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.

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.

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.

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

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"

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