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.