thought bubbles here are a case in point. On the face of it, educational standards have declined in inverse ratio to the money spent: logically, education funding should be CUT to help return us to the higher standards of the past.

I have a copy of the 1959 eighth grade public exam paper for English in Queensland. Most year twelve students today would fail it.

cont.

cont.

Ewins lists the poor and downtrodden whom he claims are suffering and would suffer worse from reductions in government spending: students, who, apparently despite the availability of extensive student loans, are forced to take jobs that prevent them from studying; the unemployed who are so poverty stricken they can't afford to seek work. His list goes on and on: the aged, the sick, the mentally ill, etc., etc., etc.

And his solution is, as always with the socialist left, other peoples' money. More and more paid for by fewer and fewer.

Interestingly, he sees the destitute as having no responsibility for their own welfare: no effort required, they should just sit there while we shovel money at them.

But at the end of the day, the fewer and fewer who pay taxes to support more and more simply cannot sustain the effort. So where does that end?

Finally, that old stand-by of the socialist left, affordable housing, needs special mention. "Affordable housing", like education, health, welfare and the rest, for the Ewins types means affordable to them, paid for by somebody else.

What a simple-minded fantasy Tristan inhabits. Time to grow up.

A few points:

Firstly welfare states as with the Nordics have broad based collective consumption. Improving areas like public health don't just help the destitute - they also help society more broadly. A single public provider brings costs down - as can be discerned when you compare some of the Nordics (Health Expenditure 9% of GDP) to the United States (Health expenditure 18% of GDP with only 40% private insurance coverage). Collective consumption through tax gives consumers of all different income levels a better deal - SO it makes sense for EVERYONE.

Secondly: Even the Business Council of Australia has recognised that the unemployed in this country are so-poorly-off that it interferes with their ability to look for work. That is not in anyone's interests! Work for the Dole is exploitation that delivers little in return in terms of employability... The Disabled have been vilified by Conservatives - But if they really cannot find appropriate work because of genuine disability are we really so mean as to condemn them to dire poverty? And if you want them to at least try - then remove poverty traps and work to provide flexible employment.

Thirdly: If students cannot fully apply themselves to their study because there is insufficient income support and they must work part-time.. Is it really in society's interest - or even business's interest - for them NOT to realise their full potential - through full application to their studies?

Finally: Increasing housing supply is also in most peoples' interest. There's a problem with young families being excluded from the housing market - so how can we address that?

The 'other peoples' money' argument also assumes that distribution which is arrived at through labour-capital relations, and through the labour market - is FAIR. Arguably it is NOT necessarily fair... There is a degree to which collective consumption delivers a better deal for EVERYONE. But yes there is also an ELEMENT of redistribution. Because unfairnesses arise in capitalism that need to be addressed. Furthermore: social insurance is potentially in everyone's interest - as we never know what is 'around the corner."

Idiotic article, calling for the rejection of austerity then saying "AND the deficit must be brought under control as well"!

At this stage in the economic cycle, running a large deficit is the economically responsible thing to do. Trying to cut the deficit results in economic decline, more unemployment, less government revenue, a weaker private sector, and so probably a bigger deficit. Although cutting the deficit by ensuring multinationals pay more tax would not have this effect, as the money would otherwise go overseas.

Australia has unlimited credit (as it owns the Reserve Bank and does not borrow in foreign currencies). Therefore there's never ever any danger of us running out of money. It's sometimes desirable to cut the deficit or even run a surplus to keep interest rates and/or inflation low, but at the moment that's not needed as we already have low inflation and low interest rates.

Aiden - There's a 'sweet spot' when you arrive at full employment ; and where who provide all the necessary infrastructure (to maximise production) ; and where your industry policy achieves as many high wage jobs as your labour force can manage. But beyond this public debt can still get out of control. Though private debt is the elephant in the room no-one talks about - because it is a form of 'corporate welfare' for the public sector to 'bear the costs' and be 'croweded out' by the private sector...

We've had the argument about issuing money before ; and I still insist if you take that to extremes you will end up with damaging inflation.

calmest you've got it backwards: Australia's current economic and budgetary problems are the direct consequence of the hysteria of trying to rush to surplus by the Gillard and Abbott governments. They really can be solved by spending more, and there are plenty of worthwhile things to spend the money on.

The NBN as Labor envisaged was money well spent. The Liberals plan improved on this by taking advantage of the hybrid fibre and copper that was already there. But they totally ruined it by wasting public money on the moronic Fibre To The Node plan. To justify FTTN they used a report that used an interest rate of 7% to reach the conclusion that it's good value (despite the official interest rate being 3%). Since then the official interest rate has fallen to 2%, yet they're still blowing money on this dead end technology.

The NDIS will increase Australia's productivity by enabling more disabled people to work, and Gonski will eventually pay for itself by enabling more Australians to do high value work.

Australia should avoid false economies. And wherever possible we should avoid putting Australians in a situation where they're forced to resort to false economies.

Tristan, yes there's a sweetspot. But the point is we're nowhere near that sweetspot at the moment, so we shouldn't be acting as if we are. If we've had this discussion before then you should know that. And you should also know that I'm not advocating taking anything to extremes, and that taking it to extremes would by definition put us on the other side of that sweetspot.

Private debt is no more corporate welfare than infrastructure provision is. In both cases it's available to all (existing industries, new industries, people) and enables future expansion and success.

Aiden the point is that the public sector and the tax system are withdrawing 'to make room' for private debt - which is truly out of control. Also you disagree on one point - that of whether or not we need to contain public debt. So is the harsh response necessary? (ie: you call the whole thing 'an idiotic article') I agree that a deficit which is going towards productivity-enhancing infrastructure and services is worth it. But if we go beyond the 'sweet spot' we can come into difficulty. Also that 'sweet spot' is probably best achieved through a mix of debt and tax. But in a way which maximises employment ; and indeed aims for high wage employment. But if the productivity gains are out of proportion with the debt which needs to be serviced then in that case you have a problem.

I'm sorry Tristan, but I have to disagree with you on this one. Spending can be reduced and without cutting essential services, just waste.

Public health could be cut by more than half, just by means testing its users and by replacing paper shuffling bureaucratic empires with regional boards and comparative, best practices outcomes! These pragmatic measures would allow the costly health insurance rebates to be junked!

If then then forces folk with private means to opt for not for profit, members schemes, so much the better for an overstretched budget.

Public education could be trimmed by as much as 30% just by rolling out complete regional autonomy.

And we could claw back at least 70 billion plus P.A, just by eliminating an entirely unnecessary money wasting middle tier of government And the national interest would be served if this were allowed /madeto happen!

Even so, there needs to be root and branch genuine tax reform rather than all the tinkering at the margins, the stuff that pollies are so good at and done just to divide and rule!

Genuine tax reform would allow the Australian people to claw back the 60 billions plus P.A., we are apparently losing to tax havens and offshoring!?

An entirely unavoidable expenditure tax, closes all those loopholes, and the only possible reason for mealy mouthed politicians with no backbone, to simply reject genuine tax reform out of hand?

Yes to Gonski and a NIDIS, and no to the status quo that just keeps kicking the funding can down the road!

Get real and just stop with all the prevaricating, blame shifting, feather bedding and jobs for the mates; and just get it done! If you've run out of real world ideas, you can borrow a few of mine.

Or you could try thinking, even if that means tolerating the burning smell emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits.
Rhrosty.

I'd agree with everything the author has said, but I'll give him credit for replying to posters.

Tristan, either you're explaining things very poorly or you're ignorant of the way money works. It's not as if there's a fixed amount of it around!

The amount of private debt isn't limited by the amount of public debt. The limiting factor's the amount the banks can lend profitably, which depends on how easy it is for the private sector to make money. It also depends on the interest rate; it's easier for business investment to be profitable when the interest rate is lower, and individuals can borrow more at lower interest rates too.

In some situations public sector cuts make room for interest rates to be cut, enabling private debt to be increased without triggering inflation. But at the moment there's already plenty of room for that without any public sector cuts. Far from being out of control, private debt is below the desired level. And when it goes higher, it can be controlled by raising interest rates.

Taxation reduces the amount of money the private sector spends, which means businesses (which depend on spending) receive less money. Therefore raising taxes has a similar effect to raising interest rates. Right now, with interest rates low, inflation low, and private borrowing too low, we don't just need government spending, we need government deficit spending! Spending and raising the tax rate wouldn't have the same reviving effect on the economy.

If we go beyond the sweetspot then of course we should raise taxes and cut spending. But that has very little bearing on our current situation.

While we should always try to maximize our productivity gains, they need not be proportional to our debt.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty,

Means testing?!?!? Are you seriously suggesting the people who pay most of the taxes the fund the public health system should be excluded from most of the benefits?

I don't know where you're getting your figures from, but they're ludicrously optimistic!

Some things are more efficiently done at state level than at federal or local level.

No expenditure tax is entirely unavoidable, and the one you've proposed here before would decimate the financial services industry.

I reject "austerity". It's just I don't define austerity as anything remotely similar to this author.

He seems to believe the vast waste of taxpayers contributions now as insufficient largesse to float the economy. Never before have we collected and wasted so much tax. But he seems to think a tiny bit less is austerity.

The answer is to allow individuals to make their own decisions as to what services they want to buy, not the government. The answer is less tax, less spending, less government authoritarianism, less red tape and green tape, less centralised control - and more private provision of services willingly paid for by customers with their own money.

As for the poor unemployed, see my comments on red and green tape, authoritarianism, centralised control etc. The poor/low-skilled can be employed when their wages are less than their value to the employer. It's pretty logical. If that's not enough to live on then welfare can help, but preventing workers from selling their services for less than the authoritarian lefties say it can be sold for (the minimum wage) is a recipe for unemployment and underemployment.

Throwing more money stolen from the taxpayers down the dunny is NEVER the solution to encouraging self reliance. A bit of tough love would be better.

Aiden I am simply saying this ; private (and I should clarify I meant PERSONAL debt) is out of control. This has helped to buoy consumption - but it's not sustainable. The banks will not just forgive debt. They will allow people to be driven into personal debt as much as can be sustained - and sometimes more. This has buoyed consumption - but there must be a day of reckoning. Eventually debt must be repaid, and then consumption will fall. See: http://www.creditcardfinder.com.au/australias-personal-debt-reported-as-highest-in-the-world.html

In this context government is under pressure 'to make room' for personal consumption and debt repayment. Government is under pressure to support private enterprise both through 'getting out of the way', and through other 'effective subsidies' - like labour market deregulation, corporate tax cuts, Budget cuts including implementation of 'user pays' in education etc.

Government spending and investment can help the economy run at full capacity. But not all spending gets a 'return on investment'. Hence pensions will come under pressure for instance. We can't sacrifice the 'Good Society' for the sake of what I'm calling 'corporate welfare'.

Of course productive private debt is good debt... But we shouldn't have to resort to 'corporate welfare' in order to spur that kind of investment...

Captain Col : You are talking about a US-style scenario. Which would mean a class of utterly destitute, a class of working poor, enormous waste of potential labour resources, and enormous waste through the costs of crime. 'Letting the labour market clear' doesn't make sense when an industry policy can create higher wage jobs. Meanwhile devolving decisions on infrastructure and services 'to the market' would involve waste as well - as the example of the US Health System illustrates. (ie: it takes up 18% of GDP in the US compared with 9% in the Nordics ; and in the US there is only 40% (private) coverage) That says it all. Collective consumption through tax can mean 'a better deal' thus more resources for consumption elsewhere.

Privatisation of infrastructure makes everything worse by increasing underlying cost-structures... But is a boon for SPECIFIC investors..

Difficult if we conform to the new international standard of free trade model governance the TPP/TTIP/TISA ...

Under these treaties we Australians pledge to such governmental handicaps in the name of pure free trade as would prevent any middle class welfare. A wealthy country would be hard pressed to fund basket case welfare under the TPP regime. That means ongoning austerity in Australia enforced via international courts the trade arbitration tribunals.

If you feel that way about austerity Tristan write a submission to the Treaties Committee before 11th March advising them to rip up the TPP!

Tristan, there is nothing wrong with a class of working poor if we then don't have a class of dole-receiving poor. They are not destitute. They have a job, self respect and respect for the money they earn. They are more likely to advance to higher paid work. They value their pay and spend it more wisely than if it is simply doled to them. How are we wasting labour if we use more of it than at present?
As for the US, we are not them. And our health system is not comparable. The US system is severely constrained by government compulsion and is a basket case. Forget it. There's no comparison.
We know that private hospitals deliver services more efficiently than public because we can compare results. Private provision is simply motivated by profit and tempered by competition. The public system makes no profit, and so wastes money, grows fat and demands more and only competes against a variety of private providers by charging no fees whatsoever. If it depended on providing value for money in proper competition with privates it would improve. A private company could run a government hospital and make a profit with the same output of patients.
I have no idea where you find justification for saying "Privatisation of infrastructure makes everything worse by increasing underlying cost-structures". Why don't our cars get made by the government car company? How come private power companies have proved more efficient than public? Why do governments sell ports, banks, airlines? It's not because they want to increase "underlying cost-structures."

