I agree wholeheartedly John, I am at the bottom of society, living on a part disability pension, however unlike many today I am not materialistic, and find comfort in my faith. I am not unhappy, or happy, however you will find some in this forum, who will accuse you of being a communist because they see views such as these, as a threat to their materialist views of life. On the taxation question, I have always paid my share of taxation, and don't consider it wrong to expect multi-millionaires, and billionaires to pay their fair share into the Australian community, which enables them to be wealthy. Unfortunately, these people find loopholes in taxation law, to avoid their responsibility to the community, thus making the community the poorer. Your reference to Jesus was pertinent, I don't have, nor would I have, even if I could afford one, a plasma TV, as far as I am aware they show the same programs as a regular TV so why would you bother, except for self adulation, providing yourself with a status symbol. I find my old 1991 VN Commodore, which is serviced every 10,000kms and wearing parts replaced, is a relyable vehicle, which still transports me from A to B, in relative comfort, I have no desire to replace it. Modern community seems obsessed with consumerism, which I live quite happily without, if more people were thinking like you and I Australia would not find herself in billions of dollars of overseas debt. I am not aware of any evidence, that shows the wealthy to be any happier than the rest of society in general, are you? Money does not maketh the man.

The fact that wealth does not always equate to happiness was known long before even Christ came along. And the idea of changing from a wealth driven mindset to one of happiness, on a national level, is hardly a new idea either. Putting it into practice is the issue.
Maybe having better indices on happiness that can be correlated and compared would lead to some new solutions, but i doubt increasing tax and banning a few ads is the right way to go.

Thank you for your article John. It is a subject that my husband and I frequently talk about.

We are on the bottom rung of the financial ladder, but we are happy. We have lots of fun together. We don't go out to pubs and clubs and we do not dine out. We prefer my home cooking, the comfort of our home, and our own beautiful music. We go out on the river in our boat every weekend and have a wonderful time seeing the world from a different viewpoint each time that we go out. Total freedom, relaxation and contentment which doesn't cost us anything much - except for a bit of petrol and some bait.

My long term friends (20 years and more)have become very wealthy. They deserve their wealth since they have worked very hard for it. They have lost interest in our friendship, apparently because we enjoy the simple things in life. None of them appear to be happy. One friend who is 55 years of age has two children and three houses. She works three jobs and is a shift worker - that would be enough to make me totally miserable.

We don't need a 4x4, a plasma TV, pay TV or a $4,000 BBQ. We are not concerned about impressing others.

We own everything that we have got and we have no debts. Everything that we have is modest - but it's all ours!

Thanks also to the first poster.

Cheers
Kay

At one level, there are many valid comments in the article; but I have two issues with it.

First, John says that "Happiness, however elusive to achieve, is really quite simple to define. It is feeling good, as opposed to feeling bad." That's over-simplistic. Like any other feeling, happiness is fleeting, it arises and passes away. If we don't understand that, we crave happiness and have aversion for its absence. Fundamental to our well-being, to true happiness, is equanimity, the ability to observe whatever arises, good, bad or neutral, without reaction, without craving or aversion, without attachment.

Second, John focusses on externals as causes of happiness and unhappiness. Again, this is simplistic. Ultimately, the causes of our happiness or unhappiness are all within us, in the ignorance and delusion which feed our reactions to changing circumstances. There can be no true happiness unless we deal with these "inner demons" (speaking figuratively!). Each individual must take responsibility for this, it's not a role for government.

That said, if the leaders of society have wisdom and understanding, it's easier for others to pursue that, the atmosphere is more supportive.

As an economist, I've never thought that wealth is closely related to happiness, although increasing wealth to at least a certain level can increase the choices available to people ... maybe allow them to go to India to meditate for six months, for example.

Faustino

My husband and I are happy! See my previous post.

You will probably say that I am simplistic. I don't give a damn. We wake up every morning and thak G(g)od we love each other.

Sounds like you do not have an appreciation of the sounds of nature?

