The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Yes - we will feel better if we are taxed more. It's true! > Comments

Yes - we will feel better if we are taxed more. It's true! : Comments

By Owen McShane, published 30/12/2005

Owen McShane argues higher taxes will not engineer greater societal happiness.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Thankyou Owen McShane.

What you have said in this article should be bleeding obvious. However the "Happy Tax" proponents have been out in force recently so it really needed to be said.

Our current high levels of taxation are more akin to madness than happiness. Give us back the tax burden from the 1950s and 1960s any day.
Posted by Terje, Friday, 30 December 2005 12:47:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In recent days I have read a number of "letters to the editor" all asking for 'no more tax cuts', 'put my taxes toward better health, hospitals, education'.
I support this attitude.
With a budget surplus of $18m, use of public monies (tax) to increase availability of public services. This will also increase employment.
To alliviate the "Great Depression' US president Truman, embarked upon a huge revitalisemnet of the economy by spening 'public money' on public infrastructure, and thereby increasing employment.
Australia needs to review its spending programs. Put more money in public services and more people will be happy.

A good society is one where people were as happy as possible and the best (government) policy one that made the most happiness. (Bentham)

It is the responsibility of our governments to make everyone as happy as possible.

Australians pay very little tax compared to other OECD countries.
The problem lies with the government NOT spending the public monies for the betterment of the public who contribute.
Posted by Coyote, Friday, 30 December 2005 12:56:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anybody got any idea how many people pay additional tax above and beyond what is assessed?
My guess is that the figure would be very close to 0.
Anybody who does not pay additional tax above and beyond their assessement clearly does not believe additional tax is a good thing (or they are trying to get somebody else to pay for their wants).

I'll take the tax cut thanks and avoid the extra services, those who want the extra services are more than welcome to return tax cuts to the government (and maybe a little additional bonus) to be spent on extra services.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 30 December 2005 1:03:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Owen,
Is your article actually saying that the left want the wealthy to pay tax instead of avoiding it, for the betterment of the community at large. If so this would be a good thing, the average wage earner cannot avoid paying tax, even if they wanted to, however the wealthy get deductions and legal loopholes to avoid tax. Therefore the employee in essence subsidises their employer.
The general public have been consistantly asking for increased services rather than tax cuts for years, what good is a tax cut to the average working family, they only gain enough money to pay for privatised services, that they have already paid their tax to recieve.
With the Howard surplus of $11 Billion which is really only collected tax which has not been spent on the very services the public are asking for, surely they can put more funding into health and education, for the great bulk of the population. They seem to have no trouble syphoning funding off to their mates, as expressed in another thread using the example of aid money to the Solomon's
It's time the population reclaimed ownership of their government, and insisted on a fair go. We pay tax to have services returned, the services get privateised, we still pay our tax, so in reality it is a user pays, then pays again system, one that leaves those on low to average income families floundering in poverty, although they are good citizens who HAVE paid their responsible share of tax.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 30 December 2005 1:58:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s little wonder that the Left has been left behind – they never have any new ideas. Take from the rich and give to the poor so that eventually the country and everyone in it is stuffed. That’s what they have always believed in, and that’s why socialism is almost non-existent now. It just does not work!

The Left philosophy is based on doom, gloom and envy. Nothing will ever make them happy
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 30 December 2005 4:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh

A typically simplistic and innacurate argument of the right.

Europe is shifting left, Scandanavia by balancing socialism and capatlism has arguably produced more successful societies than US,UK and perhaps even Aus.

The left is more concerned with reducing the extremes seen in most right wing societies and as the weekness's of uncontrolled capitalism are exposed I see Australia moving further to the left, eventually.

Yes socialism may be dead but for me a middle path between the left and right side of politics is the only humane, sustainable way to progress society.
Posted by pancho, Friday, 30 December 2005 5:29:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought the essay was a poorly researched and shallow argument in support of low taxes. It’s rather simplistic to assume that Tax levels alone are a direct cause of unhappiness today relative to the 50s.

The perception one holds of ones conditions of life are probably more important than the actual conditions themselves. For example if a person is found living under a heavy burden of household chores, high living costs relative to income, and restricted access to education/healthcare then one is more likely to be unhappy if these conditions are perceived to be less than the ordinary or expected experience of life.

The author claims the left is concerned with equal pay for all. My understanding of the left is that they are more concerned with providing equal access to basic needs and services – food, shelter, meaningful work, education and healthcare and minimization of the extremes seen in right wing societies of a constant downward pressure on the minimum wage and upward spiral of bloated executive salaries etc.

Reality TV may be an interesting and entertaining exercise but is an ineffective way to compare the relative happiness of different periods of human history. The quality of life in any time and place has more to do with the social/cultural environment of the day than the material surroundings and activities.

Arguing that poverty is seen to be increasing because of the way we measure poverty may be hypothetically possible but until such a time as Bill Gates and his key staff (or similar) do move to your locale I would continue using the accepted method of “half the average income” as a reasonable measure of poverty.

Television, radio, billboards and other media bombard us with messages encouraging materialism and a news media fixated on violence is more likely to be the cause of unhappiness than is higher taxes.
Posted by pancho, Friday, 30 December 2005 5:57:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree Pancho.

Any for anyone who really thinks the left is dead, take a look at Latin America.