Sounds to me as if Tristan is getting really worried that their won't be enough money being thrown at the welfare budget, that socialist social engineering rent takers wont be able to grab enough for themselves.

Now that would be a real pity wouldn't it.

Yes Aidan, generally folks that claim they pay the most taxes are the wealthiest, and often those avoiding by devious means paying their fair share of tax.

Why just investing in their own super can allow someone in the top bracket to reduce their tax commitment down to 15 cents in the dollar. (Alan Jones)

And of course folks in this top income tax avoiding class ought to have their public hospital admissions means tested! Welfare and that is what public health is, is for the needy not the greedy!

Of course the tax avoidance industry is going to go bananas, like you always do over an unavoidable expenditure tax, collected by the relevant bank's main frame and encrypted instructions. You have some ideas how to avoid the unavoidable? How about needing an active bank account before you can claim any form of welfare public health and public education? And what of the black economy, when smart cards replace cash?

The tax avoidance industry may even find a way to circumvent an unavoidable tax?

And given logic rules government policy, at more cost to their bottom line than just paying the tax!

If I were Tristan I just would bother to argue with you, given any day of the week you can have two countervailing positions and then argue that you said neither.Want proof and lots of egg on face?

As for my optimistic figures, let's just impose an entirely unavoidable expenditure tax that stops the most vulnerable and industrious from having to carry passengers, then let's see how optimistic those figure are?

We are with just one notable exception the most over governed people on the planet! Why there are cities that closely match our population numbers administered by a single "competent" administration.

If Australia were a private corporation, this level of middle management marked as it is by serial ineptitude, corruption, scandals and self service would have been rationalized and seriously down sized, decades ago!

Tristian, you have covered many points, so its hard to respond.
Negative gearing policy.
One of the areas that have been effective in supplying affordable housing is whereby a developer buys a house on a larger lot, rents it out while going through the lengthy DA process, and can do this due to NG advantages.
The end result is developers developing multiple dwellings where only one stood. By removing Ng from used housing, this much welcome assistance will go by the wayside, as nobody is going to take those risks with after tax dollars.
The myth in Bills wish, and one you seem to fall for, is that housing is not the only area where NG can be used to minimise tax, so rather than save 50 billion, this policy would be more likely to decimate the building industry, introduce increased competition for first home buyers, and have a drastic effect on used homes, and their effect on the greater economy, as many home owners use the equity in their homes to redraw and stimulate the economy with their spending.
You and Bill should think very carefully before going down this path.

The rest is pretty much waffle with the usual outcome being that those very few who are carrying the load and supporting the remaining 7 out of every 10 are expected to do even more.
Don't you think a better approach would be to stop paying welfare in the form of cash, so recipients can at lease have money to look for work, rather than waste so much on gigs, grog and gambling.

As far as labor is concerned, they don't deserve the right to be reinstated EVER given the mass carnage they have caused. At least the boats have been stopped, something they couldn't do in two terms.

Tristan ewins must have a bit of Greek in him if he thinks that we can spend forever.

Notice to Tristan. Australia is $600 billion in dept and that dept is increasing $700 million every week. To say that our government must spend more is economic insanity. Of course, I do understand your solution, everybody must pay more tax. But there are a couple of things wrong with that idea.

The first is, if we did that, people like yourself would then demand that we import more impoverished foreigners which we are then obliged to feed, clothe and provide accommodation. The only benefit from that exercise is to provide more jobs in the prisons, law enforcement, judiciary, public housing, anti terrorism, and social services industries. Oh, and provide more Labor voters to keep the incompetent Labor governments in power.

Secondly, the number of people paying taxes is shrinking. The productive people in this country who go to work and pay the taxes to keep your Labor supporters living on welfare, resent having to pay more taxes just so you can increase the numbers of Labor voters. The more you tax the productive, the more inclined the productive are to just give up and get on the welfare queue like everybody else. The solution is to reduce the number of people on welfare, not increase them. But that is inimical to Labor's strategy to win elections.

I know that as a Socialist, Tristan, you desperately need to believe that you can tax "the rich" (read, everybody who gets up in the morning and goes to work) forever and spend their money to solve every social problem you can dream up, but it is just not going to work. Look at Europe, especially Greece, Spain and Cyprus and reality bites. You can't max out your credit card forever. And you can't keep fleecing the productive to pay for the unproductive, while dreaming up more ways to increase the numbers of the unproductive (and counter productive.)

Three comments on Tristan's post:

First Tobacco excise, and its effect on the poor.

Doesn't Tristan see that the whole point of the excise is to discourage people from smoking, by making cigarettes unaffordable.
Compensating them for the excise increase would nullify the whole policy.

Second the need to cut the deficit.

Tristan does not seem to realise that Australia is the hands of our foreign creditors. Our gross foreign debt, which is almost all private debt, is over $2000 billion, and could be called in at any time. If this happened, the Reserve Bank could do nothing, as it cannot print foreign exchange, and it cannot make foreigners lend money to us.

Thirdly, the alleged cost of superannuation concessions.

People do not put money into super for fun; If it did not pay they would not do so.

Every dollar saved in super is a dollar we do not have to borrow from overseas.

When we borrow from overseas the only revenue the government gets is the 10% withholding tax.

The revenue the government currently gets from super is around 10%. I cannot find the precise figure, but around two thirds of super is in accumulation mode and pays 15%, and one third is tax free.

This means that super currently costs the government nothing, while contributing significantly to our financial stability.

The dilemma that Tristan should address is that internationally, for every dollar borrowed, someone else has to save one. As far as external finances are concerned, Australia is the same as a household. As only the rich can save, and will only save if is worthwhile, this necessary saving will serve to widen the gap between rich and poor.

The world is currently awash with unrepayable debt, and many think that another enormous crash is coming. If this happens, the government will be far better able to look after the people for whom Tristan professes concern, than if we become the Greece of the Pacific.

If we replace the current can of worms called a tax act, with a stand alone entirely unavoidable and very modest expenditure tax, we can simply end the need for tax havens at home stuff like negative gearing, family trusts and super that's is used to reduce the tax burden to in some cases, by 33 cents in the dollar, leaving only 15 cents in the dollar as liability!(Alan Jones)

I attended a convention on wealth creation some years ago, where the principal speaker was a multimillionaire. His message was, real genius is solving complex problems with the simplest solutions.

Given the simpler the solution the more transparent it became and the less could go wrong. Another visitor, a republican Senator said while a guest on Q+A, that at some point complexity always becomes fraud!

A simple stand alone entirely unavoidable expenditure tax will hurt some folks, mostly those who have to date been able to avoid paying a fair share, and placed their burden on less able shoulders?
Yet still expect to be able to access free health care and public education?

Finally a simple stand alone expenditure tax can be adjusted microscopically to alone control all inflation or stagnation, region by region if necessary!
Good reform and policies aimed at just growing and transforming our economy, will negate any perceived need for self harming Austerity! The only folk preventing that are the as usual self serving pollies, for whom logic, pragmatism and bipartisan agreement have just become dirty words

Tristan,

As Shorten's plan does not cover existing arrangements, and without negative gearing, no one is going to invest in existing houses, the increased financial take is not projected to be 10s of $bns but closer to $150m p.a.

So please, before advocating for yet another socialist spendathon, please check that you are going to get the money to pay for it.

Quick ABC Breakfast television program, clip has woman stating Australian federal government is borrowing AU$100 million every day. Assuming 5 days per week.
That's AU$2.5 billion each month.
That's AU$30 billion each year.
If money is taken out of wage earners pay packets and investors incentive by build wealth, working class's fewer money credits goes towards entertainment: restaurants; Internet services; products up for sale. By reducing expenditure by AU$30 billion per year. There will be fewer tax payers; more homeless people; more people on unemployment benefits needing tax payers money; less consumer consumption leading to private industry employment losses.

Invent credits to pay for deficits, deficit problem goes away. The solution is so obvious they must invent credits, yet establishment doesn't want citizens to know governments invent credits, otherwise citizens will want more free government services and won't want to pay taxes. Wanting more tax reductions. There's also the propaganda and entertainment value for those people who follow politics as a serious concern.

Budget deficits are excuses for having “end of time” depressions and recessions, to reduce working class accumulated wealth. So years of budget deficit propaganda allows people to believe why being unemployed, losing accumulated wealth is an act of god, capitalist reality.

Captain Col, lowering environmental standards certainly isn't the answer. The generation currently in power may dismiss it as green tape, but the younger people recognise its true importance.

And the claim that private hospitals are more efficient than public ones is very dubious. All attempts to take advantage of this alleged greater efficiency (such as by outsourcing the management of public hospitals) have been dismal failures.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Tristan, though personal debt is high by international standards, so is our ability to service it. We can afford to borrow as much as we do.

A business friendly environment doesn't constitute corporate welfare!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Andrew, it can easily be argued that some of our trade agreements go too far. But none of them go anywhere near as far as you seem to think!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty, if tax loopholes are the problem then we should close them. The worst thing we could possibly do is encourage their use by means testing access to government services.

_________________________________________________________________________________

rechtub, Labor don't have a monopoly on causing carnage.

_________________________________________________________________________________

LEGO, you don't need any Greek in you to recognise the truth. Unlike Greece, Australia has limited credit because it owns the Reserve Bank. And the Australian government does not borrow in foreign currencies.

And nearly everyone is economically productive during some stages of their lives and unproductive during others. It doesn't correspond with their voting habits.

_________________________________________________________________________________

plerdsus, you don't have to make something completely unaffordable to discourage its use, you just have to make it significantly more expensive.

Cutting Australia's deficit, or even eliminating it completely, will not decrease our foreign debt by a single cent. FWIW I think we should do a lot more to enable and encourage Australian banks to source more of their money domestically, but it's a separate issue.

Australians' foreign currency debts can't be called at any time, as they're mostly in the form of bonds. The RBA is not liable for them, and it isn't the RBA's job to bail out bankrupt Australian businesses.

Aidan,

You say Labor's NBN was money well spent.

Except where it was way over budget and way behind schedule, with no resolution in sight for the manifest management problems, right?

You say the NDIS "will enable more disabled people to work." Some, perhaps, but not most. The world is not going to change to eternal sunshine and roses for the disabled. That part was propaganda.

It's a huge leap to assume, as you do without evidence, that the Gonski expenditures will pay for themselves by enabling more Australians to do "high value work", whatever that is.

It's now forty two years since the Karmel recommendations were accepted and substantial increases in spending on schools were legislated by the Whitlam government. And it's been downhill ever since, despite billions more poured into the system over the years.

Money of itself is not the answer to problems in education and the idea extra dollars will mean thousands more students will become magically capable of the "high value work" you fantasise about is plain nonsense. The same hard-working, talented minority will reap the rewards, as always, and the rest can please themselves.

To quote educationist Kevin Donnelly, the OECD's PISA testing “has consistently found that the amount of resources spent on education – including financial, human and material resources – is only weakly related to student performance”. The McKinsey report How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top draws a similar conclusion when it argues “despite substantial increases in spending and many well-intentioned reform efforts, performance in a large number of school systems has barely improved in decades”.

Anyway, Aidan, it's always amusing to see your economic theories presented as rock-solid facts. Keep up the good work.

Aidan, if we know there are tax loopholes? WTF? If we know? We should close them? Are you for real?
Well given a forty thousand page tax act and a loophole on every page? Quote unquote. (Kim beasley) When Howard rammed through his GST?

That's not going to be easy. Particularly if the only answer by complex rationalists is even more complexity? And to quote a visiting republican Senator appearing on Q+A, at some point complexity always becomes fraud.

And I challenge you to say there just isn't any of that connected to creative accounting by the "clever people".

The best way to close tax loopholes is to simply eliminate them by the simplicity of jettisoning the very convoluted complex instrument that makes such practise possible, and then replace it with something so simple and transparent, that not even the very cleverest number cruncher can get around, save becoming part of the soon to be eliminated black economy.

When your tax act has more holes than Swiss cheese its final day has come!

For mine, I believe the average honest taxpayer has had an absolute bellyful of being put upon by greedy and often obscenely rich tax avoiders. Some of whom, are just that insensitive as to believe their privileged tax avoiding position "entitles" them to automatic entrance to the taxpayer funded health or education system etc!

And from where I sit, no better than some fat cat private enterprise entity, raiding our charity bins to pick the eyes out of them!

One of my other pet hates is counterproductive profit demanding paper shuffling middlemen. And wherever possible, I'd chose/select their money grubbing practises ought to be outlawed.

And that pragmatic simplicity could lower our cost of living by half?

And a better outcome than simply adding pressure to the almost endless cost/wage spiral.