And I am not a greenie.

See ya
Cheers
Kaay

Very interesting. I concur. If only more people would embrace the principle of living a rich life, than a life of riches. It is a common fallacy that wealth and happiness are inextricably intertwined. I think this is what people refer to as "being successful".

As John - and Clive Hamilton - have pointed out, there are a plethora of data demonstrating that being richer does not directly translate into being happier, and that in fact, becoming wealthier can make people unhappier (e.g. winning the lottery). Literally not having any money can make life quite difficult and stressful. But if you have enough money to get by, why create stress for yourself by convincing yourself that you don't have enough? People work insane hours because they need to save for a house, because they need to buy a car, need to buy this, need to buy that. What happens if they don't?

Can one possibly become successful without becoming wealthy? I certainly hope so, because I don't want to spend my whole life working to become successful at the expense of happiness. How much wealth must one accumulate in order to become successful anyway?

It might be hard to become wealthy, and even harder to be happier, but striving so damn hard to become wealthy doesn't make anybody happier.

I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in this article. While I also agree with Faustino that McKinnon's definition of happiness as 'feeling good' is a bit simplistic, I think that McKinnon is on the mark when he asserts that increased wealth, beyond that of material comfort and security, is not the key to happiness - however defined.

While I also take Faustino's point that true happiness is more likely to emanate from self-actualisation (for want of a better term) than from 'external' factors, I think that McKinnon argues successfully why our materialistic culture seems incapable of providing the kind of social climate that is conducive to happiness. IMHO it is no coincidence that depressive illnesses are increasingly prevalent in our society.

From the time that we are born into Australian society, we are enculturated with heavily materialistic values from which we internalise the supposed correlation between wealth and happiness. Any parent knows the pressures induced by sophisticated marketing campaigns, aimed at children, that link happiness and success with the acquisition of the latest fad toy, "happy meal", or expensive electronic widget - and any parent also knows that none of these things brings happiness. Nonetheless, these marketing strategies seem very successful in inculcating the kinds of materialistic values that create good consumers.

I agree also that the national fixation with tax reduction is a crock. Unfortunately, it seems that the current electorate has bought the line peddled by both major political parties that the key to their happiness is (economic) "aspiration", to the detriment of all the other factors that McKinnon cites. In short, we need to refocus our aspirations on 'social capital' - as opposed to blind materialism.

Travelling on the British Airways Concord made me happy. Visiting my father in England every year makes me happy. Flying around the world First Class (on multiple occasions; to America, Spain, Germany, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Greece, England, Serbia, Portugal, Thailand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand) made me happy. Reading new books makes me happy. Buying a new laptop makes me happy. Buying really nice looking home and furniture makes me happy. Going out to dinner in silk pants and Prada shirt a few nights a week; makes me feel happy. I enjoy coming home, messing about on the internet and playing some music (on my $5000 PowerBook), having a fanastic dinner then retreating to the most comfortable couch anyone could ever own and watching "Lost" in High Definintion on a 1920x1200 pixel plasma panel. These things make me feel great. This life is heaven, I couldn't imagine anything better (I don't even have to, that's how good it is). I have great meals; a variety of fruit, vegetables, nuts, breads, meats, basically an abundance of food (I enjoy ALL food; there is nothing I don't eat unless it's low quality and crap like McDonalds). I have a fantastic girlfriend, my health; I swim 2km a day, great sex, great teeth, body etc. All these things cost me a heap of dough, but I love spending, buying and love my life. Given I'm in my twenties, with a little planning (and I'm on track) I should be able to retire when I'm 45 and continue to persue my overseas travel, sport and personal entertainment with even greater vigour. When I look at life as potrayed on TV, it looks like a horrible struggle - so I don't know where the author gets the idea about being flooded by images of perfection. I have zero hardship. I love being alive and I love this capitalist and globalised world I live in.

