Peter Saunders' views on welfare have had a long and inglorious gestation. I would refer readers to a contribution by Don Arthur,on Margo Kingston's WEB DIARY of March 23,2001 viz."OPRAH WINFREY AND THE THIRD WAY" http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/21/1069027321380.html

Mr. Saunders champions the Lawrence Mead model, and indeed seems to be the Australian franchisee by his continued obsession with this.

He continues to perpetuate the myth of welfare dependence and would claim some authority as to the "needs" of long term unemployed. The notion for instance, that Work for the Dole be doubled is his idea, and can only appeal to those who think of unemployment in the third person. Others who lobby for a reduction in the minimum wage, likewise bathe in the vainglory of "Arbeit macht frei"

I'll take Peter Saunders over Don Arthur and Margo Kingston any day!

Welfare dependence is not a myth - it is a well established fact. Welfare has NEVER, EVER, anywhere in history brought 'the poor' out of their predicament. It has only ever increased their numbers.

I supect that the author understates the "lefts" opposition to improving the tax deal for payee tax payers. We are an easy target for tax collection to fund the left's priorities.

In regard to the PM's comments refered to in the article
"The Government likes to claim the tax-free threshold is “really” much higher than $6,000 because families with children can claim tax back in the form of the family tax benefit (FTB)."

As a payer C$A "client" (doing shared care) that is not the case for me. I get very little FTB (the ex gets most of that) and spend (between what I spend on the child and what I pay in C$A payments) far more than the estimated cost of raising a 7 year old. Add to that the impact of the C$A formula and I am being taxed at a lot higher than the top marginal rate

What clink doesn't like is that the majority of Australians agree with Peter Saunders.If we doubled the welfare budget tomorrow we would soon have double the number of recipients.

The problem with Clink and the likes of Margo Kingston is that they have no grasp of what makes an economy function.They are locked into their ideologies like religious fundamentalists and no amount of logic will change their views.

Interesting article, but not enough exposure given to a flat rate tax. Derik Smith put forward the basis of a flat rate tax in his proposal "Two Percent Tax", the basis of which was that instead of income tax and GST, and all the other taxes, everyone paid 2% on any purchase. This, he argued, would collect enough to buty back Australia.
The downside of this proposal was that with such a tax, there would be very many fewer jobs needed in the public sector, a sector which has seemed to be growing at an exponential rate, and at great cost. The redundancies resulting, he argued, would better be employed in the production rater than the unproductive sector.
I tend to agree with him.

Why should the adults without children get tax benefits for not contributing to the replacing of them selves? They have to rely on those that have made the investment in to children for their retirement.
In reality, people with out children have a much larger personal disposable income , and in their latter years expect to be able to access at no cost those children, now the work force, to allow them to exist.

The extra disposable income from this group should belong to the communities that bear the child raising costs.

As the cost of raising children seems to be borne by a much smaller section of the community these days, the cost that this group incurs, on behalf of all Australians should not be subject to any means testing, and reflect a reasonable % of the cost’s incurred.

The so called” progressive” tax rates we have, in my opinion only serve to drive up the top end “total taxable” income, putting the cost back on to the business sector, with higher prices as a result, penalizing the lower income sector.

An added bonus is the ability to claim a tax deduction on a loss against your income, with the prospect of greater capital gain in the future.

Govt loses tax revenue, for personal gain for the higher income bracket, with no benefit for the lower income group.

Lower tax rates, with fewer deductions would be a much fairer and simpler system.

What must be remembered also is that over time we have moved from a person providing all their “needs” from their taxable income, to a situation where only a portion of their needs is provided from their taxable income. This effectively raises the tax rate, but if the benefit the “social wage” provides is added to their income, it would dramatically lower the tax “rate”

I.e.

Past taxable income (A)

$100 per week ----- tax $20 ------ no social wage

Today’s taxable income (B) $100 /week-------tax $40-------$100 social wage
Net results-----

A

tax rate 20%

B

tax rate

20%, not 40% as people think they are paying.