When something is so rotten as our multilayered and complex tax system. There is no way to rescue it, save jettisoning the whole rotten mess and beginning again, albeit without the unproductive profit demanding parasites.

In response to those 'Dissing' the public sector and collective consumption for tax generally:

AGAIN: the figures on Health in the US and Scandinavian countries say it all when we come to the *supposedly* innately 'inferior' nature of the public sector. The public sector shouldn't go *everywhere* - but there are natural public monopolies and areas where strategic intervention can support competitive markets. There are also areas where *collective consumption* via tax just gives people a better deal. Again - take Health in the US and the Nordics. 18% of GDP for 40% (private) coverage in the US - and 9% of GDP for universal coverage in the Nordics. Sure they have lower taxes in the US - but they end up spending MORE privately to get worse outcomes in Health than the Nordics do publicly for BETTER outcomes. That is - they spend TWICE as much. Case proven.

Captain Col wants to reject 'authoritarianism' but presumably supports Work for the Dole - and seems to think existing welfare is 'throwing money down the dunny'.

Meanwhile we have one of the meanest unemployment insurance regimes in the world. If you are unfortunate enough to lose your job then you are often forced to deplete your savings to the point where you have to wonder why you bothered saving in the first place... After a few months of trying to find work (which often does not exist) you have Work for the Dole which does stuff all for your employability. And in the meantime you don't have enough money to pay for internet, decent clothes and transport. So how the heck are you meant to find a job?

It's no accident that certain European and Nordic countries - some of which are amongst the most egalitarian - who have active labour market programs and industry policies - and who have comprehensive social insurance including unemployment insurance - are also amongst some of the most prosperous countries in the world....

The problem we have is a) we have a very highly targeted welfare system - whereas a universal social insurance model would mobilise a broader base of support... BUT this is sabotaged by our 'low tax culture and expectations' - and b) We have resentment against the unemployed beaten up over decades by right-wing monopoly media playing 'divide and rule'...

The Liberal 'ideal' again seems to be the United States. Faced with the Nordic example: high wage, egalitarian, prosperous, socially cohesive - They choose the US path instead - starkly divided, wracked by poverty and crime ; a class of working poor and class of utterly destitute ; lack of social cohesion...

The problem is that some Conservatives in this country are more concerned with 'punishing' the poor and the vulnerable than they are with CREATING AND SHARING PROSPERITY. They would rather a country where 'the proles knew their place' than a more egalitarian country where prosperity (and power) was shared.....

Shadow Minister - Revenue from winding back Negative Gearing will be small at first but of course will increase greatly with enough time.

In the meantime we have other options like cut superannuation concessions for the wealthy, gradually rescind dividend imputation, reform the income tax mix, hold Company Tax steady, impose progressive property taxes and maybe inheritance taxes, increase and restructure the Medicare Levy, maybe even tax the banks. And even all that would be kind of modest in the context of a $1.6 trillion economy.

Top priorities for me are a) Get NBN, NDIS and Gonski entrenched. b) Introduce National Aged Care Social Insurance - with significantly increased standards ; and provide improved 'care at home' for all those who would quality as well. And c) I'd also invest significantly in public housing and transport infrastructure. As that will improve housing affordability, as well as liveability in some of the new, 'infrastructure poor' suburbs. d) Finally I'd devote resources to cutting Hospital waiting lists, and increase welfare by a modest but significant amount (indexed).

I'd also INDEX the bottom two tax brackets.

Welfare is a common 'bogeyman': But we already have activity tests - so why 'stick the boot in' further? And why 'stick the boot' into the Aged and the Disabled?... Except that the big end of town needs scapegoats to target with austerity - to pay for the 'corporate welfare' - eg: tax evasion that NO-ONE does anything serious about....

I'd also want to look at re-establishing 'public sector players' in private health insurance, general insurance and banking. As a public sector player with a charter to enhance competition could actually contain their competitors profits by virtue of providing a better deal for consumers. That is: could force their competitors to provide a better deal to consumers through competition... Which always was one of the arguments for Government Business Enterprises in the first place...

Wow, so Tristan Ewins is a lefty. Who knew? But lovely to hear from you again, Tristan.

My point was much more than "'punishing' the poor" if it ever was about that. My point was that the poor can be got into employment by lowering the barriers to employing them for what they are worth. The minimum wage, so beloved of the lefties, is such a barrier. It penalises the lower skilled by removing them from the workforce because profit making companies cannot employ them at a profit. Their labour is simply not worth the minimum wage (plus super, plus on-costs, plus sick leave, plus long service leave, plus annual leave, plus training, plus this, that and the other).

Until lefties like Tristan understand that their so-called compassionate policies are actually most hurting the people they supposedly care about, they will never improve the lot of the poor.

There will also come the time when lefties have run out of other people's money.

But lefties can never, ever, ever admit they were wrong.

Captain Col ; Why would you condemn someone to work on poverty wages when you had the choice to invest in an industry policy to create higher waged employment?

You argue as if there are only two choices - a 'labour market that clears through complete deregulation' or high unemployment. There ARE alternatives, however. Surely its better to employ people building public infrastructure than to completely deregulate and allow them to be exploited on poverty wages flipping burgers for $6 an hour!

Also some kinds of labour are unconditionally necessary. Someone always has to do the cleaning for instance. Raising their wages won't destroy the work - though it would redistribute wealth somewhat.

In some instances 'the market will not bear' big increases in wages - eg: if applied in Aged Care WITHOUT increasing government funding and subsidies. But with a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme government could put enough money into the system to provide both for aged care workers and registered aged care nurses - while ALSO improving the quality of care with quotas and nurses on site 24/7....

In child care meanwhile - the sector could move to a co-operative model... Which would require less government subsidies to provide a fair wage for the workers than with private enterprise (because private enterprise has to deliver profits and dividends), but make the system accessible for families.

I'd agree we can't have *absolute* equality. And we probably shouldn't. You have to account for skills, difficulty, conditions, hours etc... But there should be more equality than we have now. That can be achieved by giving a fair go to the low paid as I suggest here. But also through the social wage and other social insurance. Including Medicare, Aged Care Insurance, Disability insurance, other social insurance, High quality state education, high quality transport and communications infrastructure and the like.

Why anyone would choose a US-inspired social and economic model over the model epitomised by the Nordics and other like European examples is beyond me. Social cohesion and happiness as opposed to polarisation, social dysfunction, crime, exploitation ('winners and losers') etc.

calwest,
"Except where it was way over budget and way behind schedule, with no resolution in sight for the manifest management problems, right?"
WRONG!

Labor's NBN was good value despite the budget overruns and the delays (many of which were caused by trying to address the cause of the budget overruns). But there was room for improvement. The Libs improved it by incorporating the existing HFC, but then ruined it by wasting gigabucks on the dead end technology of FTTN. And there've been no great improvements in the management either.

I didn't say the NDIS would enable MOST people to work. But enabling more of them to work is significant. When you uncaringly denounce something that will enormously improve the quality of disabled people's lives as "a catastrophic waste of money", you're ignoring the benefits it will bring.

It's true that education depends on far more than just funding, but ee do know that more resources can lead to better outcomes, especially if they're directed to where they're most needed (which is what Gonski was all about). It's certainly fanciful to think education could be hindered by more funding.

I agree there's a hard working and talented minority who'll do well regardless, but that's not enough. Schools should work on developing everyone's talent in a way that keeps them sufficiently interested to maintain sufficient enthusiasm to work hard. It's not cheap but it's increasingly important if we want to remain successful.

The massive decline in literacy and numeracy is a myth. But there has been a huge shift in the relative importance of different things. Kids today neither have nor need many of the abilities that were essential in the 1950s, but kids in the 1950s would be equally stumped on much of the current curriculum.

As for economics, I go with the evidence.

Rhrosty,
"Aidan, if we know there are tax loopholes? WTF?"
THOSE WERE YOUR WORDS NOT MINE!

I said if tax loopholes are the problem then we should close them. I stand by that comment. I know closing tax loopholes isn't easy and it's often a game of cat and mouse. But it's still the best solution to the problem. And it's certainly much better than denying a large section of the population access to the essential services that their taxes pay for. And you seem to have failed to comprehend that means testing is also subject to loopholes.

Jettisoning the tax system and risking replacing it with something much worse is a recipe for disaster. Gradual reform is much less destructive.

Here goes (again) Tristan. Part 1

You say, "Surely its better to employ people building public infrastructure than to completely deregulate and allow them to be exploited on poverty wages flipping burgers for $6 an hour!

No it's not. In other words you are saying we should pay higher wages than the people are worth. And furthermore you are telling taxpayers to pay those wages and so waste their taxes paying say $100 for something of $50 value. So a government infrastructure project will always be wasting taxpayers money if low skilled workers were forced upon otherwise profitable businesses, or alternatively employed directly by the government.

As for flipping burgers, my son started doing that in high school probably for less than that and he's done it ever since. He now owns a Macdonalds franchise holding at least his first $million in equity. And you would mock that as "exploited on poverty wages". Lefties fail to understand that flipping burgers can be the start of a millionaire's life. My son is just one example. He still flips burgers every day. Others flip burgers and then progress. At least they have work experience, some training, discipline, standards and self respect.

As for your next silliness, "Someone always has to do the cleaning for instance. Raising their wages won't destroy the work - though it would redistribute wealth somewhat." No. Somebody doesn't always have to do the cleaning. If cleaners are too expensive, more and more companies won't employ them. Raising their wages without raising their productivity will destroy their work as surely as the sun rises in the east. And redistributing the wealth is simply code for robbing the rich to pay the poor. Do that and the rich will shove off to a nation that values their abilities, and who will pay the poor then?

Continued - Part 2

I don't look to the US for a social model. The US used to be a nation of individuals untrammelled by too much red tape. Entrepreneurs could grab an idea and run with it and make their fortune ... and largely keep it. Obama and many of his predecessors have gradually destroyed this creating a majority of social welfare bludgers who will forever for lefty governments giving them more and more welfare.

The different, homogenous culture of the Nordic nations means that socialist policies are more acceptable. Wait a while for the effect of opposite cultures eg refugees. The locals will be less and less willing to dish out welfare to alien non-contributors. We don't have the Nordic culture (thank goodness) so their system won't work here.

If you believe "Social cohesion and happiness as opposed to polarisation, social dysfunction, crime, exploitation ('winners and losers') etc." then I have a very prominent harbour bridge for sale for you.

In a proper capitalist society, everyone is a winner. Those working hard win wages. Those taking risks as entrepreneurs can win if their ideas deserve to win. If not they can try something else. Those bludgers win their just deserts, exactly what they are worth. Amazingly, many simply change their minds and having realised there's no freebies, pull their finger out and work themselves.

That's enough economics for you. Try it out yourself.

Captain Col, it's not a matter of paying higher wages than people are worth; instead we should enable them to do a job that's worth more.

Decreasing wages is a way of coping with failure, not a strategy for success.

I always say if you increase the bottom end wages, what do you pay your police.

Surely if a burger flipper or a cleaner are worth $25 per hour, police are worth twice that, given the risks they take, yet they don't get paid twice. If we increase the low end wages, who's going to do the middle to high end jobs when the rewards are deemed as not worth it.

As for Tristian's comment about creating infrastructure jobs, are, you're about ten years too late Tristian because to do such requires money, and we don't have that.

I also note that Tristian has not addressed my point about multiple housing complexes, whereby negative gearing plays a huge part in this much needed practice and, given this is effectively being placed at risk, I would have thought he would have an answer, or at least accept its a potential huge flaw in labor's proposal.

As for tax dodging, we can introduce a law that sees all companies who generate incomes here pay the corporate tax rate, no exceptions.

What we can't do is guarantee these huge multinationals continue to do business in this hugely over priced nation which means the taxes they generate, GST, payroll, stamp duty, PAGY, the list goes on would leave along with them. Can we really afford to take such a risk?

There are some serious flaws in what Tristian is suggesting especially given that huge companies trade here because they choose to, not because they have to.

His support of labors negative gearing policy is also a dangerous position to hold because this policy has the potential to plunge us into homelessness for many and a deep deep recession.

He forgets that businesses and investors are not charities

Aiden, we should never pay more than people are worth.

You say we should change the work itself to a higher value job. Yes, but we have to start somewhere and it starts with low skilled people taking low wage jobs and training either on the job or by formal training.

You can't simply get a cleaner to become a mechanic by telling the cleaner that's his new higher skilled job, get on with it and produce value for his boss (who would be an idiot).

Starting kids flipping burgers at kids rates of pay gives them an introduction to the workforce. If they had to start at the minimum adult wage, the jobs would evaporate because they're not worth it. It's not exploitation. It's how life works.

Are you an employer? Do you pick the idiot to do your work because you want to pay him more than he's worth (and probably never get the work done properly)? If you don't do it, why should the government with my/our money?

