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.