Venezuela, Cuba, Brazil, Paraguay, Uraguay, and now Bolivia. The Left is far from dead.
Posted by Linda, Friday, 30 December 2005 6:08:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,
As seen by following posts from pancho and Linda, you are wrong again as usual. I was not advocating anything except that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes, do you have a problem with the wealthy meeting their social obligations? If so why, every P.A.Y.E taxpayer meets theirs. The tired old catchcry of the right wing, the politics of envy, is absolute rubbish, I am talking about a fair go for all, not just the few. I suggest you find fairness in your dictionary, if you are not sure what it means. If the rich paid their "fair share" of tax [not a penny more, or less] the extra revenue would provide basic services for the population, whom the rich exploit, in order to become, and stay rich, surely that's not too much to ask. I may not be the most educated, the most knowledgeable, or the most politically astute on this site, however I have 50 years of experience in the school of hard knocks, and have graduated with honors, despite all the right wing ooblygook, I do know "fair" from "unfair" and it is unfair that the people in society who meet their responsibilty in the tax field are low and middle income families, while those who are better able to pay, do not. Mind you the rich can still partake in all the public facilities, that we the responsible have paid for without making a contribution, [deleted for flaming].
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 30 December 2005 9:57:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was happier in the 60s. Why was I happier in the 60s?
Well, as a young bloke, on a bit less than the average wage, I payed only 7.5% tax, that helped. I also payed only 4.25% interest on my home loan, that helped a lot. I even got to claim that interest, & my hospital & medical benefits payments, as a tax deduction.
Yes, life was good. I could pay off my house, have a couple of nice cars, not new, but nice, for me, & my wife, who did not work, & we could race our sailing skiff on saturdays, all on less than the average wage.
Lets see you do that today.
There were reasons why I did not have to be taxed out of my ability to support a family.
We had a public servant , at the tax office taking a little bit out of my pay, but we did not have another one to pay my doctor for me,
& another to pay my hospital bill
Or another one to give me back a bit in Aus study, when my kids went to school. Or another one to give my wife some spending money in supporting parent benifit, if she stayed home. We were able to work these things out for our selves, with out an army of public servants to do it for us.
You see, back then we did not believe that people were "entitled" to a high standard of living, just because they were born. They were expected to work for it.
We did not give a single mother public housing, & a nice pension, while the couple next door, with 2 kids & a mortgage, both go to work to pay for her privilege. She was expected to do a bit to pay for her chosen life style. Bludging was not such a comfortable life style back then.
This country would be a lot happier if we went back to some of the old values, with a bloody site less inefficient services & entitlements.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 31 December 2005 1:28:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree wholeheartedly with the author.

Strangely, I have always believed “happiness”, in monetary terms, is derived from

Knowing that decisions I make and “fund” for myself are better tailored to my desires and needs than those which would be made by some faceless government bureaucrat miles away who does not know me or my individual circumstances.

Happiness is not “economic security” and “economic security” is not happiness.

Strength of self esteem and self worth are what drive happiness and issues of personal financial security.

So how do we deliver on Self-Esteem?

Well government cannot supply it. Governments can only operate as “collectively objective” and "self esteem" is “individually subjective".

Not even Parents supply it, although they are closest and can plant the seeds for it.

We each, as individuals, have to find it within ourselves by making our own decisions and "growing" through the experience of those decisions.

Want a happy life?

Don’t look to other people to supply it, least of all government.

Want a happy life?
Be “Independent” and love unconditionally.
Rather than “co-dependent”, looking to offer only conditional love.

Robert I Agree – User Pays is best because “User who Pays” is the one who most “Values” the quality of their decision.

Pancho “Television, radio, billboards and other media bombard us with messages encouraging materialism”

And that’s a bad thing?

Better to be able to make individual spending decisions than the “socialist collective” model,

The USSR “socialist system” was where the shops had bare shelves and with money in your pocket you had nothing to spend it on.
I heard of refugees who “Escaped” the “socialist paradises” of eastern Europe and broke down when they saw supermarkets with selves stocked with fresh fruit, meat, bread and other “materialist consumer products”.

As Margaret Thatcher said

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 31 December 2005 7:23:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hasbeen, Col, excellent posts.

I still have not seen anybody admitting to paying more tax than required, it seems that opponents of lower taxes think the tax formula is perfect or they want others to pay for their wants.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 31 December 2005 7:52:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OOOOO, Brother, beam me up Scotty:
Where does Tax come from?
When you have destroyed the intelligence that provides Motivation and ethics –when they are gone- What do you have left to Tax?
When you have destroyed motivation for reward of effort, Honor and ethic’s: where would the base for Tax to come from :is?
When total Idealism of Entitlement other than effort, reward failure, criminalize success- de sensitize truth- create misery and worship it; where is the economy to take Tax from? There is no more reward only misery, so get stuffed. Hmmmmm.
Good Idea, Lets crank up the money making machine at the mint and double the output of Money?
Money can not by you Intelligence nor can it by you reason on Morals.
OOO brother of the Ideological weapon of mass destruction, no need for atomic or chemical weapons, the time has arrived and Looters are to much in abundance, Now where is the Tax coming from to fund Utopia?
The Marxist weapon of mass destruction hard at work, a newer intellectual depravity and terrorist’s working hard at it.
Why do they not, just get a job and earn their worth?
Why should They, when they can take yours worth. Then what?
Posted by All-, Saturday, 31 December 2005 8:48:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shonga,

Just because you and a couple of others disagree with me doesn't make me wrong, sport. If you could manage to read a bit of history you would find that I am completely correct. You are one of the rudest, most ignorant people to ever appear in this forum - and the dumbest.

Like all those of your ilk, you think your illiterate abuse of anyone with whom you disagree is heroic and effective. It is not. You are ill-bred and offensive, and nobody could possibly take you seriously.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 31 December 2005 9:05:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Although I agree with the general philosophy of the article, I believe that lower taxes are not necessarily the way to increased happiness. What is needed is VOLUNTARY taxes. The mad lefties, who think taxation is great, could pay their taxes, and the rest of us could find better things to do with our money. All you would need to do would be to enact that any taxation official who engaged in coercive or threatening behaviour toward any taxpayer would be guilty of the crime of demanding money with menaces. Hopefully the privatisation of the universities over the next few years will lead to the retrenchment of a lot of the mad lefties there, and they might then have to do an honest days work for a change. As to the comment that the left is never satisfied, I would remind you of the statement by a thirties politician who said: "We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".
Posted by plerdsus, Saturday, 31 December 2005 10:27:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Was the point of the article that people shouldn't care about wealth inequality because even the poor have VCRs and big-screen TVs?

- Very "Brave New World". My delta drones, go back to your soma (Big Brother?)

Or, was the point that high taxation somehow caused women after the 50s to go earn money income (nothing to do with Women's Liberation or excessive materialism apparently!). And that is the cause of modern societal unhappiness.

- So, if we drop taxes, the little women will all stay at home and bring hubby a nice cold beer when he returns from the office :)

My feeling is that there should be explicit societal goals, such as,

- providing good education, regardless of family wealth
- promoting good health and wellbeing
- improving our shared spaces (not everyone stays at home all day)
- minimise our impact on the natural environment (to pass onto our inheritors)

These kind of goals cannot be met without taxation and redistribution through community spending. Whether taxes are too high or too low depends on whether we are meeting these goals
Posted by Dr J, Saturday, 31 December 2005 1:28:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok,

firstly, I am not entering this discussion to win/lose but to gain more understanding. If you want to respond by being offensive, that is your problem, not mine. Secondly, the post is too long, so I'm going to have to send it in parts.

Owen, there are several presumptions in your article that need challenging.

"As for me, frankly, other people’s wealth does not make me feel bad at all. I accept they have made other choices."