Aidan, you say:

"When you uncaringly denounce something that will enormously improve the quality of disabled people's lives as 'a catastrophic waste of money', you're ignoring the benefits it will bring."

What benefits, to how many, at what cost? You are wallowing in cheap sentiment but you don't actually have any facts.

You say:

"It's true that education depends on far more than just funding, but ee [sic] do know that more resources can lead to better outcomes..."

No, the record absolutely contradicts you: billions have been spent since 1974, but the performance standards of Australian students have declined. And the two studies I quoted earlier disprove your claim that more resources lead to better outcomes.

The Karmel report (1973) was the first to recommend needs-based funding of schools. Gonski had not a single original thought.

You say:

"Kids today neither have nor need many of the abilities that were essential in the 1950s, but kids in the 1950s would be equally stumped on much of the current curriculum."

Kids today have no need for literacy and numeracy? No need for history and literature? No need for science and maths? No need for geography? What a sterile world you live in.

Kids in the 1950s would cope very well with any of the current curriculum because they had basic skills which made them adaptable. You forget that many "kids in the 1950s" are still alive and functioning in business and the professions.

Finally, I return to the NBN. Only a dunce would say that the NBN was a raging success under Labor. They were, as you've now admitted, way behind schedule and way over budget.

I appreciate that little things like management skills, billions of wasted dollars and on-time delivery mean nothing to the Left, but it means a lot to taxpayers, who will, one way or another, pay for the incompetence and cost over-run. Similar high-speed broadband services operate in other countries, were built at far lower cost and deliver far higher performance. What the hell is there to admire about the NBN?

Tristan,

If someone invests in shares, industrial property, a home business etc, they can negative gear, so why on earth would anyone negative gear in domestic property. The tax take on negative gearing will not grow to anything substantial, and the only modelling suggesting that it will assumes that investors are idiots.

The last time Aus tried this, rental rates rocketed. The height of stupidity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Captain Col,

I admire your patience and tenacity in trying to give Tristan a basic education in reality, but I fear you're wasting your time: he's an ideologue and incapable of learning.

As for your question, "Are you an employer?" Ha! Tristan will never be an employer. He'll always be on the public payroll because he lacks the skills and mindset to be anything else.

All the more ironic that he thinks that employers have "the choice to invest in an industry policy to create higher waged employment".

For Tristan's benefit, that's not actually the role of an employer. Doesn't impact in any way on the business at hand. No, that's just another thought bubble for unreconstructed 1950s Marxists. Or the contemporary Socialist Left.

Take for example this startling agenda from Tristan:

"Top priorities for me are a) Get NBN, NDIS and Gonski entrenched. b) Introduce National Aged Care Social Insurance - with significantly increased standards ; and provide improved 'care at home' for all those who would quality as well. And c) I'd also invest significantly in public housing and transport infrastructure. As that will improve housing affordability, as well as liveability in some of the new, 'infrastructure poor' suburbs. d) Finally I'd devote resources to cutting Hospital waiting lists, and increase welfare by a modest but significant amount (indexed).

I'd also INDEX the bottom two tax brackets."

Note that not one of them involves generating jobs or expanding the economy, despite his protestations about "creating and sharing" value. No, he's just a spender of other peoples' money. Says it all.

Tristan could do worse than get a job at Macca's and learn some practical business skills, rather than just emoting about business.

Instead, he wallows in such fantasies as:

"We have resentment against the unemployed beaten up over decades by right-wing monopoly media playing 'divide and rule'..."

Does he know what a monopoly is? Does he know that the biggest media organisation in this country BY FAR is his Left wing ABC? Other peoples' money, again.

So you oppose care for the Aged and transport infrastructure in new suburbs then do you, Cal? I guess you have a problem with affordable housing also. I'm for sustainable economic growth ; but we need to have our priorities straight. Non-negotiable needs for everyone first. Shelter, nutrition, health care, education.

And beyond that: I've also argued for a targeted industry policies. Like the Swedes did when they achieved full employment - which made their welfare state possible.

But I guess you would rather have gross inequality even where its unnecessary. Perhaps you have ideas that vulnerable and disadvantaged people 'should know their place' - no matter the cost to society more broadly?

Also yes technically its not a monopoly - its an Oligopoly. The point, though, is that cultural power is very concentrated. And most of them are singing from the same songbook.

Tristian, why wont you enter a serious debate on Negative gearing?

You put it out there, so why not debate it.

It's also sad to hear arguments tot he effect: 'we don't have the money for industry policies'. Good debt is when you invest in productivity and get a return on your investment. Industry policies which raise wages, create high wage jobs, deliver more money into the public purse through the GST, Company Tax and Income Tax - is 'good debt'. Also assuming you have a decent job it makes sense to invest some of your income to have a roof over your head. What happens if you don't? Not only do you lead a terrible life - but also you can't hold down that job anyway... Similar principles apply to paying for infrastructure. Without the basics nothing is possible. And 'saving money' by failing to invest in productivity enhancing infrastructure and services is 'a false economy'. NBN could also transform our economy ; and there is no saying what new industries will arise in the coming decades... But some people here are just 'dyed in the wool' Conservatives who will oppose any kind of government intervention re: services, infrastructure, welfare and tax - no matter what the social and economic consequences. Its about 'maintaining the line' rather than having an enquiring mind.

Negative gearing is a subsidy for the top 10 per cent of Australians. Shorten's policy will only affect existing properties - and so it creates an incentive for new properties - creating economic activity. There are billions at stake for every year in the future. But also public and social housing would also increase supply and making housing more affordable for most of us. Yes there will be 'winners and losers' - but many more people will win than will lose. And its funny how some people oppose these kind of measures because they may affect property values - but at the same time they support effectively confiscating working class families' houses when they grow old to pay for Aged Care. A death tax but just by another name...

Another option is a tax on idle properties. Apparently there's a lot of it going on...

Tristian, eggs are now $8 at your local cafe, and milk sells for $45 per litre in late form, and the café owners are going out of business, or struggling, yet you want them to pay higher wages. Get a grip.

There will be heaps of jobs created in the forth coming decades, just not here.

The NBN will make it easier to out source so unless one wants better gaming speed, or to download faster pornos, I doubt much will come from our hundreds of billions. And of cause we are working on the assumption that most will opt to stay home so they can surf the NBN net.

As for businesses, if it makes them more efficient they will pocket the savings, and why not, because you get penalised for employing people. Payroll tax, extra super, compo, parental leave, even domestic violence leave is on the agenda.

This may come as a surprise to you Tristian, but business people go into business to create wealth and a lifestyle, not to create jobs, because jobs are just something that has to happen.

Anything you do to make creating jobs avoidable will be welcomed with open arms by the business community, just look at how the big players are going, or even the frustration experienced when you wish to talk to someone and get a computer providing a million and one options.

Rechtub ;

And then you should think what its like for a worker slaving on $560 a week full time...

Again some vocations will support higher wages because the demand is non-negotiable. Others won't. Those that won't should be subsidised in various ways by government instead. Unless they can be replaced with better jobs. In which case think about that via an industry policy. For those that will: it is better to pass the costs on to wealthier consumers for fairness's sake.

As for business - its share of the economy has been steadily increasing for decades. Though you'd be right some business people are about their lifestyles and wealth and not creating jobs. That's a problem with capitalism.

But interestingly a whole host of factors attract capital - and not just low wages. Infrastructure, services, skilled labour.

Again I'm not saying have 'an entirely flat' labour market ; or to enforce 'flat' wealth distribution via tax. But I am saying the differences now are too much. We need the upper middle class and wealthy to pay more tax; we need the working poor to pay less tax. And we need to regulate the labour market to give a fairer deal where the labour market will bear it. And where it doesn't we must intervene via the social wage.

As the for cost of a latte - as a low income Australian I'd be willing to pay a dollar more if it meant a big increase in workers' wages.

Tristan, I know I am probably wasting my time, talking to a closed mind, but a couple of thoughts for you.

Tell me why you don't believe our loss of our motor industry is down to grossly over paid employees.

Do you know any history. Do you understand the loss of the British motor industry, ship building & coal mining were down to workers, [an oxymoron if ever there was one] demanding more in wages than the industry could earn using their labour.

Do you know, & if not why not if you wish to be taken seriously, that only 43% of Australian employees actually pay any net tax. The lower paid 57% already pay no tax after handouts? Just how do you think they could pay less?

Yes let's have government owned industry. We could buy back Telstra. When it was privatised the workforce [joke] was reduced progressively by 62%, while the range of services were doubled. You were probably still in nappies, but we remember paying a days wages for a 3 minute call to the UK. Hell it was almost that much for 10 minutes to Melbourne. Us workers wrote letters, we couldn't afford interstate phone calls.

Hell China has only managed to feed & house most of it's people since it went to a capitalist model of business, & Russia is still trying to catch them up.

If you want to push this stuff, give us a working model to look at, if you can find one.

Well, all the "Business as Usual" proponents are waffling on.
Economists are only just starting to realise that austerity and very
low interest rates as economic tools are not working.

That is to be expected as they were the tactics of the cheap energy era
up to the early 2000s. With the end of cheap energy, growth world wide
is sagging, some suffering more than others.

If you doubt that cheap energy has ended have a look at energy company
balance sheets. Their return on capital expenditure is dismal.
What happened to Woodside ? A 98% drop in profit !
That might get better next year but can we then afford what they sell ?

Tristian, there is little doubt the proposed Ng changes, if implemented, would have a huge negative effect on used housing.

There are many out there who own homes and choose not to invest in housing, but what they do do is draw on the equity in their homes to fund a lifestyle.

This lifestyle plays a huge part in our economy as they but thing from investments, shares and the likes, to boats, cars, caravans, even holidays or their kids education. All this spending could be placed at risk if the values of their homes take a dive.

Do you think its worth the risk?

Im the first to suggest that NG needs to be looked at, but we can ill afford to take an axe to it as Bill is suggesting.

One suggestion I have heard is to limit Ng claims to $20K annually. There may be something in that, but again, Bills policy only mentions housing and there are so many alternatives for investors, few of which provide affordable places for people to live.

This policy will drive the cost of new homes up, along with rents, drive the values of used homes down, causing mass pain, and it will kill the dreams of many hard working wanna be first homes buyers.

Its plain dumb!

Has been ; If the issue is capital flight because capitalists want to maximise dividends even though the business is already profitable then in that you have yet another problem with capitalism.

Though many will not even consider this because of the dominant Ideology perhaps the answer could be for Government to take a stake in the business (eg: Holden), and to encourage workers to do the same. To create a mixed stakeholder co-operative...

The point is there is a 'race to the bottom' in wages and conditions to maximise profits and dividends beyond what is necessary to sustain a business. Of course we should not accept a 'race to the bottom'. We should search for ways to circumvent it.

Also be targeting niche markets we can improve profitability without cutting wages and conditions as well.

Finally: Subsidies were 'worth the government's while' when you consider the extra tax revenue, and money saved from welfare to keep 50,000 people in work....

When you talk about workers 'not paying net tax' I'd be interested in seeing those figures and knowing where they came from. Does it include the GST? (no of course not)

Of course some disadvantaged people ; the disabled, those on minimum wage - will not pay much tax... And of course those on $200,000 or even many millions a year will pay more tax... And that will affect proportionalities. Personally I don't get how anyone's labour can be worth that kind of money while others are on $560/week full time!

Telstra changed with the times and would have done so regardless of ownership. A public but corporatized Telstra could achieve the same thing - but with a few selected interventions - cross-subsidies for the most disadvantaged. But if you want *waste* try this: Because of Telstra's privatisation the current Government has had to pay about $7 BILLION just to access Telstra pits and wires for the NBN! So we sell it off for pittance and then have to pay $7 billion just to access that privatised infrastructure down the track.. Ridiculous...

Tristian, if you were old enough you would realise what's ridiculous is that almost every asset that's been sold has been to pay down massive debts, of the day, racked up by incompetent labor governments.

As for the poor paying GST, the lion share of their income goes on rent and food. Rent is GST free and so too is food if you buy basics.

Of cause grog, cigs and gambling are not GST free, but they are a personal choice though.

,

If the privatisations were 'just to pay off massive debts' then look up what our public sector debt was at the time COMPARED with the debts of our major trading partners. (the US, Japan etc) It stands to reason that if you're in debt the last thing you want to do is to sell off productive assets that add to your bottom line. The value of assets always has to be considered alongside any debt.

Privatisation of productive assets *also reduces* our capacity to *service* our debts. The reality is that privatisation was an Ideological agenda. Pursued by both major parties. Or for Keating perhaps it was also a source for a short rush of cash to pay off voters come election time in a way which frankly was unsustainable. (because based on privatisations rather than the progressive tax reform we needed)

As for the impoverished - You say it yourself they can barely afford to pay for a roof over their head and food. And yet people here want to grind them down further 'to let the labour market clear' - when there are better options. Like an industry policy and a stronger social wage.