Money may not buy you happiness but Gee! you sure can be miserable in comfort.
That is one of those 'feel good'silly ideas generally gushed by people who were born with a siver spoon.
To experience real poverty is a soul killing experience. Been there done that.
I always felt that when I touched bottom , there was only one way left to go and that was .....up!
But believe me, poverty will not get you far either.

Silk pants??

Kay - "We go out on the river in our boat every weekend...."

I bet I am even happier than you sailing on my rolled up newspaper through the sewerage dump. ( :P) I guess its "what ever makes you happy", to use an old cliche. Kay I think its great you and your husband lead a happy life due to the more human aspects of life as opposed to the materialistic trappings of the day. I think we are all different in terms of what makes us truly happy, and it's not simply due to having or not having.

Plenty of rich people are still happy and plenty of poor people are still miserable. I am not sure if it all matters much, as long as you feel good within yourself which is easy said than done. If advertising is bullying us into feeling miserable because we don't have a plasma screen, don't let it. Its hard, but I guess we all need to try to build up our own happiness to weather the pressures of everyday life such as bills, martgages, rent rises, Industrial Reforms, etc ;)... oh geeze now I've made myself miserable again. :( :P

Ka(a)y, we lead a simple life with no expensive habits; I walk by the river every day, and this morning in the hills. We feed possums, and have contact with a lot of wild life - in recent weeks I've returned an eel to the river, freed a water dragon from a bird-net, checked out a ringtail with a gammy leg ... not so much the sounds for me, but the broader environment, the peace in the forests, treating both humans and animals as beings worthy of care.

But that doesn't change what I said above!

Faustino

Get a (real) life, Strayan. Consider being a fantasy writer on a woman's magazine. Not even a hint of irony. You have condemned yourself as a wannabe tryhard.

Yep, 100% silk trousers lisamaree. They feel wonderful, like I'm not wearing any.

Well we know Remote centreman certainly doesn't have a pair.

Layard this, Layard that. Hamilton this, Hamilton that. The most that can be said about that article is that there weren't any spelling mistakes. This article just regurgitates bits and pieces of Richard Layard's Book. And that wasn't any good either. Next time online opinion should just post a book review by someone that actually knows what they're talking about. At least that way we'd get an informed comment instead of the holier than thou, patronising rubbish contained in this article.

Clive Hamilton's just a self interested Canberra yuppy, all talk, with no practical solutions to society's supposed ills. As for Layard, he's just creative with his numbers and shoddy with his conclusions. Read Johan Norbergs take on Layard here: http://www.cis.org.au/exechigh/Eh2005/EH30505.htm

Strayan, And some of us also know that we wouldn't want a pair of poof pants, if someone gave them to us, but as an earlier poster said, whatever turns you on. Those of us who find happiness in the simple life, couldn't give a toss about such things, personally I feel really sad for you, that you need so many material things to be happy, but hey, it's your life, not mine. All I can say is "clothes do not maketh the man" but good luck to you, it is always better to be happy, rather than sad.

I completely agree with the notion that wealth does not maky you happy (it need not make you sad either).

However I find it offensive that socialists use this fact as a defence of statist taxation policies.

If wealth does not lead to happiness then redistributionist policies don't maky anybody happier. In fact the act of forceably removing peoples property is divisive irrespective of how the proceeds are distributed.

What makes me happy is building useful things. What annoys me is when some petty thug, wearing a suit and called a government official steal it away in the name of social "justice".

Does a desire not to always have the latest knicknacks and gizmoes, make one a socialist? Perhaps socialism will make us leftie whine bags who don't agree with the "must haves" happier. Imagine the joy of driving a government issue car, eating a meal of potato soup from the People's Market Garden, and going to work at your Govt issue job in your Govt issued boiler suit. You push your car home at the end of the day to watch Govt produced programs on the Govt owned TV station on your Govt issued television set. Yeah I will be lining up for that lifestyle.

Apparently thats what some people who post on this thread think the world will be like with less plasma screens, and $7000 BBQ's, designer labelled clothes, fine dining, etc.