Most of the wealthier people I know get given freebies by other rich people. I don't see what that has to do with choices that they made. It did make me feel bad when I was struggling to provide basics and someone else wants me to share happiness at the lovely furniture their rich rellie has just given them. Although several years later when I had a decent standard of living myself in an identical situation I didn't feel bad. I felt happy for them, even though I will work for everything I have and have never been given anything.

Or they are given financial support through Uni and hence on to a better life, while the rest of us have to figure out how to do the impossible. I can earn enough money to pay for Uni, but then I don't have time to study.

"But these new, high-tax advocates believe the way to stop me from feeling bad about the rich is to tax the high earners more, so bringing everyone back to a similar income. This, they believe, would reduce envy. Hence we’d all be happier."

"On the second point, my own research shows high taxes make some people spend too much time at work - trying to get back what the state has taken away from their spouses. But these new, high-tax advocates believe the way to stop me from feeling bad about the rich is to tax the high earners more, so bringing everyone back to a similar income. This, they believe, would reduce envy. Hence we’d all be happier."
Posted by Linda, Saturday, 31 December 2005 2:04:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the main issues here is that big business rules, not government. This means that the rich and powerful basically get enormous tax concessions. The average bloke feels highly aggrieved, and rightly so. Our brand of democracy is nowhere near true democracy. The same goes for nearly every purported democracy. In fact, this wrest of power is the major problem with democracy per se.

It is just one of many parameters that has got steadily worse, and will continue to worsen as resource and environmental stress on our society worsens.

One of the basic roles of government is to balance this out-and-out profit-driven empire-building momentum with its negative effects on the community. That’s the essence of democracy. But of course they don’t do it, and couldn’t even if they wanted to, which they mostly don’t.

If everyone paid their fair share, on a sliding scale so that the rich pay proportionally more, then the vast majority of us would be paying a whole lot less tax, for the same level of community services. Of course, this is how our tax system is purported to work, but in reality, it is entirely different.

How can we expect people to be as happy as they were in the 50s or 60s when we constantly hear of big businesses making obscene profits and paying their CEOs and top execs huge amounts of money while cutting jobs? Why are our basic community services such as health and tertiary education being squeezed tighter and tighter while the tax burden remains high? Why are we being constantly told that we have to grow, and at an ever-faster rate, or else we’ll go into economic decline? Etc etc.

The amazing thing is not that unrest and general unhappiness has increased, but that it hasn’t increased much much more.

What on earth is this 11billion$ surplus about?? Why haven’t Howard and Costello returned the majority of it to the community in terms of much-needed improved services?? What does this huge surplus say about their management of our economy and tax regime?
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 31 December 2005 5:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 2, still to Owen: In your research, who are the people who "spend more time at work trying to get back what the state has taken away from their spouses?" I am an advocate of increasing taxes on the higher income brackets, not to "stop anyone feeling bad about the rich" or particularly to "bring everyone back to a similar income" (although I don't think that is such a bad idea) but to spread the costs of society more proportionally and fairly.

I think the term "envy" is frequently misused when what is really being described is resentment. I do not envy - and hence desire to be like, the rich. I resent their disproportionate aquisition of our collective resources - at the expense of others. Thirty thousand children die every day from lack of access to food and simple medical aid. (UNESCO). Our distribution of resources is unfair.

"Similarly, if we knew that working hard did not add to income we would all spend less time working - and be much happier. This assumes most of us hate our work."

Or it assumes that to balance out the equation of having a split between underemployed and overemployed people, it would be better to share the work.

Or it assumes that when we spend a disproportionate amount of our time working we neglect children, partners, sick and frail dependents, neighbourhood activities, civic duties etc.

"By 2001, many luxury goods, which did not exist in 1970, for example large-screen televisions, answering machines, VCRs and microwave ovens, were commonplace in households - even in those below the poverty line. If these figures are evidence of the failure of capitalism, what would count as success?"

Access to adequate healthcare? Ability to afford transport in order to leave an area about to be devastated by a cyclone? No homeless people?

What Terje says doesn't make much sense to me. We don't live in the 50s & 60s anymore. We need to do the best we can in each era, and this response is too simplistic I think.
Posted by Linda, Sunday, 1 January 2006 12:11:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wyndham Lewis can add some perspective to the Fascist state Control (TAX)
http://www.gingkopress.com/_cata/_lite/_codehea.htm

http://www.gingkopress.com/_cata/_lite/wl-artru.htm

Even this publication of years gone by. What is now is not new; it is how they hypnotize the community in to believing in the greater lie of Social Justice or equity- put some thought in to it- Equity is what? And Justice is what? Not much of any lately.
Just more money funneled into the pockets of the Looters and Moochers.
The more they get - the more they steal, why do people not understand what is happening - or is it they do not want to understand?
The same phenomena exists in some corporate dealings- NOT ALL- note the people behind the charter and their ability to achieve buisiness objectives with out the aid of Tax and Managerial positions are degraded by lesser intellectuals bent on looting that organization and not uphold the integrity of the very buisiness they engage.
It is not hard to figure out what a Fascist state is protecting, and it is not you and me.
Posted by All-, Sunday, 1 January 2006 5:29:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda (welcome) & Ludwig - sane and excellent posts.

I too am concerned by the restraining of resources for too few. We can afford to train and educate people without HECS and to re-establish apprenticeships.

Under the current scheme of overpaid CEO's, inadequate staff at ground level - to simply raise taxes won't work. Owen is correct there. However, a trade surplus not being reinvested into Australia's infrastructure is an insult to all workers.

The point of government is to govern not to act as company directors. We desperately need investment into health, education, sustainable environment/energy and public transport. The money is there - no need for higher taxes, just the need for commonsense application of the wealth we already have.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 1 January 2006 8:18:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 3: Coyote's response directly contradicts Terje's saying that Australian tax is comparatively low. I suspect that this might be more accurate. For myself, the high level of social services provided in the Scandinavian countries are something to aspire to.

R0bert's response contradicts itself - the very people who need the social services are the ones who do not have the resources to pay for them. It is about redistribution of a (small) amount of resources from those who have the capacity to generate income/wealth for the benefit of all. How is a drug addict supposed to come up with the resources to fund a rehabilitation program? Don't we all benefit if there are less suffering people in our midst? Or is R0bert one of the people who 'doesn't care' about the suffering of others? That is the only explanation I can find for his position. Maybe R0bert has had very little contact with suffering in his life?

And I do remember several years ago a man who tried to pay extra tax but the ATO wouldn't take it.

