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

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.

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

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)

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

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.