Tristian, wages are just one part of the overall business expense, and its the consumer that dictates the prices a business can charge, so while increasing wages sound so simple, the reality is the businesses suffer. A classic example being $2 milk, as you would struggle to find a person who does not know it is killing dairy farmers, yet they still buy the cheap milk.

People vote with their hearts, but spend from their wallets.

There are two ways of making a decent wage in this country, way one is a great skill set, way two is longer hours. What many want is for a cleaner to work 9-5 Mon to Friday and afford a house. Its impossible.

Tristan said;
want *waste* try this: Because of Telstra's privatisation the current
Government has had to pay about $7 BILLION just to access Telstra pits
and wires for the NBN!

And why do think they paid that ?
Because they could not get ducts and pits cheaper anywhere else !

Simple isn't it ?

All this sounds like a great argument to invest in public housing.

Though as I said some areas involve inflexible demand even if wages rise. Shopping Centres, for instance , need cleaners. If their pay goes up by $5/hour it will mean a great deal to the cleaners - and the difference will be 'passed on' to other consumers. The price we pay for fairness.

Of course that could affect other low income workers as well. Which is why we restructure the tax mix and invest in the social wage.

Its also why we invest in social goods and services, including social insurance, so people on low incomes know they can depend on (much more efficient) public health insurance system rather than fork out for private health insurance they know they cannot afford.

Same applies for state school education.

For people in jobs with less-flexible demand - where viability depends on relatively low wages - a couple of responses.

a) areas not providing an important service or important goods may just be let go IF industry policy can replace those jobs with something better which makes use of existing skill sets - or skills sets which reasonably could be upgraded to...

b) Again you can intervene via the structure of the tax mix, and through provision of the social wage. Making free public transport part of the social wage could make a big difference for instance.

BTW the dilemma you raise is raised by Lyons and McAuley in 'Governomics' as well. People 'drop out' of the public system because it is underfunded - whether we speak of health, education, whatever. This narrows the demographic base supporting the public system. You end up with 'two tiers' and a class-divided system. The only answer is a big public investment in health, education etc. Make the public system the better choice, and the rational choice.

Bazz yes you're right they couldn't get cheaper pits etc elsewhere. But that's not the point. The point is they had to pay for all that AGAIN because of privatisation! The point is that privatisation was wasteful because the government had to come back several years later and pay a very steep price for the infrastructure it should have held on to in the first place....

rehctub, although there is little doubt the proposed NG changes, if implemented, would have some negative effect on used housing, there's overwhelming doubt the impact would be huge. Your predictions remind me of the former opposition's "hundred dollar roast" scaremongering. They're just plain dumb!

A much more likely would just set house prices back to where they were a year ago and they would soon resume their upward trend. People would still have plenty of equity in their homes to fund a lifestyle.

Your "kill the dreams" claim is particularly stupid. First home buyers do not have to restrict themselves to new houses, so they'd generally be better off. At most any disadvantage would depend on state government legislation (the First home Owners Grant) which can easily be changed and often is.

Government incompetence doesn't correspond with which which party's in power. But since we gained unlimited credit (when the dollar was floated) there has never been a good reason to sell assets for much less than they're worth, yet that's frequently happened.

Despite a lot of what the poor buy being GST exempt, GST still impacts them harder than it does the rich.

In southern Australia at least, $2 milk is not killing dairy farmers. And if they want more money they should produce a more valuable product, like A2 milk.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

Those economists who understand sectoral balances knew from the start that at this stage of the economic cycle austerity will only harm the economy, and interest rates can't be set low enough to overcome that. Unfortunately they're not the ones who get the most media attention.

The drop in Woodside's profit is not because cheap energy has ended, it's because cheap energy has returned, so their product is less profitable.

Tristan,
they had already sold the pipes & pits so they had the money
to buy them back. A variation in value probably but that was a time
difference and it was probably a sellers market.

The so called experts on the NBN had no idea how much it was going to
cost to provide pipes & pits. That is why the nodes to the corner
system was so much cheaper. A lot of rot was talked about the decrepit
copper installations.
I had a look at the cable in my former street that was installed 50+
years ago and it is in perfect condition as it is plastic sheathed
and the wires have PTFE insulation. It will still be good in 100 years time.
Don't believe the BS around it all.

No Aiden,
the major oil companies are not worried about the present low prices.
They know they will not last. It is the $Trillions they have been
investing in search & development, the return they see on that
investment they now realise will be too low to be viable.
It is the Golilocks effect, the price the economy can afford is lower
than the price the majors can get for their new product.
There is no just right price.

Hence Shell realised that deep sea drilling in Alaska could never pay
so the pulled their rig back from Alaska.

The current low prices will remove the expensive drillers, tight sale,
out of the business,1600 down to 548 rigs in one year.
Bankruptcies everywhere.
All this volatility was predicted in the 1990s for after peak oil in 2006.
A few cycles of low & high prices then finish, permanent high prices.

Aden you have been sucked in with the $2 milk I see. You see farmers get the same premium price for their premium milk, its just that they don't sell as much so most of what they produce gets downgraded to meet the demand for generic milk.

To increase the cleaners wage by five dollars means another seven dollars to the business and consumers won't pay the price, online shopping is proof.

Besides, increasing the min wage by five dollars means you must increase the doctors wage accordingly, otherwise who wants to be a doctor.

If cleaners and the like want more money then work more hours its really that simple.

As for housing, this proposal will decimate the used housing market because the investors will leave that market.

How do people upgrade when the buyers for their existing homes have gone!

First home buyer grant is restricted to new homes btw.

Who is going to build units without the aid of Ng! Nobody!

Bazz the point is that they had to fork out $7 billion JUST to access pits and wires... They didn't get the whole operation back.

re: FTTN and FTTP - the point is that we don't know what demands there will be on our infrastructure in the future ; or what new industries will arise. That said it makes sense to use the best technology available. And also to keep NBN as a natural public monopoly... Because the alternative is a private monopoly which will gouge consumers. If you're about protecting consumers then you will allow for strategic natural public monopolies.

Rehctub: But the problems you're talking about could be overcome with investment in public and social housing... Government and not-for profits could step in... But also there will remain incentives to invest in new houses. Prices WILL go down - and that also means housing will be affordable for more young families.

rehctub, the farmers don't get paid more for normal milk if it sells for more. Selling it at $2 for 2 litres benefits consumers but doesn't make the farmers any worse off.

At the moment, A2 brand has a monopoly on A2 milk (milk that doesn't contain the A1 protein). And they sell it for ridiculously high prices. If they dairy companies had any sense they'd work with the farmers to challenge the monopoly. Likewise the farmers should be demanding the dairies give them the opportunity to get a better price from the higher quality milk that their A2 cows produce. They should also try selling milk that's pascalized instead of pasteurized. But I have no sympathy for those farmers who insist consumers should pay more for a mediocre product.

I didn't propose increasing cleaners' wages by $5. On its own such a rise would be bad for the economy. However if it does go up by that much, then as long as economic and fiscal policy are set to prioritise growth, tax revenue will also rise, so Australia can afford to pay doctors more. And ITYF doctors are motivated by more than just money.

Telling someone to work more hours isn't that simple at all, as the work is often unavailable.

As for housing, investors leaving the market will be replaced by owner occupiers entering it, particularly if the price does drop. But not all investors will leave the market.

It is only state government legislation which restricts the FHB grant to new homes. It has previously also been available to buyers of existing homes, and can be again if the state government so desires. Even without it, many FHBs buy existing homes.

"Who is going to build units without the aid of Ng?"
Those who think they can do so more profitably than investing elsewhere!

For more on how silly the government's criticism of Labor's plan is, I suggest you read http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2016/feb/22/scott-morrisons-response-to-labors-negative-gearing-plan-is-truly-disturbing

Bazz,

I didn't claim the major oil companies were worried about the present low prices.

You made the absolutely ludicrous claim that the energy company balance sheets (and in particular, Woodside's drop in profits) are evidence that cheap energy has ended. I merely pointed out that the truth is the exact opposite: they're evidence that cheap energy has returned, catching them unawares.

Now things might go as predicted, with cheap oil going and returning several times. Or it might go another way. But right now we have cheap energy, therefore it hasn't ended.

As for the copper, some of it's in good condition and some of it's decrepit. But FTTN is a dead end technology. It's a waste of public money. For political reasons they fudged the financial case for it by using a discount rate of 7% for their calculations when the RBA cash rate was less than half that. Since then the RBA cash rate's fallen to 2% and they're still wasting public money on FTTN.

________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

I've seen many different claims about net taxation. What assumptions does your "57% already pay no tax after handouts" claim rely on?
[assumptons such as What constitutes tax? What constitutes handouts? What timescale is used?]

Your question "Just how do you think they could pay less?" is easily answered: no matter what handouts they're receiving, they could pay less gross tax.

The high prices of Telstra's precursors in the 1960s were due to its use of expensive (often pioneering) technology, not because of government ownership. And prices fell rapidly. Famously it was calculated that Telstra's prices fell twice as fast before Optus as after. Though of course prices aren't the only important thing, and the introduction of competition did result im much better customer service.

Nowadays Telstra employs far fewer people. But there's been a change of culture: if there was a fault their technicians used to also check for other faults at the same location. Now they don't fix unreported faults. Which probably wouldn't be such a problem if they were getting rid of the copper as planned...

Aiden, the reduction in telecommunication charges came about because
of a change in technology.
That can be seen in the empty floors in some telephone exchanges.

Aiden, you simply do not understand what is meant by cheap energy .
Just because it is selling cheaply does not mean it is cheap energy.
It is like bankrupt stock, it goes cheap.
There are many oil companies now going into bankruptcy.
Even though they are losing money they are making some sales so at
least they can cover their interest bills while they wait for price recovery.
Deloitte has stated that they believe 30% of oil companies are facing bankruptcy.
I believe many of them will be saved by a resurgence in price for a
year or two until the next cycle starts. If it starts again.
It may stabilise at a high price that the economy cannot afford.

Cheap energy means that no new cheap oil has been found for 20 years.
No major cheap oil has been found for nearly 50 years.
It has been getting progressively more expensive.
Drilling 5 miles under the sea floor is expensive.
Drilling anywhere in the sea is expensive.
Drilling tight shale oil wells is expensive.
Digging up bitumen, separating it from the sand, thinning it down is very very expensive.

All forms of oil are now declining.
Bankruptcies are now increasing and financial banks have become
wary and S&P and other rating agencies are downgrading oil companies
even some of the majors.
They now understand that the tight shale oil companies are in fact Ponzi schemes.

Bazz, "Ponzi schemes" has a specific meaning. None of the shale oil companies are Ponzi schemes, though many are bad investments.

Oil isn't cheap because companies are selling it at a loss; it's cheap because many countries, particularly in the Middle East, do still have a lot of oil that's cheap to extract.

"the reduction in telecommunication charges came about because
of a change in technology."
Yes, that's my point: originally there were no fibre optic cables and we relied on the copper cables for everything. And the first fibre optic cables that could do the job better than copper still weren't anywhere near as good as the ones they have now. And the improvements come not just from the cables themselves, but how they are used. We send much more data through them than was initially thought possible. Similarly mechanical switching has been replaced by computer switching and even some optical switching. Technology, not ownership, drives improvements.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Captain Col,

"we should never pay more than people are worth."
What people are worth is a range not a single figure. Businesses shouldn't pay people more than the upper bound of what they're worth (the cost of their work not getting done) but there may be good reasons for paying more than the lower bound of what they're worth (the cost of getting someone else to do the work instead). Reputation can be very important.

"You can't simply get a cleaner to become a mechanic by telling the cleaner that's his new higher skilled job, get on with it and produce value for his boss (who would be an idiot)."
I never said you could. Enabling people to do a job that's worth more does not mean the capability should just be assumed!

__________________________________________________________________________________

calwest, sorry about the continuing delay to respond to your post. I will get around to it soon.

Aidan, your economic theories are always a revelation. Too bad they have nothing to do with reality.

You say:

rehctub, the farmers don't get paid more for normal milk if it sells for more. Selling it at $2 for 2 litres benefits consumers but doesn't make the farmers any worse off.

That is facile and ignorant and untrue.

In 2008, the UK Competition Commission published a report on supermarket pricing, after a 2-3 year study, during which they established that of the total value in the supply chain for milk, from farm to supermarket, the supermarkets took - effectively because of their market power - 80 per cent. That left 20 per cent of the total to be shared between processors and farmers. And because processors had greater market power than the farmers, guess who was screwed? I have some sympathy for the processors: they have to reinvest in plant and machinery on a regular basis. But so does the farmer.

The situation in Australia is similar. Coles's original $2 milk squeezed the processors and the processors then squeezed the farmers, some of whom were paid less than the cost of production. Don't waste your time or ours on your fantasies about farmers' "demanding" anything. They are price takers, not price setters.