Shonga - all sounds reasonable to me. No callousness or cruelty there. In case y'all hadn't guessed by now - yes I'm a woman, and a mother, and I work in the health sector, so all 'round CARING about other people is important to me. In fact I consider it to be a measure of another human being, how well they are able to CARE about fellow human beings.

Now Leigh: "Take from the rich and give to the poor so that eventually the country and everyone in it is stuffed." - like Scandinavia Leigh?

"That’s what they have always believed in, and that’s why socialism is almost non-existent now. It just does not work!" like I said before Leigh - take a look at Venezuela.

"The Left philosophy is based on doom, gloom and envy. Nothing will ever make them happy"

'A true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love' Che Guevara
Posted by Linda, Sunday, 1 January 2006 9:42:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda,Ludwig,Scout,
Thank you all for your views, it is nice to know that I am not alone, and that there still are compassionate people out there who are concerned about others as well as themselves, not ONLY themselves.

I expect to be pasted by Leigh, and others of his/her ilk, however that's politics, if that worried me I wouldn't be here. It is amazing how much flack one recieves, when you merely suggest that the rich should actually be responsible, and pay their taxes as the rest of us do.

Apparently the attitude that everyone should shoulder their responsibilty is a left wing socialist, markist,communist, reprehensible idea to some, to me it comes under the heading of "a fair go"
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 2 January 2006 12:58:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's been some very 'interesting' suggestions on this forum. I'm curious as to whether in a system of voluntary taxation, whether those who chose not to pay tax would shun the services available thanks to those who did. I'm also curious about whether, for example, a person with cerebal palsy would qualify as a "bludger" and not be entitled to welfare payments as that would be their "chosen life style".

Personally, instead of giving money back to the tax office, I donate money and goods to charity, an action that seems more necessary by the minute.

Tim
Posted by Timmy83, Monday, 2 January 2006 2:11:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are over taxed now this budget surplus proves it
Goverments ,yes state and federal waste far too much of our money now.
Welfare is plundered , and nothing is done about it.
My work day can be 17 hours I never know if I have a weekend or not yet my income is dwafed by the 2 car fammily on welfare and never to work if they have their way up the road.
Help the needy never the greedy
Posted by Belly, Monday, 2 January 2006 6:05:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some here think that taxation should be used to equalise "individual differences", the talented and “rich” should pay for the less gifted “poor” to the point where the rich and poor are equal.

Others believe that taxes should be used only for those things we need but cannot supply in any practical sense, individually e.g. a road or infrastructure network or military defence force.

For those who see tax as a necessary evil imposed to fund only those absolute necessities, then the world is a simple place to live in. Pay your taxes and get on with the important things of life- like having fun and being happy.

For those who believe tax should somehow be used to equalise the inequalities between individuals, well, you have your work cut out for you. Not only are you concerned about how much tax you should pay but also how much everyone else should pay.
Then you have to worry about ensuring everyone else is paying their fair share and of course, of the poorer, how much subsistence should each receive to gove them “equality” with the (previously) rich. – So much to do, no time to “be happy”.

(Different views, different "Individuals").

Want to be happy or fulfilled?

You will never ever find “individually subjective happiness” or fulfillment in “collectively objective services”.

So, don’t bother to inflict pointless government and the taxes used to supply collectively objective services on us individuals who do not want them.

The Compassion argument – “compassion” is, by every definition, “subjective” (this is like Lindas Che Guevara quote - see below).

“Government”, is incapable of “subjectivity” and thus compassion. It does not have the discretion to distinguish between a worthy and unworthy recipient of service. It cannot look into the intent of the recipient, only the circumstances. Asking for “compassionate government” is to ask it to waste resources on the impossible.

Linda, Che Guevara might have said

“A true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love”

- so too are paedophiles !

- and that did not make it “right” for the victims of either.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 2 January 2006 6:22:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda, how much extra tax have your tried to pay? Simple question.
If the answer is "none of your business" or just none then my previous comments apply.

I am into caring, I'm not into the kind of solutions which governments come up with which are generally more destructive than helpful. As Col correctly points out governments don't do well where discretion is required either at the giving or the taking end of things. They work best with formula's which are unable to take a realistic account of the realities of someones life.

Those who continue to call for extra services while at the same time fighting any attempts to cut back in other areas are a significant proportion of the problem. In the meantime middle income earners are seen as a never ending source of revenue.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 2 January 2006 8:41:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 4 (halfway there): Hey Pancho - you would probably like to learn more about Hugo Chavez, current President of Venezuela. He started out looking for a 'middle way' between left and right. Several years of practice led him to the conclusion that replacing capitalism with socialism was the only way to achieve his goals. I too would like a middle way - I just don't think it exists.

Hasbeen's contribution: I'd say that was exactly what the left argues for - a proportionally reduced tax burden for those less able to afford it - ie 'less than the average wage', and even the 'average' wage.

I don't object to a state organised health care system though. At least then we make sure that everyone can access health care. I also think that Austudy is important, otherwise only kids from families with money can continue their education. Even the most conservative people cannot blame kids if their family doesn't have money? And supporting parent benefit (I assume you mean parenting payment) being 'spending money?' This is only paid to very low income households - where the partner is on Newstart or a low wage - and in some cases where the partner considers his earning 'his own' parenting payment can provide for essentials like food and medicine. Please do not trivialise it. Or are you talking about family tax benefit paid to almost all families to assist with the costs of raising children? Once again, many families depend on this - it's not just a bit of 'spending money'.

"You see, back then we did not believe that people were "entitled" to a high standard of living, just because they were born. They were expected to work for it.
We did not give a single mother public housing, & a nice pension, while the couple next door, with 2 kids & a mortgage, both go to work to pay for her privilege. She was expected to do a bit to pay for her chosen life style. Bludging was not such a comfortable life style back then." (comments next posting)
Posted by Linda, Monday, 2 January 2006 9:52:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge
"Some here think that taxation should be used to equalise "individual differences", the talented and “rich” should pay for the less gifted “poor” to the point where the rich and poor are equal."

I believe only hard-line socialists will push the line of “equalising” incomes and these hardliners are few and far between these days, however why shouldn’t those with the capacity pay more? A basic level of services should be available to all; denying a large percentage of the population basic services will only lead to a breakdown in the social fabric which allows us all to go about our business in relative safety. Just take a look at US society, sure it produces some success but a lot of suffering too.

