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.

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.

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].

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.

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.”

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