Needless to say, the farms themselves aren't worth much any more and young potential farmers can't be bothered working that hard for little more than subsistence living. So the farmers, as a group, are aging and they find it difficult to sell their businesses. I expect their employees are aging, too.

All of the above is about market power. Australia has the most concentrated supermarket industry in the world, with Woolworths and Coles sharing about 80 per cent of the entire market. In the US, where there are effective competition laws, the two biggest supermarkets, WalMart and Kroger have joint market share of about 24 per cent.

Aiden, I am sorry you do not understand, at least I tried.
They are Ponzi schemes because they need the financiers to keep
putting money in to keep them drilling to maintain production.
It is that never ending financing need that has sucked in the money.
Now the money is stopping bankruptcy is increasing rapidly.

I know you will come back with another waffle so I am ending it here
as you will go on & on.

Tristian, you say there is overwhelming evidence that used property values wont take a huge hit. Would you kindly share that evidence.

Colwest, and farm with a hint of grass is worth a small fortune because of cattle prices. Either than, or urban sprawl has turned them into multi million dollar development parcels of land, although negative gearing changes could have some effect there as well.

Rehctub ;

No I'm not saying they won't be affected at all. Probably this will prevent the housing bubble getting worse. Over time property values will become more affordable for first home buyers. Of course there will be 'winners and losers'. Big property investors will miss out. The 10 per cent of the population who are property investors will miss out. Because prospective first home buyers will finally be able to enter the market. For the 90 per cent of Australian citizens who are not property investors housing will become more affordable.

Now when it comes to the interests of the 10 per cent and the interests of the 90 per cent - Well you can try and play divide and rule... But when you're going against the interests of the 90 per cent be careful you don't shoot yourself in the foot.

calwest,

[NDIS]
"What benefits, to how many, at what cost?"
The benefits of a life not dominated by the restrictions of their disability. To about half a million. With an estimated cost of $25 billion by the 2022-3 financial year.

[Schools]
"No, the record absolutely contradicts you: billions have been spent since 1974, but the performance standards of Australian students have declined. And the two studies I quoted earlier disprove your claim that more resources lead to better outcomes."
By what measure has the performance standards of Australian students declined?

Finding a weak positive correlation doesn't disprove cause and effect!

"The Karmel report (1973) was the first to recommend needs-based funding of schools. Gonski had not a single original thought."
I'll take your word for it. But identifying what needs to be done doesn't require originality.

"Kids today have no need for literacy and numeracy?"
On the contrary, the need is stronger than ever. But beyond the basics, some of the skills that were needed then are not needed now. Calculators have almost eliminated the need for long division, and decimalisation and metrication have also removed some of the arithmetical requirements. Meanwhile typing has become a lot more important than handwriting.

"No need for history and literature?"
Less need for it in a formal educational setting, as it is more readily available from other sources.

"No need for science and maths?"
On the contrary, the need is stronger than ever.

"No need for geography?"
Still a need for geography, though the curriculum may have little in common with 1950s geography.

"What a sterile world you live in."
On the contrary, I live in a dynamic world and recognise the pace of change. You appear not to.

"Kids in the 1950s would cope very well with any of the current curriculum because they had basic skills which made them adaptable."
So do kids today, but having basic skills which made them adaptable wouldn't make them cope very well with the 1950s curriculum. You seem to have failed to comprehend that adaptation takes a lot of time.

(to be continued)

calwest (continued)

[NBN]

"Only a dunce would say that the NBN was a raging success under Labor. They were, as you've now admitted, way behind schedule and way over budget."
Only a chunk would say that being a raging success is the only alternative to being a failure. There were schedule and budget issues, and they sensibly delayed ramping up the schedule until the budget issues could be sorted.

"I appreciate that little things like management skills, billions of wasted dollars and on-time delivery mean nothing to the Left,"
YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER APPRECIATE THAT VICIOUS LIE!

There are people, both on the left and on the right, who don't care about efficiency. But on the whole, the left are far more interested in efficiency than the right are. And the left are more likely to recognise the inefficiency of the Do Nothing option.

"but it means a lot to taxpayers, who will, one way or another, pay for the incompetence and cost over-run."
What incompetence are you referring to? The biggest example of incompetence regarding the NBN is the decision to waste money on FTTN. In addition to its huge technical inferiority, FTTN has a much higher operating cost, and its much shorter lifespan means it will eventually have to be replaced with FTTP. Incompetence is opting to use FTTN because of a report that shows FTTN to be good value when interest rates are 7% (when they're actually 3%). Incompetence is sticking with that decision when interest rates fall to 2%.

"Similar high-speed broadband services operate in other countries, were built at far lower cost and deliver far higher performance. What the hell is there to admire about the NBN?"
Australia is much bigger than other countries, without the correspondingly higher population.

(to be continued)

calmest (continued)

[milk]
"In 2008, the UK Competition Commission published a report on supermarket pricing, after a 2-3 year study, during which they established that of the total value in the supply chain for milk, from farm to supermarket, the supermarkets took - effectively because of their market power - 80 per cent. That left 20 per cent of the total to be shared between processors and farmers."
I looked at that report and initially found little mention of milk. However I did find something in an appendix that told a completely different story:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402141250/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/non-inquiry/rep_pub/reports/2008/fulltext/538_9_3.pdf page A9(3)-4 shows the farm gate price as 35% of the retail price, with 33% going to the processor and 30% to the retailer.

"The situation in Australia is similar. Coles's original $2 milk squeezed the processors and the processors then squeezed the farmers, some of whom were paid less than the cost of production. Don't waste your time or ours on your fantasies about farmers' "demanding" anything. They are price takers, not price setters."
Yes farmers are price takers. The price is set by supply and demand, so farmers get squeezed whatever price the supermarkets sell at. Indeed $2 milk may even help the farmers by increasing demand, though that increase is likely to be slight.

But just because they're price takers it doesn't mean they can never demand anything. If the processor refuses to cooperate in the production of a more valuable product, they should find an alternative producer or set up their own.

Bigger dairy farms are generally more cost efficient, and if dairy farms aren't covering their costs then they have the options of amalgamating or switching to farming something more lucrative. But they shouldn't expect to be paid at more than the going rate for a mediocre product.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I understand perfectly. You misunderstand.

Ponzi schemes are a specific type of fraud.

Lossmaking businesses are not Ponzi schemes.

The constant inflow of capital needed by Ponzi schemes is to pay existing investors, not to subsidise lossmaking business activity.

Sorry, I failed to make it clear that the last bit of my previous post was directed to Bazz.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Tristan, why do you think "The 10 per cent of the population who are property investors will miss out"? The change Labor are proposing is not retrospective.

Aiden they will miss out on future opportunities to exploit negative gearing. Though you're right Shorten's proposal is not retrospective.

Aidan replies to my observation about the Left's managerial incompetence:

"'I appreciate that little things like management skills, billions of wasted dollars and on-time delivery mean nothing to the Left,'
YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER APPRECIATE THAT VICIOUS LIE!"

Well, Aidan, my only response to that is:

Pink batts. Unwanted school buildings. NBN. NDIS with virtually no funding. Gonski with partial funding. Labor's border "protection" catastrophe. Swan budget surpluses which never arrived. Labor's defence of trade union thuggery. Labor's contempt for the Australian Defence Force.

There must be many others, but I've now lost interest.

Aidan, you and Tristan are ideologues. Your juvenile pseudo-Marxist economic theories are just a bad joke. No amount of information or logic will make the slightest impact on closed minds like yours, so I'm now closing the conversation.

Cal, resorting to abuse like that is usually what people resort to when they're not able to construct a convincing and substantial argument. Yes 'pink batts' was messed up - not the necessary oversight. But remember it was private sector contractors who took advantage of the situation. 'The need for oversight' suggests *regulation* - which is something the Right is not well-disposed to these days.

The school buildings, meanwhile, were very much appreciate by most schools. Though some wanted more choices ; and it was a matter of the government containing costs through standardisation. Maybe a mistake - but nonetheless is was part of a stimulus package that saved us from a recession. Which the Conservatives will not accept for purely political reasons. That is ; because they don't want to concede anything to Labor on 'economic management.' Truth is the first casualty etc....

Meanwhile Swann should never have promised those surpluses. They were never achievable. And today they're even less achievable. But what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander - and now we have the Conservatives unable to achieve surplus without wrecking the economy... Time to confront the lie that 'a surplus is always desirable' ; and even to confront the lie that "a surplus is always desirable except in response to a recession'.

(more coming)

re: Gonski and NDIS if there is a problem with funding it is due to the necessity for tax reform. As a country we need to prioritise. Do we prioritise care for the disabled and equal opportunity in education for our kids? Or do we prioritise tax cuts for the corporates and the wealthy?

Now the Conservatives will say that resources have nothing to do with educational outcomes.... But if that was true then why are families abandoning the public system in droves even if it costs them tens of thousands every year?

As for the ADF. It is always wrong to politicise the ADF like that. The legitimate role of ADF is to defend our democracy ; and as a foreign policy instrument in defence of human rights. That said the ADF should therefore not be treated like a 'political football'.

As for unions - its interesting that those who focus on the CFMEU have little to say about white collar and corporate crime. Whatever problems there are remember this also: Depending on their leadership trade unions can be an important defence for democracy and liberal rights. Should human rights abuses arise, or should democracy be suspended - the industrial leverage of politicised trade unions are one of democracy's best potential defences. Criminal activity should be dealt with even-handedly with as much focused on corporate and white collar crime as elsewhere.

If you want to stop criminal activity in unions do the following:

Decriminalise industrial action which is 'in good faith' , including secondary boycott and political strike action. If unions can exert their industrial power - both for themselves and in solidarity with other workers - then there would never be any reason for other strategies. Internationally some unions resort to criminality because it is a defence against state repression. That is: because legitimate avenues - industrial liberties - are closed to them.

As for 'ideology': we should all try and develop coherent values. I can't see any issue with this. Your view is ideological in that same sense. So what's the point?

calwest,

'Tis your mind, not mine, that's closed. To find out why, read on:

I can understand how anyone too lazy to investigate the validity of the arguments against them could dismiss my economic theories as juvenile. But I'm baffled as to how they could possibly be "pseudo-Marxist"! What does that even mean? Some libertarians take "pseudo-Marxist" to mean anti consumerist, but I'm not anti consumerist.

Some Marxists use the term to denounce self proclaimed Marxists who they feel have deviated from Marx's ideas, but I've never claimed to be a Marxist. I don't regard Marx as as great an economist as Smith, Ricardo or Keynes. Marx did provide a fresh way of looking at things, so his work can be useful to economists, but his overreliance on the labour theory of value means his conclusions shouldn't be taken at face value.

Now, take a look at some of your alleged examples of the Left's managerial incompetence:

"Pink batts."
Improving the energy efficiency of Australian homes was a good idea, but underestimating the problems in getting the private sector to comply with safety requirements made it a monumental stuffup.

While it's convenient for critics to equate failures with managerial incompetence, a more reasonable approach is to accept there will be mistakes, and learn from the mistakes when they occur. This doesn't, of course, preclude trying to get everything right in the first place.

"Unwanted school buildings."
The School Halls scheme was excellent value in WA where the state government scrutinised every contract in detail. It was quite good value in SA, and IIRC in Queensland and Tasmania. It was only in Victoria and NSW, where the private sector managed the scheme, that huge wastage occurred. Surely the best lesson to take from this is that a capable public sector leads to greater efficiency than a minimal public sector?

(to be continued)

calwest (continued)
"NBN"
Labor sensibly went with FTTH, which was really the only option with sufficiently good results to justify government intervention rather than leaving everything to the private sector. The plan wasn't perfect and like most large projects there were some issues with delivery. But those issues were being sorted.

As I said before, the Libs did make one major efficiency improvement: taking advantage of existing HFC. But overall they wrecked the efficiency by wasting money on FTTN. Managerial incompetence at its worst!

"NDIS with virtually no funding. Gonski with partial funding."
In both cases the government and opposition both said they were willing to commit the funding. Then after winning the election, the Libs started to claim we couldn't afford it.

"Labor's border "protection" catastrophe."
...Which the Liberals could have stopped by supporting the Malaysia Solution. Instead they blocked that for political reasons and ultimately implemented something much crueller.

"Swan budget surpluses which never arrived."
I agree that was incompetence. But treasurers' incompetence seems to be bipartisan – Joe Hockey made the same mistake. And though Peter Costello has a reputation for economic competence, it's clear from his comments on Lateline that it's undeserved; his success is primarily down to luck.

"Labor's defence of trade union thuggery."
They didn't actually defend trade union thuggery. But they thought the inquiry was rigged and they wanted it broadened to look at the conduct of employers. Though I disagree with their position, I don't think your false allegations can ever be justified!

"Labor's contempt for the Australian Defence Force."
In what sense was Labor contemptuous for the ADF?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Tristan,

Union corruption in Australia is not a defence against repression.