I agree that those with talent do often achieve a high income however I know of many “gifted”, “talented”, intelligent people who through circumstance or choice find themselves suffering on very low pay (teachers, social workers/counselors, healthcare workers, anybody working in environmentally sustainable business). I also know a few dull plodders, who are doing quite nicely in financial terms because they are prepared to lie, cheat, steal or otherwise engage in unethical business practices for financial gain. The economy is not a perfect mechanism for distributing wealth and good government and taxation is one way to bring some balance to society.

“So, don’t bother to inflict pointless government and the taxes used to supply collectively objective services on us individuals who do not want them.”

Comments like this show little understanding of the human condition in my view. You may not want these services today but what about tomorrow, what about you’re your family, friends, colleagues, your community? Is it so difficult for you to put yourself in another mans shoes
Posted by pancho, Monday, 2 January 2006 11:01:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert
"In the meantime middle income earners are seen as a never ending source of revenue."

I agree. The government should begin working for all the citizens and not just big business. Business and high income earners should contribute more. $50 a week makes no difference an individual on $150k pa or business but it does to someone on $30k.

The economy should be structured in a way that provides us all with a decent standard of living and opportunity. When standards of living decline to below the poverty line and opportunity is non existent then those individuals have become no more than slaves to the economy or slaves to the powerful.

We are conscious beings, no longer animals and we control our social and economic environment. The sooner we all acknowledged this fact and stopped trying to return the economy to a ‘jungle like’ competition of survival of the fittest the sooner we will blossom to our full collective and individual potential.

Linda,
I understand Venezuela has a lot of social unrest and I know of no really successful socialist state though I understand the “middle way” of the Scandinavian states has been very successful. George Monbiot’s essay arguing against deregulation “Punitive and it works” (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/01/11/punitive-and-it-works/) compares Sweden and the UK society.
Sweden outperforms the UK by many measures including;
GDP: “In only seven years between 1960 and 2001 did Sweden’s per capita GDP fall behind the United Kingdom’s”.
Current Account Deficit: Sweden $10bn surplus, UK $26bn defecit.
Inflation: Sweden’s is lower than UK.
Life expectancy: Sweden 3rd highest in the world, UK 29th.
Access to technology: UK has 59 telephone lines and 41 computers per hundred people.
Sweden 74 telephone lines and 62 computers per hundred people.
Poverty: Sweden has 6.3% of population living below absolute poverty line for developed nations ($11 a day).UK has 15.7%

In my view the above stats support the argument for Australia shifting to a model more closely aligned with the Scandinavian “middle-way” to neo-liberal economies such as the US or UK.
Posted by pancho, Monday, 2 January 2006 11:44:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,
Well at least you are consistent, you consistenly misinterperate posts. Those of us who would like to see the rich pay tax, do not want to equalise anything, we simply want those who are most capable of making a contribution, to fullfil their responsibility.

I am unable to understand your inability to deal with the concept of responsibility, however it takes all kinds to make a world, and you are entitled to your view, however ignorant and misguided it is.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 2 January 2006 12:10:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting illustrations Linda

About the poor drug addicts. Bit of an extreme case, a tiny slither of the community are drug addicts and fewer would be if we were to execute drug dealers (as we should), “How is a drug addict supposed to come up with the resources to fund a rehabilitation program”

Most addicts services are paid for by their families but this one ignored that help, ending up in prison. That experience has had an effect. I believe he is trying to be straight, Christmas dinner in my house, he seemed to be seriously trying to stay clear of addictive substances and alcohol for fear of returning to a cell.

Latin America.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

If being murdered indicates a social advancement and role model, Latin America offers 3 places for countries in the top 10 with something to offer.

NationMaster.com, Happiness indices: There is stuff all difference between Australia and Scandinavia and Australia is certainly a lot happier than Latin America (excepting Venezuela – who might be happy murdering each other, above).

Looking at tax and happiness (Life satisfaction)

The article title “we will feel better if we are taxed more.”

I ran a correlation on the index for “Life satisfaction” and “Levels of Taxation”
The Ranking correlation (most satisfied to least satisfied and Most taxed to least taxed) was -29.7 and the value of life satisfaction to level of taxation was -31.9

Statistically, the hypothesis “we will feel better if we are taxed more.” Is FALSE.

Pancho, Regarding Tax and Life satisfaction, Sweden was taxed at 48.6% with a life satisfaction index of 7.5, Australia 23.1% and 7.3 respectively.

I do better than 0.2 improvement in life satisfaction from spending 25% of my gross income and so should you.

Shonga “responsibility” you are not responsible for me and nor am I for you.

“Ignorant and misguided?” on any measure of reasoning skill or individual performance, I will always better you. So where does that place you?
You overuse the words and project them like some zealot because “Misguided Ignorance” is all you have and all you are
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 2 January 2006 12:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pancho, thanks for the Monbiot link. Here’s one for Venezuela: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/

Part 5: (still to Hasbeen): Sole parenthood is not a high standard of living. Research released by Anglicare in Tasmania (where I live) one month ago showed that sole parent households were the poorest in community, measured by amongst other things, difficulty affording food. Public housing was much more widely available in the sixties and was not marginalised as welfare housing. For someone who is not used to paying for things for dependents, but used to considering all of their income 'their own' the sole parent pension may look 'nice', but the day to day practicality of supporting other people on it is not nice at all. The Anglicare research is called 'The Tasmanian Community Hardship Survey: Financial Hardship' by Kelly Madden and Margie Law if you would like to take a closer look.

"The couple next door, with 2 kids & a mortgage, who both go to work" are not "paying for her privilege." You have been fooled into thinking that disadvanted people are pitted against other disadvantaged people. Yes, we should allieviate the burden on the "couple next door". But not at the expense of the single mother. This is where increasing tax on the higher tax bracket comes from. We should collect resources that we need from where most of those resources are, not from where the least of them are.

"She was expected to do a bit to pay for her chosen life style. Bludging was not such a comfortable life style back then." Your ignorance is breathtaking. What chosen lifestyle is there in being deserted? Is having to leave an unsafe situation for the sake for the children a choice or a necessity? Is raising children bludging?
Posted by Linda, Monday, 2 January 2006 10:28:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda,

Why should the state be responsible for single mothers any more than it is responsible for single fathers? Why should welfare support for the needy be not at the expense of single mothers, single fathers, or anyone else more capable?

Single mothers should perhaps take a long hard look at themselves, their children, their situation, and events that lead them there.

It is one thing for the government to support these poor children, it is quite another for their mothers, to live off them.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 2 January 2006 11:41:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,
Lol!! You are a funny man, I am referring to your responsibility to society, I don't expect you to understand...

