One would think that the more tax someone pays equates directly into more happiness requires a lot of provisoes, and most importantly, it requires a very democratic and well run government.

I don’t know the exact situation in Sweden, but I understand that in some European countries the governments are not greatly political, but decide a lot of issues through committees and public enquiries. Therefore the people in those governments have more of an executive or administration role rather than a ruling role, and community or collective spirit can extend right through society, from the local neighbourhood through to the corridors of government.

Unfortunately I think that our various governments (either state or federal) are not that well designed for such a system, and public enquiries for example are often a waste of time (and tax payer’s money).

So handing ones money (and indirectly ones life) over to government requires a good system of government, or the public can become readily exploited by the people in government.

Whether "churning" is inefficient surely depends on whether its purpose is justified and whether the current method is the best way of achieving it. I don't think anyone here would dispute that the overhead required for direct repayments could have been used more productively. But if that waste cannot be reduced while ensuring a suitable level of essential services, then it is not really waste it is a necessary cost. We need those services both for the economic infrastructure of the country and to improve general living standards - each leads to higher levels of productivity.

What are we left with if we remove any and all churning? Since no one gets any of their money back in the form of benefits and services, the government would be reduced to taking money away from the wealthy and giving it to the poor. Less bureaucracy but less control over how the money is used; more choice but more wastage & dependency.

Similarly, no one is going to say that welfare isn't a disincentive to achieve, or that some people won't become reliant on it. We may however say that it is in most cases a negligble disincentive (esp. for the "fast runners") or that some amount of welfare dependancy is acceptable. What we recognise is that a lot of people will be worse off if welfare and other services are reduced.

Tus so what if it is ‘my old argument’ – it is a good one! Maybe you should stop ‘rattling my chains’ or some other author might get huffy LOL.

You didn’t answer my question about how come the kids have to pay for being unlucky enough to be born into poor families though?

The fact that there are third generation welfare recipients shows that the welfare is not being provided ‘effectively’. It is being provided only to prevent the worst excesses of self-reliant societies (crime and large numbers of homeless on the streets) rather than to improve the chances of disadvantaged children.

As Timkins says (never thought I would be agreeing with you! Well done Timkins, there goes another of my prejudices), the idea is to ensure that the provision of welfare is better and more usefully directed toward the children, not that it isn’t there at all.

I agree that the sort of welfare that you describe sucks – it is the simplistic solution that this Government continues to provide because the alternative is spending more on police and more jails and walled enclaves for the ‘well brought up’ to live in?

Because if people can’t or won’t work and participate in the good life, for sure they will steal and commit more crimes. Check out the US (a more self-reliant society).

As Duec says the churned money is not totally wasted, as it must go toward someone’s wages. Who is to say that wages for bureaucrats are wasted while the wages paid to people who produce useless goods and services are valuable.

Arjay if we are such a pathetically weak society, why is the economy growing? Did you read the recent research that showed that we spent millions last year on food we didn’t eat and things we have never used?

Perhaps we have reached the stage in our evolution where more economic growth is not the priority that it was when we did need to have more things and more food? Perhaps there are other things that we need now?

It is all very well to talk about self-reliance but what about the largesse given to private health insurance corporations, private schools and farmers (to name a few)? This middle class welfare has been dramatically increased by the Coalition Government - pretty amazing considering it is the same government that craps on about hard work, self-sufficiency etc (not to mention superannuation which is simply a rort for the likes of AMP and Tower).

Saunders, of course, wouldn't view it that way but what we have been witnessing over the last few years is massive subsidisation of the wealthy by the less well-off and so making it well nigh impossible for the latter to get ahead.

Enaj is that your personal excuse or are you simply being patronising and inventing obstacles to excuse the poor performance of others?

Life is like this – (as in poker – a game of chance!) it does not matter what hand you are dealt – it is how you decide to play the hand that matters.

Mollydukes – because no one else may have mentioned something … does not disbar me from bringing it up – I assume I have the same rights as anyone else to post here – admittedly, I do try to avoid the dross which some indulge in but my view is as free to express as you would claim yours is.

You obviously have not heard of “Sunlight deficiency” syndrome – ot of Swedes spend their winter life in a light box fending off suicidal tendencies (and Scandanavia has a very high rate of suicide) – hardly the stuff which warrants suggesting they are “happier” or safer or more productive than Australians. Of course we are all individuals and I am not responsible for the levels of happiness which you enjoy in your life – but for sure – my life is an absolute hoot.... happy as a pig in mud – now all I need is a couple of good looking bikini clad lady wrestlers to join me in the mud and it will be perfect.

Parents look after children in a self reliant society – like always – and parents do such a better job than the state could ever do.

As for the bad parents - are you suggesting we should sterilise those who produce children who they cannot adequately look after – that fixes the problem – as for already produced children – I suggest bad kids can come from good homes and equally, good kids can come from bad homes – as I said to enaj – it is not the hand you are dealt, it is how you decide to play it that matters.

Col you are a hoot and I am sure that you are as happy as a pig in mud. Good luck with the lady wrestlers. You could invite your pin-up girl, Thatcher to join you.

You do liven up the forums and it is a shame that you weren't able to come up with a quote from the great woman.

Keep the faith.

But seriously, if you ever do seriously consider the game of life. Do you really believe that success is entirely due to the way you play the hand. Is there no such thing as probability and being dealt a dud hand, time after time?