Allowing strikes over things that are beyond employers' control is anti business.

And giving unions the power to hold us all to ransom won't discourage union criminality. But it will make unions more attractive for existing criminal gangs to infiltrate.

Abolishing the ABCC led to much more union corruption. It should be reinstated.

Aiden I think Swan did a reasonably good job. He promised to get back to surplus, though - when it simply wasn't possible. That was where he messed up.

re: 'trade union corruption' - I point to my specific arguments here. I said there should be non-negotiable industrial liberties *when industrial action is taken in good faith*. Clearly there would need to be some kind of test for this. But at the moment restrictions go too far.

Tristan,

Swan's promise of a surplus "come hell or high water" was not only unachievable, but was grossly incompetent to even attempt. What he (and every other treasurer) should have promised is to never let short term budgetary objectives make him deviate from doing what's best for the Australian economy.

But it's far from his only failing. On his watch the RBA went feral, needlessly lifting interest rates in pursuit of a phantom inflation problem (actual inflation was below their target range, but they disliked the unemployment rate being so low) sending our dollar so high that it was difficult for our industry to compete, and counteracting much of the stimulus the government was providing.

re: 'trade union corruption' - you seem to be trying to use it as an excuse to give unions powers that they'd be better off without. You falsely asserted that union criminality was a defence against state repression. But it's really 100% about greed.

I've seen the way Britain's dinosaur unions act and I don't want it to be replicated in Australia! Our regulated IR system is much better: far fewer strikes and a much more cooperative approach. And you want to wreck it all!

You can't reliably test for intentions, and corrupt conduct may appear to be honest at the time. Besides, acting in good faith does not justify victimising employers over something they have no control of.

Aiden ; though some workers are so industrially weak that solidarity through Secondary Boycott is perhaps the only way they could get a decent outcome through bargaining.

If you'd rather it was unnecessary then perhaps regulate the labour market more strongly ; and strengthen the social wage.

Also re: greed. I'm sure that's sometimes a factor. But consider the falling wage share of the economy as well. And how do we respond to that?

Are 'modernised Awards' enough or did we deregulate too much?

Also where do you stand on Pattern Bargaining and Political strike action?

The reality is that restraint has delivered falling wages proportionately, and also a contracting social wage; a welfare system under siege ; and a general stigma and intolerance against industrial liberties...

A lot rests on actions being 'in good faith' - and there has to be someone to arbitrate on that. The question is how to get someone to do the job without prejudice or other agendas.

Tristen

You state how can one live on $560.00 per week – on full time work. Approx $29,000 per annum.

There are many in our society living on less than $560.00 per week.

There are several University and other Open Learning courses available on line in order to further your education and up skill you to a better well paid position and career path.

Why not try one?

Tristan
"though some workers are so industrially weak that solidarity through Secondary Boycott is perhaps the only way they could get a decent outcome through bargaining."

Australia's award system is designed so that people get a decent wage no matter how industrially weak they are. And our minimum wage is the highest in the world.

Secondary boycotts are a bad thing and should not be used anywhere!

Last time I said union criminality was 100% about greed. I realise that was slightly inaccurate: sometimes it's due to fear (as criminal gangs sometimes intimidate union staff). But it's NEVER EVER about protecting the interests of union members. Union criminality is always against the long term interests of union members, and usually against their short term interests too.

The falling wage share of the economy is not necessarily a bad thing, as it makes the economy more resilient to supply shocks. But some of the fall in the wage share is in any case unavoidable, as a greater proportion of wealth is in the form of intellectual property, much of which is in the hands of a few companies, so profit distribution is strongly skewed to the right. The average business is more profitable, but the median business may not be.

I'm against political strike action. We have democracy; we shouldn't try to subvert it.

Our industrial relations system should ensure that pattern bargaining is neither needed nor successful.

The reality is in the long term, wages depend far more on the strength of the economy than they do on the industrial relations system.

Aiden ; Its true that because we have the legacy of centralised wage fixing that our minimum wages are higher than many other countries. (eg: especially the US) But our social wage is not as strong as the Europeans and the Nordics either. There are several countries that do as well as we do on income equality, for instance, but who support a strong social wage and welfare state as well.

Disproportionalities between investment in wages and investment in revolutionising the means of production also mean there is a tendency for profits to fall - though not absolute. Other problems hark back to the oil shocks; and today the fact that global economic stratification will come under challenge. (challenging First World lifestyles) Inequality and falling wages mean there are restrictions on consumption - which are dealt with partly through personal borrowing. Long term its not sustainable.

The Swedes tried responding to falling wage share in the 1980s by demanding collective capital share I return for previous wage restraint. It did not work because of an employer backlash - but I think this was reasonable as opposed to copping a hit to wage share 'in return' for tax cuts for instance. Those tax cuts (during the Accord years) actually undermined the social wage as well - as the tax cuts were paid for through austerity, user pays etc elsewhere as well (eg: Education) ....

also Aiden - You say you don't want to subvert democracy through political strike action... I think it depends partly on voter sentiment. Governments should be held to account when they undertake destructive 'reforms' for which they don't have a mandate. And when tens of thousands of jobs are at stake ; or we are facing a war of aggression (eg: the Second Gulf War) ; or where the unemployed and pensioners are being persecuted ; or people thrown out of their homes on to the street - what do you do?

Civil Disobedience should always be part of the picture. Remember Hitler claimed a mandate as well. And a strong labour movement willing to use its power to defend democracy and human rights - is one of the strongest defences such a democracy has.

Tristan

You say “The unemployed already live in such poverty it interferes with their ability to seek work”? Excuses, excuses.

Public Transport is extremely cheap. Government provide concession passes for those seeking employment – plus welfare, plus other concessions.

You say – “Student poverty forces mainly young people to seek out work that actually prevents them from getting the most out of their study””. Excuses, excuses

How is it then for many generations, students have attended University, Tafe or other Educational Courses, worked a second job as they had to pay their way, all Graduated and/or passed their relevant Educational Courses, and created a future. No hand outs from the Government in those days. Did they put in the “hard yakka” – of course they all did! Nothing prevented those generations of students obtaining Degrees and seeking a better quality of life for themselves.

You say – “ and we have the threat of a permanently two-tiered Education system which disadvantages those unable to afford private schooling”. Excuses, excuses

What’s wrong with the Public Education system – have you perused the annual published lists for year 12 students over the years. Those State high achievers – all don’t attend private schools? They have been schooled in the Private and Public Education systems. Some top achievers come from Public Schools in lesser affluent areas, teaching staff including students are certainly proud of their school’s achievements.

You say – “ Mental health is neglected and many mentally-ill (hundreds of thousands of Australians) can expect to die 25 years younger. “Mental health importantly, Labor's mental health policy commits to halving suicide rates. But what about addressing the 'elephant in the room' of mental health related mortality, with close to 300,000 Australians with schizophrenia who can be expected to die 25 years before their time?

Yes, let’s address the “elephant in the room”, 300,000 Australians with schizophrenia …..mmmmm. Today’s news – there are 260,000 users of Ice in Australia. 160,000 users are addicted. Age group of biggest users 15 to 25 year olds.

cont'd

New figures show one in three offenders in NSW are high on ice when they are arrested and put behind bars. The above facts don’t take in the figures for those on any other drugs, steroids or alcohol abuse.

Australian youth are using a drug that will kill them. Ice use has exploded in the last 3 years. (Paul Murray Live 29/2/)

Why do you think the “young” generation believe it’s “really cool” to take drugs which destroys their brains leading to mental health problems. Oh and that’s right, don't forget the “hand wringers” out there who now complain the waiting list is too long for addicted users to get into rehab.

How is this situation the taxpayer’s responsibility?

We – the taxpayers – have to pick up the bill again, I haven’t included in the above any figures for alcohol abuse, again the taxpayers made to pick up the bill.

We all have choices in life. It’s time the “youth” of Australia grow up and take responsibility for their own actions. Show some respect for yourself, your parents, your family members including the rest of society.

Why should police, ambulance personnel and doctors be threatened by the extreme levels of violence they have to continually deal with from uncontrollable, drugged out ice users?

It doesn’t take “nuggets” to say NO to alcohol abuse, violence, and drugs (of any type). Why – as you know the end result will be either you are dead or locked up in jail…..your call!

You’ve just run out of “excuses”

SAINTS ; See here re university dropouts - the rate of which is actually increasing - probably because of pressures with time, part-time work etc.: https://theconversation.com/uni-drop-out-rates-show-need-for-more-support-not-capped-enrolments-45577

re: The unemployed its not only the 'Left' who is saying the rate of the Newstart allowance is frustrating people in their search for work. Even the Business Council of Australia says its not good enough. And I have heard there is only one job for every five sob-seekers. It is a matter of social control rather than fairness.

re: Public sector state school high achievement - you will find a fair share of 'elite' state schools there - such as Melbourne High. You will find much fewer non-elite schools, and especially schools in regions and poorer suburbs. If there wasn't an advantage to be gained why would parent pay $20,000 and even much more sending their kids to private schools? As with university dropouts - its bad for low income students and their families - but bad for just about everyone else as well - except the high income people who get tax-breaks in return for the negligence...

Further your comments on schizophrenia display ignorance.

You exhibit an "I'm alright" mindset and do not seem to care one jot for people who are worse off than you. The irony is that everyone suffers when we neglect education and frustrate the unemployed in their search for work. Your comments about schizophrenia - where almost 300,000 can expect to die 25 years before their time exhibit extraordinary callousness. I hope you don't consider yourself a Christian as you appear to have little or no compassion or sense of justice.

BTW continuing from before - in response to your points mental illness has always been with us ; no doubt drug-taking can increase the risk - But it is far from being the only cause.

May the same principles be applied to you one day as you apply to others. We will see how you feel then.

Tristan,
Not just many other countries; all other countries!
A higher social wage would be better, but how do you measure it?

"Disproportionalities between investment in wages and investment in revolutionising the means of production also mean there is a tendency for profits to fall"
Why?

"Other problems hark back to the oil shocks;"
Wanting to avoid a repeat of the situation where we were so vulnerable to oil shocks is a good reason to keep the wage share down.

"and today the fact that global economic stratification will come under challenge."
Why do you see that as a problem? A good standard of living in first world countries doesn't depend on a continued poor standard of living everywhere else.

"The Swedes tried responding to falling wage share in the 1980s by demanding collective capital share I return for previous wage restraint."
Please explain?

"Those tax cuts (during the Accord years) actually undermined the social wage as well - as the tax cuts were paid for through austerity, user pays etc elsewhere as well (eg: Education) ...."
In the boom times, public sector austerity is a good thing. But there was too much emphasis on cutting taxes rather than giving taxpayers better value for their money.

"Governments should be held to account when they undertake destructive 'reforms' for which they don't have a mandate."
Yes they should, but political strike action is not a good way to do that; it disadvantages too many innocent people, it's usually ineffective against governments, and even where it does succeed, it's likely to result in future governments viewing unions as the enemy.

Civil disobedience to defend democracy and human rights is a good thing, but how many years was it since that last involved strike action in a democratic country?

Tristan

You say – ” See here re university dropouts - the rate of which is actually increasing - probably because of pressures with time, part-time work etc.:”

Maybe one should take into consideration the lowering of ATARS of 60 or below. Maybe, just maybe some of these “newer” students aren’t mentally mature enough for University straight out from year 12? Students drop out from University all the time. Nothing new . Got nothing to do with part-time work. Some even return to Uni several years later, more mature and capable to enjoy their chosen University courses. Let’s see some stats on the above.

The article you referred me to states – “However, in general, these students will benefit from their exposure to higher education and many may return at a later stage. What would assist in following trends would be if the Department of Education and Training were to publish figures each year showing the number of students who returned to study after leaving their studies for more than one year. That would give us a clearer picture of the true nature of attrition within the system”. (Correct!)

You say - re: “The unemployed its not only the 'Left' who is saying the rate of the Newstart allowance is frustrating people in their search for work. Even the Business Council of Australia says its not good enough. And I have heard there is only one job for every five sob-seekers.

Government of the day (either party) sets Welfare/ Newstart Rates. Newstart is “not” a forever and ever payment and wasn’t meant to be. Now back to that $320B deficit. You also state you’ve heard there is only one job for every five job-seekers. Depends on job they applying for and many other reasons. How do you think migrants got along upon arrival in Sydney. No Welfare payments, no money, couldn’t speak English, they got any job available, saved, then brought their families to Australia. Google “History of Westfield”. There are thousands of success stories like him, throughout Australia’s history.

cont'd
You say – “Re: Public sector state school high achievement - you will find a fair share of 'elite' state schools there - such as Melbourne High. You will find much fewer non-elite schools, and especially schools in regions and poorer suburbs. If there wasn't an advantage to be gained why would parent pay $20,000 and even much more sending their kids to private schools?"