Have you heard the expression water off a ducks back...

It must be annoying to you that someone with a low IQ [111] like me can cancell out your vote, you would have to be an employer..
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 3:45:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To get back to Owen McShane's original article...

Take out the smart-alec irony/sarcasm; the ridiculous misrepresentations of 'leftists' and those advocating taxation and the conflation of Richard Layard's thoughts with the dreaded 'intellectual left' - any supporting examples of that group, Owen?); the straw man arguments ("they claim someone else getting rich makes us unhappy"); the pathetic invoking of those awful so called 'reality' shows as "best evidence" of life having got so much better (what this has to do with the issue of taxation, and how it can be adduced at all in the absence of the control group from long ago who has to journey to the future, is beyond me); the idiotic 'ownership of goods' line (was the colour TV really just a 'basic item' in 1970 while a VCR is a 'luxury good' today? Even the lower middle classes would laugh at this estimation of how much better off the hoipolloi are if they can't buy credit, land, houses, investment properties and shares - but note that no attempt is made by McShane or his source to demonstrate that that 'ownership' really brings greater 'happiness', which might actually have something to do with Richard Layard's book)... yes, take all this out and what have you got?

Incidentally, the official US Census Bureau statement for 2005 shows there are 37 million US citizens living below the OFFICIAL (and long recognised by both parties) poverty line, which for a household of 4 was US$19,350. I invite McShane not to travel back in time but to contemplate keeping a family of 4 going on roughly Aus$26,000 - VCR or no VCR.

McShane one moment invokes the 1950s as a better and happier time for common folk because taxes were lower, and the next is asserting that life is much better today for the same than it was even in 1970!

By the frivolous end, McShane had completely forgotten about his original subject. I had thought his article would be about taxation, but it turned out to be an incoherent rant, another opportunity for sarcastic disparagement.
Posted by Rapscallion, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 9:12:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 6 (still to Has been)Yes I know Australia and the world is full of ungrateful women who use men and then dump them, running off with the kids and living in the lap of luxury on maintenance payments for ever after, just I've never met one. Must live a sheltered life. Most of the women I know are single mothers. Been one myself for 15 years. Must be mixing with the wrong crowd. So like I said, if anyone can introduce me to (not just rave at me about) a single mother who "made a choice" simply to "bludge" please do.

Yes Col Rouge, materialism to the exclusion of all else is a bad thing. For more detail on this see the article "Enough Already!" about Archbishop Peter Jensen, by Andrew West in The Monthly (www.themonthly.com.au) where the Archbishop puts forward eloquent views on the pitfalls of materialism.

I think you are confusing essentials and choices.

"Knowing that decisions I make and “fund” for myself are better tailored to my desires and needs than those which would be made by some faceless government bureaucrat miles away who does not know me or my individual circumstances."

And what if you did not have the "funds"? Where is the choice then? Fine if we are talking about a TV screen, but not if it is food, housing, healthcare or education. State funded housing, healthcare and education does not need to take away choice.

"Want a happy life?
Be “Independent” and love unconditionally.
Rather than “co-dependent”, looking to offer only conditional love."

And "interdependence?" - individuals coming together voluntarily to form mutually beneficial organisations (family, co-operative, association etc) - where does that fit within your philosophy?

"Happiness is not “economic security” and “economic security” is not happiness." However economic insecurity is unhappiness. what a conundrum. Suggest Maslow's Hierachy of Needs could come in useful here.
Posted by Linda, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 12:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda, maybe you could start paying a bit more attention to the choices some of your "single mum" friends make rather than just their claims. Not many of those disturbed by the current so called child support arrangements are suggesting that lots of single mums are living "in the lap of luxury" from maintenance payments. Child support and the various government payments are not lap of luxury incomes but for many they beat working at paid employment.

- We are concerned that when a mother takes actions which remove the father from meaningful involvement in his childrens lives the mother is finacially rewarded for doing so. If she moves away (and takes the kids) thereby making shared parenting impossible she gets more money.
- We are concerned that the concept of "the childs best interests" is only paid attention to when it suits the needs of the mother.
- We are concerned that people still talk about "protecting women and children" as an excuse for the current maternal bias when about 42% of all substantiated abuse and neglect of children occurs in single parent female led households (with about 22% of children living in those households I think - could be slightly wrong on that).
- We are concerned about a system which seems to take no account of how someone gets to the situation which they are in when deciding what support they shall get regardless of the harm done to their children and the father of the children by those choices.

I don't know any single mums who would admit to milking the system, I do know a number who treat Child Support, FTB and the like as their primary income and top it up if necessary with a little bit of paid work. My ex and one of her friends have both stated at times that they are unwilling to consider a more more even split of residency because it would reduce their incomes.

So called Child Support which pays mothers to keep kids from their father is certainly not a tax which makes me any happier.
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 1:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I become concerned when people start to talk about wealth distribution, this means that the Elite Looters take more and you get less. When people start to talk about resource distribution, the same applies, you are talking State control, and that is bad new.
A more appropriate Taxation system would appreciate the well being of:
1. The Worker.
2. Employers who create work and produce.
A tax free threshold should be 50 thousand dollar’s single or double income, then 12 % increments up to 1000,00 and up to 500,000, Then you can apply 30 % tax and not higher.
Sack the State Governments, Re Engineer Local Governments to Professional status instead of tin pot dictatorial morons as we have now. Halve the Federal Bureaucracy , Employ competent professional, Sack any Idiot sprouting Lefties Garbage Looter and Moocher Ideology. Affirmative action and Agitprop terminated on the spot. Welfare goes to the Needy, The ones that need picking up, not the ones that need a good kick up the backside. And many kicked out. (You know who I mean) That would be a start people, get to work. Ha Then The Universities hmmm a lot of work there, need a lot of help to fix that problem.Pericles your in charge.
Start by terminating the real Looters- the real threat.
Posted by All-, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 1:57:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I say Terminate, I mean end the Legalized Larceny of others property- can not say Employment, for that would misrepresent the word. Employment would sound like they actually did something proper.
Just in case someone would assert another intent and misrepresent what was intended.
Posted by All-, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 2:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Owen,

So you don't like the intellectuals. What's wrong honey? Wouldn't they let you play with them? Poor little tot.

The trouble with intellectuals is that they like arguments to come in logical progression and for each point in a given argument to be related to all the other points. And for the final product to make overall sense. And a variety of reliable sources. Nasty, brutish devils, aren't they?