SM,

Would that be similar to pushing your car cos' you can't afford petrol (Gov't won't fix it - less regulation is good for shareholders), then arriving home to watch Gov't IR ads on TV? (HEY, don't knock 'em, i helped pay for those suckers).

Irony / Sarcasm - Dunno what are they? I don't know, never use em meself

postscriptum - I seriously wonder how far the new unrestrained capitalism / managerialism can be pushed before it is realised by the apathetic majority, that as a social program it is as workable as communism? Surely it can't be long now.

Adam Smith wrote in the 18thC that it is “in the progressive state, while the society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the great body of the people seems to be the happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state.”

US economist Benjamin Friedman argues in "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth" that a society experiencing economic growth is likely to be happier and more successful than a no-growth society, even if the latter has a higher standard of living. “The value of a rising standard of living lies not just in the concrete improvements it brings to how individuals live but in how it shapes the social, political and ultimately the moral character of a people.” Growing prosperity, history suggests, makes people more tolerant, more willing to settle disputes peacefully, more inclined to favour democracy. Stagnation and economic decline are associated with intolerance, ethnic strife and dictatorship.

People's sense of well-being is essentially relative. They become accustomed to any fixed standard of living, rich or poor. They are happiest if they feel their standard of living is rising (something that, in principle, all members of a society can experience at once), or if they feel that they are better off than their peers (which is divisive and not an aspiration that everyone can realise at once).

The key thing is the way these two standards of comparison interact. If people are becoming better off relative to their own past standard of living, they will care less about where they stand in relation to others. If not, they will care more about their placing in relation to others — and the result is frustration, intolerance and social friction. Growth, in short, has moral as well as material benefits.

Economic growth often has negative externalities, e.g pollution costs which are not reflected in prices. Friedman contends that growth also has a positive moral externality.

(The Economist, 10/11/05)

Yes but one of the downsides of economic growth is that in order to maintain and guard their comfortable lifestyle, the "haves" (not just the "have alls", but also the "might not have it all, but have more than some's" suddnely find themselves becoming rather intolerant of those not so fortunate. Prime example the last Federal election, when alot people reportably voted Johnny back in to help maintain their comfy lifestyles, seemingly without much thought for the "battlers" we share this nation with. Suddenly some of us may have felt a "tidal wave" of guilt (apologies for the crass pun), after the Tsumani devasted may parts of Asia and Africa. Yes thats cynical indeed, just a thought really, but worth pondering. Now with the the IR changes at hand, are many of us feeling the shadow of doubt now? Just a thought....

Cheers SM

People are talking about more taxes to achieve happiness?Taxes under the coalition have gone from $90 billion to $200 billion and this doesn't include the GST which must be at least another $80 billion.Then we have all the state Govt taxes.

I see it this way,we are all going to have to work longer and harder since developing countries are using more resources and energy.We are feeling the pinch now with higher fuel prices.Our Govt is asking us to compete globally and many are already asking if it worth long hours only for it to be taken in tax.

Most people don't have the luxury of aspiring to be rich.They just want enough to retire comfortably on.Happiness is a very relative concept.How many of the poor happy people would knock back a cool $1 million?Most people don't aspire to being rich because Govt and big business has made it too damn hard.

When we don't pay workers enough to consume the products they are producing,then we have a subsistance culture and a shrinking economy.

I think this article is just a back door approach to justify higher taxation.