My post regarding schools being based on results for Sydney schools. Teaching quality and level of student pride in their school academically, proves one can come from a less affluent suburban school, and be amongst the State’s top achievers. Why do parents send their children to private schools? Many reasons, family tradition being high on choice. Try google the Elliott family, there are many others.

You say – “Further your comments on schizophrenia display ignorance”. “You exhibit an "I'm alright" mindset and do not seem to care one jot for people who are worse off than you. The irony is that everyone suffers when we neglect education and frustrate the unemployed in their search for work. Your comments about schizophrenia - where almost 300,000 can expect to die 25 years before their time exhibit extraordinary callousness. I hope you don't consider yourself a Christian as you appear to have little or no compassion or sense of justice”.

I made no comment on schizophrenia except mmmmm. Please re-read my post

I went on to discuss the cause and effects of Ice, other drugs and alcohol abuse on one’s body, destroying the brain which leads to mental health problems from yesterday’s news. I also made no comment regarding “usual mental health issues” which is an entirely different scenario. Re-read my post.

Instead of attacking me, try googling effects - of Ice, and other drugs, abuse of alcohol – on the brain and body which leads to mental health problems, we are speaking of youth from 15 to 35 years.. Google Medical reports and not newspaper articles. Doctors tend to tell the whole truth, however you may not be interested enough to conduct some research.

Some inconvenient facts – on Welfare rorts. Time’s Up for the Welfare Cheats. Daily Telegraph 23/2/2016 – documents obtained from Department of Human Services.

I quote – “A loophole in the nation’s whopping $7.5 billion welfare system is letting dole bludgers turn down good job offers without incurring a penalty that was originally designed to suspend their payments for eight weeks every time they did it.

The bludgers are rejecting jobs because – shifts fall on their golf day, they don’t want to work hard, I want to follow my dream of becoming an actor, I won’t get out of bed for less than $20 per hour, my car was due for a service as the job started, the office and factory smelled funny, I am going on holiday, I don’t want to work more than three hours a week, my wife told me that the job was unsuitable, I am already working three hours a day, and any more would make me tired.

Newstart Allowance recipients are refusing jobs that pay as much as $27 per hour and are then successfully requesting a “waiver” so they don’t incur an eight-week welfare ban.

The waiver allows them to reject a job and continue to receive the dole if they add on a small work-for-the-dole component to their program.

More than 70 per cent of those on the dole whose excuse for rejecting a job was considered to be unacceptable, exploited this loophole.

Last financial year at least 1,412 penalties were applied for refusing to accept a job to 1,276 seekers.

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash said there was a bill before the Senate to ban the waiver loophole but it had stalled.

“There are loopholes in the system that are allowing some to get away with making insufficient or inadequate job search efforts without good reason”, she said.
cont'd

Ms Cash said the $150 billion annual welfare bill should only be used for those who desperately needed government assistance.

Australia’s income support system is there as a safety net for people who genuinely cannot find a job – not as an option for those who refuse to work, Australians who pay taxes to fund our welfare system expect there to be sufficient safeguards to ensure that those who can work do work.” (End of article)

So $27.00 per hour on a 40 hr week = $1,080 x 52 weeks = $56,160.00 - not good enough!

I also wonder why the Bill to close the loophole ( in the Senate) has been stalled? I’m sure we all know the answer. Those 70 per centers will have to work - shock, horror.

The sooner the loophole is closed on these dole bludgers/rorters of our Welfare system the better.

The Welfare system is there for the needy in our society - not the lazy, greedy rorters.

A further report of Welfare Rorts – Daily Telegraph 2/3/

I quote – “Some of Australia’s worst welfare cheats have illegally racked up individual debts of up to $400,000 each.

In one of the most bizarre cases, The Daily Telegraph can reveal that a 71-year-old woman defrauded taxpayers of $383,359 by claiming the widow’s allowance under multiple fake identities. Her whereabouts are listed as “unknown”.

In a similar case, an 87-year-old man had been claiming the age pension for 24 years under a number of fake identities and defrauding the Commonwealth of $301,863.

And a 93-year-old was able to claim $254,376 in pension payments over 20 years by hiding assets.

These are just some of the estimated 270,000 cheats and fraudsters refusing to pay back an $870 million welfare debt bomb that has been 30 years in the making.

But changes to the Social Services Act to be introduced into Parliament today will mean they can no longer hide, with the retrospective removal of the six-year loophole under the Statute of Limitations which had enabled many to escape having to ever pay back their debts.

For the first time interest will be now also be charged on the outstanding debts at a rate of 9 per cent.

And targeted social welfare cheats who refuse to pay back their debt will also be slapped with a departure prohibition order to prevent them leaving the country.

The overall welfare overpayment debt, which also includes people who are on payment plans and are attempting to pay it back, has blown out by 10 per cent in just the past year to total $3 billion.

Social Services Minister Christian Porter said the debt had been allowed to accumulate under previous governments with little effort taken to recover it.

“The situation is that 1 per cent of Australia’s population has received money they are not entitled to and owe a debt to the other 99 per cent of Australians – a debt that in too many instances they are making no effort to pay back,” he said.
cont'd

cont'd

The number of debts, the size of debt and the duration of outstanding debts is cause for serious concern.

If people have received social security, family assistance, paid parental leave or student payments that they are not entitled to, then leave the welfare system and become employed, their debts should be recovered wherever reasonable and possible.

“It is disturbing that individuals have in some cases cheated taxpayers us, of hundreds of thousands of dollars – and under the previous Labor government nowhere near enough was being done to recover the debt. This tolerance must end.”” (End of Article)

Another case of welfare bludgers giving the “proverbial finger” to all taxpayers and Government. Self respect - Nah - nothing to see here!

Tristan – you’ve called me “callous” and “unchristian” in a previous post and my lifestyle reflects a “it’ll be alright mate” attitude. With respect Tristan it’s the above 270,000 welfare cheats with this lifestyle not those honest workers and taxpayers whose tax dollars are paying for above rorts on the welfare system with their “it’ll be all right mate” attitude. However, your analysis of my character - made me smile.

If a manufacturing industry closes - the Government is blamed, those workers won’t be able to find another job, it is said! Newsflash - closures also occur within the blue collar industry. Are there those out there that have had to change their career paths – of course! When one door closes in life we work (learn) to open another. One usually commences to improve one’s skills/marketing ability. People have been re-training, re-educating in different skills for generations, nothing new!

Time for those 270,000 welfare cheats to get off the system and – work, yep that’s right – shock, horror – work.
cont'd

Cont'd

If Labor are “serious” they would support the Social Services Bill in the Senate to “close” the loophole against welfare rorters. If not – it will speak “volumes” to us as contributing workers and taxpayers who want to see Australia continue to grow and prosper.

Again, I repeat, the welfare system is the for the “needy” in society – not the “greedy” 270,000 who “callously” rort the welfare system.

If those out there have no concerns as to the extent of the rorts being committed on the Welfare system – then we have a serious problem growing within our society.

These articles show the extent of rorts within the Welfare system alone - so how about the rorts occurring in other areas, where loopholes must also be closed?

Note – I am a swinging voter and have no alliance to any party – I just tell it as I see it.

SAINTS, I've been away from this thread for a while but I seed Tristian still has his labor rose coloured glasses on.

I have run my own business for the best part of 25 years, and I have a small business now and wages, especially the add on conditions are killing small business, no doubt big business as well but most of them are able to pass the costs on.

Back in 89 when I started, wages for SB were about 12% of turnover, whereas now they are more like 22%.

As for welfare cheats, they are everywhere and one of the largest problems we have is the fact that welfare, despite the overwhelming evidence of waste and mismanagement, is still paid in cold hard cash.

A simple restricted debit card whereby restricted goods cannot be purchased by such a means would remove much of the waste.

We have situations where several dole bludgers, and that's what they are, bludgers, shack up in one house paying their $350 per week and living very well, especially if they deal in drugs as well.

The other lurk is where a couple, with two kids claim to be separated but living under the same roof. Each has custody of one child and both get single parent benefits.

The truth is governments know whats going on but they are too gutless to do much about it and if they try our ridiculous senate blocks their move, that's provided it gets past the labor/green alliance.

There is no end of frustration creeping in and it appears we the tax payer are powerless to do anything about it because even if you do vote for those who you think will fight for your values, the other side blocks it.

I doubt we will ever see a return to the Howard days of a booming economy and no debt.

SAINTS see the following:

"So far there’s not much evidence welfare fraud is out of control. Between 2006 and 2010, Centrelink conducted an average of 4 million compliance reviews each year, which covered 60% of its “customers”. The yield of cases referred for prosecution was on average 0.04%, or 3192 people. In 2012, fewer than 1500 people were referred for welfare fraud." see: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2014/november/1414760400/richard-cooke/much-obliged

The rest of the article is worth reading too.

also see from the same source:

"According to a Tax Justice Network report, a third of ASX200 companies pay less than 10% tax, while 57% operate subsidiaries in tax havens. Not only does Australia miss out on an estimated $8 billion in annual revenue because of these fudges, but many of those taking the most tight-fisted approach are only too happy to unclench a palm when a government handout is available."

Also If you want more pensioners to take up work - even if they're only capable of working a little its better to get rid of poverty traps. And if you think this is unfair for those on low incomes - change the relativities by raising the minimum wage, extending low-income benefits and restructuring tax.

And if you want to complain at the outright wealthy paying more tax just remember they're being paid many times more for the same amount of work ; eg: perhaps $10 million a year for a corporate executive compared with about $70,000 for some teachers.

I am disappointed at the stereotyping of dole recipients several writers hereabouts have displayed.

I can assure you all that jaded 55 year old info tech jacks of all trades are not in demand. Especially not those who insist on using, say, Dragon dictate, to type, having burnt out wrists, and a back certificate that says no to managers wanting boxes restacked in the store room.

These past three years I have not even had one proper job interview. The employers go for the bright young things, not the jaded old workhorses they want to send to the knackery.

I believe my experience is quite typical of the older unemployed, those who don't have a marketable skill in demand.

There might be, perhaps, one per cent of unemployed who rort the system somewhat, but the authorities do extensive data matching between the Social Services and other government computers including the tax office looking for benefits fraudsters ...

I feel vaguely insulted by this dole bludging stereotype. I do wish the young Libs who perpetrate such stereotypes would get real and not engage in such counterproductive bulldust but discuss public policy in relation to the vast majority of the unemployed.

Rehctub

You say - "The truth is governments know whats going on but they are too gutless to do much about it and if they try our ridiculous senate blocks their move, that's provided it gets past the labor/green alliance.

There is no end of frustration creeping in and it appears we the tax payer are powerless to do anything about it because even if you do vote for those who you think will fight for your values, the other side blocks it."

How true - via both parties and for years. Don't want to address the "tuff issues" - might lose a few seats come election time.

Tristan

You say “"So far there’s not much evidence welfare fraud is out of control. Between 2006 and 2010, Centrelink conducted an average of 4 million compliance reviews each year, which covered 60% of its “customers”. The yield of cases referred for prosecution was on average 0.04%, or 3192 people. In 2012, fewer than 1500 people were referred for welfare fraud.

No figures quoted for 2013, 2014, 2015. I await next Senate Estimates Committee meeting.

“In 2012 fewer than 1,500 people referred for welfare fraud”. Is that all they found?

Change of government 2013. Welfare bill - $150 billion.

270,000 cases of welfare cheaters and fraudsters refusing to repay $870 million – 2016.

Article – “The overall welfare overpayment debt, which also includes people who are on payment plans and are attempting to pay it back, has blown out by 10 per cent in just the past year to total $3 billion!

“Social Services Minister Christian Porter said the debt had been allowed to accumulate under previous governments with little effort taken to recover it.” (End quote)

I ask why are Centrelink’s reported figures so low up to 2012. The blow out in welfare cheaters to 270,000 didn’t occur overnight and hasn’t just occurred since new government 2013 to 2016.

You also refer to a Tax Justice Network report – we know, we know, so when will ANY government address companies from the “big end of town”? Governments they talk, they talk, and more talk – both sides, when in and/or out of Government – yet, still do nothing, then have a further talk fest – might lose a few votes. Votes = seats. On this point I agree 100% with you.

You state – If you want more pensioners to work etc. I don’t include any pensioners amongst those rorters. I address the 17 to 35 year olds within our society who give taxpayers the “proverbial finger” and won’t work - more than happy to rort the welfare system.

Andrew

You are among the 50 plus group.

I have been discussing the 17 to 35 year olds who won’t work and are more than happy to continue to rort the welfare system for all it’s worth.

They form the “greedy” as opposed to the “needy” which is what the Welfare system safety net is for.

I agree with you – it’s not easy to work after 50’s, don’t give up – you’ll find work, keep at it.

Those that are genuinely trying to find work who are on the welfare system - are certainly not classified as "dole bludgers" by most in society, so I respectfully ask you to ignore their "ignorant remarks".