What, roughly, is the salary of the "Director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies in Kaiwaka, New Zealand" Owen? Enough to indulge in a little tax minimisation maybe?

Shonga,

I admire you more every time I read one of your posts whether I agree with you or not.
Posted by chainsmoker, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 4:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 7 (still to Col Rouge): Nice quote from Margaret Thatcher

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Does this mean freedom to also not be generous and compassionate? And can you have a society (didn't think MT believed in the existence of such) where the state takes bottom line responsibility for basics (such as housing, education and healthcare) without taking responsibility for everything? Or is all or nothing?

And then there's R0bert again: "I still have not seen anybody admitting to paying more tax than required, it seems that opponents of lower taxes think the tax formula is perfect or they want others to pay for their wants."

I am an opponent of lower taxes for high income brackets, and therefore do no think the tax formula is perfect. Yes I want others to pay (more), but for 'my wants'? That's a fairly ignorant way of describing it.

All-, sorry but your post is a little hard to understand. I get the gist of it, but it's a bit difficult to respond to particularly. I am sympathetic to Marxism, and I have a job, pay my way, support others, pay taxes and think that the world could be more fair. this seems to be in contradiction to what you are trying to say?

Leigh, what are you on about mate? Shonga suggested that your position wasn't fair, was incorrect, and that you probably inherited your view point from your parents. And s/he used the words 'right wing obbly gook'. For this you call her/him rude, ignorant, dumb, ill bred, and offensive and accused her/him of illiterate abuse? Come on.
Posted by Linda, Tuesday, 3 January 2006 10:56:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda, I have always believed in training people, & promoting them to the highest position they can achieve.
For this reason I have started a number of young people in their first job.
In one recent 10 year period I had 12 young women start their first jobs with a company I was running.
Of these, 5 chose to become pregnant, & go on a supporting parent benifit, rather than continue to earn their own living. This occurred in the first 3 to 8 months of employment.
They made no bones about it, they told their fellow workers that it was a knowing choice. They did not get pregnant by accident. They did not have boy friends they became pregnant with.
They set out to become supporting parents as a chosen lifestyle.
I do not know if they knew who the father was, & planned to claim support from them. I do know that there are doctors who have a system to get them onto a benifit as soon as they became pregnant. They did not stay at work once they were pregnant.
In my retirement I play with old cars. We all drive them, except my eldest daughter, who thinks we are mad. A local small business man paints them for me. His main business is buying cheep cars, doing them up, & selling them to the local kids, as first cars. A lot of his business is with single mothers, not deserted mothers, who have 2 or more kids. They have the second or third, as they know that welfare workers, will get them into public housing once they have 2 or more.
This is a life style choice, a misguided one, but still a choice, & I believe, we will see even more of it, with the new baby bonus.
I can not know, if you are too naive, or just too nice, to see this is happening, but it is happening in large numbers.
We should support them, but we must push them, very hard, to do better than sit on welfare, becomming unemployable.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 4:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda, OOOo no, of all the worst things to say: Karl Marx sympathizer: That is Blasphemy of reality.
I pray that if you read this link O L O has provided you may take the time to read some entries and links. You are a very reasonable person, I trust you may reconsider your sympathy and apply it to a more fitting entity worthy of such thoughts when you read and comprehend the falsehood of Marxism. From His mind and publications not anyone else’s.
About Half way down the page you might find interesting: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3963
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 2:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This piece really is one of the more fascile ones I have read.

It is worth noting with the passing Mr K Packer that he asserted any one who does not try to minimise taxes was stupid - and one of the resaons they should do so accordsing to Mr P was that they, Tax Dollars, are so poorly administered by government why give them any more than we have to.

The arguement these days should less about tax rates as it should be about governrnment accountability. The 11 bill plus surplus suggests there is plenty of money out there.

Strategically the feds will use it to offset any wage down turns when the the IR changes start to bite and or pork barrel.

The truth is there is scope for tax breaks together with improved infrastructure spending as well as recurrent spending insome portfolios.

We are tragically over governed with waste at every level - I know I will be pilloried for this but the ALP web site has identified in excess of a billion dollar of wasted public money last year alone by the Howard government - In my defence I would contend the same could be said of ALP governments both state and federally.

We let all parties off far to lightly when it comes to accounting for expenditure - the condemnation from the auditors general flows from them like water off a ducks back.

There is money in the system. We need to see it spent appropriately before we call for more tax - or even reform the tax system - as any reformation is predicatd on the assumption they are managing what we give them now.
Posted by sneekeepete, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 3:36:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen's little anecdote about 5 appalling single mothers on welfare ignores one of the new truths about Australian society - MIDDLE CLASS WELFARE is on the march. Why pick on the single mums getting their pittance? The implicit assumption is that someone who, according to Hasbeen, does nothing deserves nothing.

Truth is that we used to have in our midst the so called 'deserving poor'. Today, it's the middle class who believe they are the 'deserving', even if they have well paid jobs, 4wd monstrosities that are not subject to the same tax as humble cars, grandiose macmansions, plasma TVs, boats, swimming pools and so on. What they deserve, they believe, is the numerous tax concessions/rebates for families, the 30% rebate for private health coverage, the private school education for their children subsidised through tax revenue, toll-exempted freeways, first home buyers' rebates that can't be obtained by those with no capital etc. etc.

These are what the pollies have identified as the 'aspirationals' (euphemism for greed?). THEY 'deserve' whatever they can get (remember Latham's ghastly 'ladder of opportunity'?); those on social security aren't deserving because they are getting something for apparently doing nothing. It's a kind of 'downward envy' isn't it!

So perhaps those who feel the need to rant - even against the pathetic people who do become single mothers 'by design' - might consider that most middle-income people are getting just as much if not more from the taxpayer at the same time as they are leading the charge against taxation.

Many people today undoubtedly subscribe, tacitly, to the Packer maxim that it is your DUTY to mimimise or evade tax, at the same time as maximise largesse from tax revenue. Apparently this is legitimate, certainly 'legal'. It is hard to see the difference between doing that and thinking that you can legitimately subsist on the single mother's benefit.