To be happy, you must follow your dreams. When I was a young bloke, I dreamed of being a fighter pilot & a race car driver. I wanted a horse & I wanted to sail to the Pacific islands. Well I did it all. As each one stopped making me happy I moved on to the next dream. But at 40 I found myself with a clapped out old yacht, very little money, & no job. I took a job as a deck hand on a tourist boat, & ended up running the company. Then I took a job as a sales man, & ended up running that company. They were only little companies, so I never did get to earn the average wage. I was always a little suprised at how high the average wage was, but then I've never been in the public service, just the air force. Now I'm retired on my 20 acres, with a big house, on a part pension, & I'm happy. Its not a popular area, & the house is old, but I like them. I live on less than I used to spend on the kids lessons,[riding & music lessons & maths & physics coaching] & yes I raised a family after 40. I might be one of silent minority's battlers, & if I am, there's no reason to feel sorry for battlers. I made it to a happy, reasonably comfortable retirement, effectively starting at 40. Any battler worth his salt can do it, & I refuse to be made unhappy worrying about no hopers. I drive a beautiful old sports car. Its not particularly valuable, & I did have to build it myself out of 2 wrecks, I bought at auction, but I love it, & it makes me happy. I am happy when it rains, & I am happy when its a lovely sunny day. Its easy to be happy, just live your dreams, & if you don't have any left, live someone else's, its almost as good.

Silent Minority,

QUOTE: Does a desire not to always have the latest knicknacks and gizmoes, make one a socialist?

RESPONSE: Wanting to redistribute other peoples hard earned wealth is the hallmark of socialism. Whether you own a plasma screen or not is irrelevant. I personally do not own a plasma screen and I drive a 15 year old car. It is you rather than I that seems keen to confuse socialism with a desire to avoid meaningless gizmoes in your life.

I am happy for people to recognise that materialism does not make you happy. This is enlightened progress. However I am not happy when honestly acquired wealth is forceably redistributed in the name of creating a "happier" society. That is socialism and that is a fount of misery and a sure way to undermine community and goodwill.

Regards,
Terje.

P.S. it should be noted that you are not silent so your unreal name is a little odd

Terje, You are quite right a redistribution of wealth, certainly does not make us any happier, it just makes our nation a fairer place to live, but from your posts, you would probably have to get your dictionary out to look up the word "fairer" as it seems to be a foriegn concept to you, that everyone should fulfill their responsibility to pay for the upkeep of this nation, and narrow the gap between rich and poor.

Oh dear Terje, it seems you have missed the point and the humour in my post. I actually don't believe in socialism myself. I am not confusing socialism with not having the latest knick nacks. Some people posting seem a little hasty to write some of us off as lefties, commos, or whatever, due to views which may differ from theirs. That's what I was having a little joke at. I have some little knicknacks myself, just not the latest ones. As I said in an earlier post of mine in this thread...

" :P) I guess its "what ever makes you happy", to use an old cliche."

We work hard and want to enjoy little luxuries from time to time, and theres nothing wrong in that. No doubt you have worked hard for what you have, but there's no need to worry. I don't want it... i have my own stuff. People need to calm down a little. Debate is good, and thats why I am hear, but a laugh or too is good for debate. Don't you agree?

Smile :)

SM

hee hee ..... spot the bad spelling in my last post and I will send you a nice big teddy bear to hug and watch your plasma screen TV with :P

QUOTE: Terje, You are quite right a redistribution of wealth, certainly does not make us any happier

RESPONSE: I am glad we agree on that much. A lot of people seem to think that the government can give them things and that it will make them happier. That the poor merely need a little material charity and then their lives will be all sweet.

QUOTE: it just makes our nation a fairer place to live

RESPONSE: Not if its done by force. The government creates an injustice when it forces the redistribution of honestly created wealth. If it was done by any institution other than government we would rightly call it theft or extortion.

QUOTE: it seems to be a foriegn concept to you, that everyone should fulfill their responsibility to pay for the upkeep of this nation

RESPONSE: Under the present system not everybody pays for the upkeep of this nation. Are you advocating a poll tax?

It is very difficult for many of us to really get the point about "happiness".

