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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.