In saying this I am not endorsing the state of mind that Hasbeen believes he/she has identified, just pointing out that it is pervasive in our society with its credit-driven economy.
Posted by Rapscallion, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 8:29:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rapscallion, if you read my earlier post, you would have seen, my main "RANT" was about having far too many Inefficient services, & entitlements, & thats mostly middle class welfare.
I am with you completely. Any welfare should be, one size fits all, & should only be for the realy needy. The unemployed, with a mortgage, requires just as much help, as the unemployed renter. But it must encourage all to move towards independence.
The present system, which has the unemployed effectively paying 75% tax, as they try to move back into the workforce, must be corrected.
However it is a problem which is hard to fix. We must not precipitate a position where 3 days work, with welfare is better than a real job.
I have seen sugar mills desperate for workers, while dole reciepents would not take the job, & I could not blame them. You see, when the mill closed again, in 6 or 7 months, the worker had to wait 6 weeks to be eligible for benefits, & he could not save enough, while working, to support his family for that 6 weeks.
I'm sure a couple of good accountants, with a couple of computers, could fix all the inequities, in a month or two, but while we have both Centrelink, & ACOSS, with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, there is little chance of improvement.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 4 January 2006 10:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
… and that is the point of the article Rapscallion.

Middle class welfare and Happy-Taxing go hand in hand (or more aptly perhaps, giving with one while taking with the other). I understand the author to be against Happy-Taxing; Hasbeen’s arguments are consistent with those views.

Most of us would prefer proper tax reform instead, but apparently our government is unwilling to deliver that much happiness within any one given parliamentary term. This is unfortunate because most of us did not vote in this government for its nanny state credentials.

Perhaps the current levels of middle class welfare help disguise our true levels of unhappiness.

By implication within recent government policy, we all want “something for nothing” and prefer to spend someone else’s money, especially when only lightly mixed with our own. State bureaucracy is best suited to determine our circumstances and needs. We are willing to pay insurance premiums to cover risk against relationship failure. We want independence from immediate and extended family. We want to be taxed as individuals, because we don’t want the sole responsibility of supporting any family structures, while the family home must remain sacrosanct. We must be allowed tax deductions.

The ad hoc implementation of above policies in apparently unrelated, knee-jerk and nonsensical combinations tends to dull the nausea one may feel as a biological private person on PAYE when comparing one’s overall tax rate with that of a company actual rates (even headline rate!). An arbitrarily imperfect market foisted on a captured and gullible populace.

Then I remember … we can vote, and we CAN leave.
Posted by Seeker, Thursday, 5 January 2006 12:03:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Part 8 (final) Plerdsus, hmmm. Now there's an idea that will really take off. Voluntary taxes. At the risk of sounding like a 'mad leftie' I must say it sounds like those best able to look after themselves do so and everyone else can rot in hell. Does it ever occur to you that those least able to look after themselves are children and those who take on the caring roles are impaired in their ability to fend for themselves? What kind of a world do you want to create?

And yes Dr J, I think you are on the right track. I'd just add housing to that list, and the opportunity to particiapte in collective decision making (government). Food could come under health. and taxes need to be distributed proportionally according to ability to pay.

I think that most of the people on this list want a more decent and humane world. Good luck to you. I go back to work in a couple of days, and I’ve got a house to curtain and some neighbourhood teenagers to ‘aunty’ between now and then, so I won’t be writing anymore. Nice ‘meeting’ most of you.

By the way, if anyone is interested in getting organised to DO anything about the good ideas that have come up in this discussion, just say so. I’ll come back in a couple of days to check.

Linda
Posted by Linda, Thursday, 5 January 2006 5:37:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker,

I take McShane to be anti-tax. 'Happy taxing' is just sarcasm, setting up a straw man argument against the legendary 'intellectual left'. Many writers from the 'intellectual right' rely almost solely on this derisive rhetorical/persuasive device now. The Labor party itself is currently leading the clamour for lower taxes; The idea of increasing tax levels is anathema in public discussion.

I think I know what you're saying about the middle class and tax, having heard it said ad nauseum that the 'middle class' have to shoulder most of the tax 'burden' (a pejorative term that frames all public discussion and sets the agenda) in Australia. It seems obvious: the rich can evade tax and the poor earn little, leaving the mass in the proverbial 'middle' to pay as they earn. But if you think in terms of 'middle income' instead of 'middle class', the tax 'burden' is differently distributed.

What IS middle income? Costello and the like seem to think, flexibly, that the 'middle income' group contains those who are paid quite a lot more than $100,000 pa. It's easy to stretch the arbitrary limits of this group at either end of the spectrum if it suits your political purposes. Not that long ago, incomes above $80,000 got something like $65 per week in 'tax relief' - now there's another self-serving pejorative term if ever there was one! - while the people at the bottom of the scale got $4.

Many of the self-perceived 'deserving' on 'middle class welfare' are very well off. Two thirds of all income earners get less than the 'average', and the median income (the true 'middle') is significantly less than the mean.

McShane's comments about 'envy' are all wrong. As I said, the 'aspirationals' don't feel envy for those richer; they aspire to be like them, with their bigger tax cuts.

By inverted reasoning, if you can acquire everything you want, even if it's via a government handout like the private health insurance rebate, that's in itself the proof that you've worked hard to get where you have.
Posted by Rapscallion, Friday, 6 January 2006 6:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Linda “And "interdependence?" - individuals coming together voluntarily to form mutually beneficial organisations (family, co-operative, association etc)?”

Oh interdependence, where individuals voluntarily come together is wonderful and has never required the dead hand of bureaucracy to work.

I observed in one of these threads recently, the “great lie” of socialism is take credit for individuals joining for mutual benefit, claiming it to be the result of “socialist organisation” at work. Reality, it is economic pragmatism and “capitalist” in nature of market forces.

For instance, I have just formed a company with someone else. He has skills which are totally different to my own. We will both benefit from deploying our common resources and different skills to maximise our mutual investment in the fruits of our separate research.

"Happiness is not “economic security” and “economic security” is not happiness." However economic insecurity is unhappiness. what a conundrum. “

Ah economic security – I often wonder what people mean by this – do they mean “security” or do they really mean “certainty”?
The nature of my work, I have very little economic certainty, however, I do I believe have a profound sense of economic security.

Security comes from believing one has a solution to ones financial challenges. Economic certainty is to know how much one will have in the future. The best any government will provide is the lowest level; of economic certainty. Living in a poverty trap might suit some but not me. I aspire to more than the pittance of the state handout and have strategies to ensure I will not qualify for the age pension.

So Linda, interesting as your dissertation might be, it offers no hope to anyone. It would assure suffering and poverty for all and my life is worth more than that. So I will work to be my best and be rewarded for same.
Along the way I may even create employment opportunities.

Darn it Shonga, an employer, your answer. I would employ people and without the employers inventiveness and risk taking, jobs would not be there to employ employees in.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 9 January 2006 7:46:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy