Seeker,

Your outline is exactly where we need to go. We need government out of our lives so that community can come back in.

Terje.

Taking government out of our lives does not necessarily bring community back in. it seems clear to me that the emphasis on individual achievement, ensures that community is not something that we learn to value.

The 'happiness' that these authors refer to is the sort of happiness that does come from a focus on community and taking responsibility. It is not the sort of short term happiness that capitalist values elevate.

I agree that community service is something that we could and should ask of those receiving welfare. We should not castigate and blame them for their failings. That is counter-productive.

the thing this government (and the opposition to some extent) does that makes me unhappy is assuming that I should aspire to have more material goods and should be actively advantaging my chidren over and above the children of others, who will after all, constitute the broader community in which I live.

Mollydukes, so trying to give your own offspring any advantage you can makes you unhappy? Unbelievable! I’ll be doing my best to make sure my children have every advantage I can possibly give them.

Mollydukes there’s nothing wrong with competition, there’s nothing wrong with success, there’s nothing wrong with the concept of some people having more than others, there’s nothing wrong with having an advantage. You seem to think that anyone who is materially successful must be dreadfully unhappy and have only obtained success by trampling over others to get there. I think you’ll find that rich people are generally much happier and healthier than poor people. Struggling to pay your rent on a diet of KFC and McDonalds does not a happy person make. If you don’t want to aspire to material success, that’s fine. No one else cares. But most people do want a degree of material success and it would make them very unhappy if our tax system was geared to make the realization of that aspiration impossible.

I always thought that the idea was to help the less successful become more successful, Mollydukes thinks it should be the other way around. I suppose if we were all poor, sick, and miserable, we could at least find solace in the universality of that condition.

By the way I forgot to give RObert a pat on the back. Very fresh thinking and definately something to consider if we want to go down the track advocated by Messrs Bagaric and McConvill.

Some futher thoughts on an alternate approach to taxation.

My general thinking so far is

- Those who work for a living generally do so as a trade off to get money in exchange for time (I know it is more complex than that but it's a starting place). In the end the most finite resource we have is time, everything else is a product to some extent of how we use that time.

- A just tax system should allow for the fact that time is our most precious commodity (some belief structures might disagree but it's a starting place) and place the same burden on all who are able to bear it.

- The current money only based system ignores the social responsibility of those with lots of time not used earning money and little money and unfairly penalises the PAYE taxpayer.

- Start with a determination of what is required to provide core government services (wouldn't the debate to determine what is core be fun?).

- Relate that to the per healthy adult ability to provide the core needs. This size population with so many earning an average income and so many with hours available etc.

- Every capable adult contributes either through tax or community service to their share of the core needs. This one needs lots of thought, I suspect there are some big holes in that so treat it as a starting place.

- Non core services are provided by a subscription approach, those who really think that such services should be provided can opt to pay additional tax or do additional community service (on top of their core responsibilities) to provide for them. Much of the non core things might be better done out of government anyway and plenty already is. If something is underfunded then not many really value it anyway. Again the debate about what is core is the clincher.

I am not trying to put forward a finished proposal but rather some idea's for feedback and thought. Maybe something different might come out of it.

R0bert