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.

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

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?

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.

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..

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.