The original article had it about right - happiness is to a great extent the absence of those factors that cause unhappiness. However those factors are all psychological. The extent to which a person's happiness is caused or prevented by the presence or absence of material possessions or financial wealth (whether absolute or relative) is just a symptom of the psychological constraints they develop over their lives - the 'demon' attacks that we have, the seven deadly sins, the pathological structure of our personality, developed to protect us from the arrows and barbs of relationships, and so on. (if you've not already, study some Horney, Jung or the I Ching to dig deeper)

True happiness comes from no longer being subject to and limited by our 'hang-ups'. Whether that comes with or without wealth, because of it or in spite of it, is immaterial. The happiness we develop and sustain from within by fundamentally and permanently changing the way we perceive the world and how we relate with it . . thats the true happiness. Unfortunately, as mere mortals, and especially as adolescences, we are seduced by the allure of 'things' and many of us never get the chance to experience the lasting happiness that Kay spoke about in her experience. But those who do find the true happiness build an internal foundation that raises one above society's distractions.

It is thus clear that Government can never create happiness for its constituents. However, to the extent that it promotes economic expansion (especially selectively) at the expense of social growth and development, it delays that time when we can all learn to focus on and find real happiness - the self-actualisation that one scribe mentioned.

Government and happiness.... well John Howard has never struck me as anything but a shrewd, miserable bastard intent on making the rest of us into just that.

You don't need a lot to be happy! This is true to a certain extent. But who can be happy working two jobs just to put a roof over your famlies head, food on the table and pay the bills. Many people work more hours today than they did 30 years ago and it,s not all due to wealth creation. I know a $30000 a year income in 1980 dollars used to get you a small house and supported a family quite comfortably. Today you would be lucky to get a caravan. Politicians do not believe in family life and decent working hours they believe in more hands to create more goods for less pay. It has been happening for too long and people are fed up. I would rather time at home rather than time at work....... Doesn't everyone?

I suspect that people work harder because the tax burden is higher and because land zoning ensures that cheap accomodation is minimised. In both cases I blame government regulation.

Terje, No mate I am not advocating a poll tax, only the theory of rights and responsibilities, is it so wrong that a storeman should pay 20% of his/her income in tax, while a billionaire pays $25,000 in income tax due to loopholes? I would be happy if the billionaire only paid 20% of income, as the storeman does, it comes under the heading of fairness mate, I can guess your reply, the billionaire pays a much higher rate, yes true, but the storeman can not claim any deductions, whereas the billionaire can, and does, is this your idea of fairness? I assume you are not a billionaire, but I'll bet pounds to a peanut, you defend the billionaire.

If you are talking of income tax then you should talk about people on income x, y or z. Being a billionare refers to wealth not income. If you are saying that you would prefer a wealth tax instead of income tax then come out and say so. I'd be happy if we abolished income tax and replaced it with a general land tax.

If you run a company that earns a billion dollars per year but it has expences of $900 million per year then of course you should only pay tax on the difference. Every business big or small deducts expences in this manner. At the end of the day shareholders care about profits not revenues.

Likewise if you run a company that earns a billion dollars per year but has expences of $1.2 billion per year then you should not pay any taxes in that year as you are running a loss.

I might even agree with you but we will never know until you get more specific in what you advocate.

Qoate

Travelling on the British Airways Concord made me happy. Visiting my father in England every year makes me happy. Flying around the world First Class (on multiple occasions; to America, Spain, Germany, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, Greece, England, Serbia, Portugal, Thailand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand) made me happy. Reading new books makes me happy. Buying a new laptop makes me happy. Buying really nice looking home and furniture makes me happy. Going out to dinner in silk pants and Prada shirt a few nights a week; makes me feel happy. I enjoy coming home, messing about on the internet and playing some music (on my $5000 PowerBook), having a fanastic dinner then retreating to the most comfortable couch anyone could ever own and watching "Lost" in High Definintion on a 1920x1200 pixel plasma panel. These things make me feel great. This life is heaven, I couldn't imagine anything better (I don't even have to, that's how good it is). I have great meals; a variety of fruit, vegetables, nuts, breads, meats, basically an abundance of food (I enjoy ALL food; there is nothing I don't eat unless it's low quality and crap like McDonalds). I have a fantastic girlfriend, my health; I swim 2km a day, great sex, great teeth, body etc. All these things cost me a heap d by images of perfection. I have zero hardship. I love being alive and I love this capitalist and globalised world I live in.

yah yah yah yah!! all good untill ya come down with cancer, or god forbid worst reality check money dont buy ur health hope you keep tapping wood there :)

Was that a straw man

strayan:

you seem like one of those people who are convinced that "life smiles on me."

it would be interesting to take away your plasma screen and silk pants and see how you fair. it seems as though you have discovered what many would call 'animal happiness', and I can assure you that it doesn't last

Terje, You make a fair point, I'm assuming that a billionair earns more, much more than a storeman, I refer to the billionaires income, not the fact that he/she is a billionaire. I don't much care what type of tax is used, as long as the billionaire, which I assume has an income of at least millions per annum, pays at least as much as a storeman. A wealth tax would stifle the notion of enterprise, and I would not like to see that happen, however I would like to see the wealthy pay more than 25% of their earnings in tax, as reported in News newspapers today. I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE A SOCIALIST, THOUGH MANY IN THIS FORUM DO. All I ask is for those who make their wealth from this country, to be responsible enough to pay their fair share of the taxation burden, which is what every P.A.Y.E. employee does. My contention is if you are wealthy, you can afford to pay a little bit extra, please correct me if you think I am wrong.

Shonga,

Billionairs are a tiny proportion of our economy. I have no problem what so ever with the concept that they should pay their taxes just like the rest of us. However we have a progressive taxation system that from next years says you are filthy rich if you earn $125,000 per annum. That does not seem to be a policy targeted at Billionairs. It seems to be targeted at professionals. In essence it is targeting the working classes.

As I said I would be happy to abolish income tax and replace it with a federal land tax. That would approximate a wealth tax. And it would literally tax those who profit from this great land.

Regards,
Terje.

Terje; Mate I would be happy with "any" form of tax, where the wealthy paid their fair share, and I agree with you re $125,000 p.a. these days is not rich, a miner can earn that, let alone a professional. Why is it that Governments of both political persuasions, don't clamp down on the "real" wealthy? Is it because if they do the wealthy, who are usually media tycoons, or oil barrons, take out an advertising blitz against that particular party, to convince the apathetic electorate that is is somehow criminal to tax them, and would lead to dire circumstances. I am on a low income less than $40,000p.a. and am looking not for tax cuts, but for services like health and education for the tax I pay, those services which have either been cut, or exist on unfair formula's. Do you think my aspirations, unreasonable...

On the matter of tax, the purpose of taxes is to benefit the public interest, not to punish people. A uniform tax system is discriminatory in that it treats unequals as equals. Rather than construing a progressive tax system as being one which penalises people for working harder, I think of it as a tax system which gives concessions to those who need them.

Eugene, your point would be valid if the tax system had something to do with willingness to work, hourly income etc rather than gross income.

The current system does not take enough factors into account to ever come near being fair. It is based on a model that does not represent reality. Should I pay more tax working full time than the person who is able to meet their needs/wants by working fewer hours? I think not. The current tax system will never be able to judge fairly between the needs of people or the capacity to pay of those individuals.

R0bert

Good point Robert,
Wealth does not create happiness, but if you earn your wealth by an exchange of trade and effort, then guilt by others is an attempt to steal your property or your wealth, those that steal others wealth by deception and fraud, and not earned by trade and or effort are the unhappy ones, and make excuses for that psychological depravity they themselves created.
That brings everyone to the point of Taxation, and the modern day postmodern way of de-mutualisation of its original intent and now represents that exact depravity of those with the lesser ability to make an effort or attempt to earn, but to steal and defraud you of it. Looters-Not by Gun, but by law. “At the moment” things change in a de-mutualised society quit rapidly. The looters have found new ways to conn you.
Fight it- and understand what it is that is attacking us. The coined expression of : “Whistle or you Loose it” has new meaning.The Looters and Moochers gripp is tight.

Wealth does not equal happiness? I bet you could at least be sad in comfort.