Part 8 (final) Plerdsus, hmmm. Now there's an idea that will really take off. Voluntary taxes. At the risk of sounding like a 'mad leftie' I must say it sounds like those best able to look after themselves do so and everyone else can rot in hell. Does it ever occur to you that those least able to look after themselves are children and those who take on the caring roles are impaired in their ability to fend for themselves? What kind of a world do you want to create?

And yes Dr J, I think you are on the right track. I'd just add housing to that list, and the opportunity to particiapte in collective decision making (government). Food could come under health. and taxes need to be distributed proportionally according to ability to pay.

I think that most of the people on this list want a more decent and humane world. Good luck to you. I go back to work in a couple of days, and I’ve got a house to curtain and some neighbourhood teenagers to ‘aunty’ between now and then, so I won’t be writing anymore. Nice ‘meeting’ most of you.

By the way, if anyone is interested in getting organised to DO anything about the good ideas that have come up in this discussion, just say so. I’ll come back in a couple of days to check.

Linda

Seeker,

I take McShane to be anti-tax. 'Happy taxing' is just sarcasm, setting up a straw man argument against the legendary 'intellectual left'. Many writers from the 'intellectual right' rely almost solely on this derisive rhetorical/persuasive device now. The Labor party itself is currently leading the clamour for lower taxes; The idea of increasing tax levels is anathema in public discussion.

I think I know what you're saying about the middle class and tax, having heard it said ad nauseum that the 'middle class' have to shoulder most of the tax 'burden' (a pejorative term that frames all public discussion and sets the agenda) in Australia. It seems obvious: the rich can evade tax and the poor earn little, leaving the mass in the proverbial 'middle' to pay as they earn. But if you think in terms of 'middle income' instead of 'middle class', the tax 'burden' is differently distributed.

What IS middle income? Costello and the like seem to think, flexibly, that the 'middle income' group contains those who are paid quite a lot more than $100,000 pa. It's easy to stretch the arbitrary limits of this group at either end of the spectrum if it suits your political purposes. Not that long ago, incomes above $80,000 got something like $65 per week in 'tax relief' - now there's another self-serving pejorative term if ever there was one! - while the people at the bottom of the scale got $4.

Many of the self-perceived 'deserving' on 'middle class welfare' are very well off. Two thirds of all income earners get less than the 'average', and the median income (the true 'middle') is significantly less than the mean.

McShane's comments about 'envy' are all wrong. As I said, the 'aspirationals' don't feel envy for those richer; they aspire to be like them, with their bigger tax cuts.

By inverted reasoning, if you can acquire everything you want, even if it's via a government handout like the private health insurance rebate, that's in itself the proof that you've worked hard to get where you have.

Linda “And "interdependence?" - individuals coming together voluntarily to form mutually beneficial organisations (family, co-operative, association etc)?”

Oh interdependence, where individuals voluntarily come together is wonderful and has never required the dead hand of bureaucracy to work.

I observed in one of these threads recently, the “great lie” of socialism is take credit for individuals joining for mutual benefit, claiming it to be the result of “socialist organisation” at work. Reality, it is economic pragmatism and “capitalist” in nature of market forces.

For instance, I have just formed a company with someone else. He has skills which are totally different to my own. We will both benefit from deploying our common resources and different skills to maximise our mutual investment in the fruits of our separate research.

"Happiness is not “economic security” and “economic security” is not happiness." However economic insecurity is unhappiness. what a conundrum. “

Ah economic security – I often wonder what people mean by this – do they mean “security” or do they really mean “certainty”?
The nature of my work, I have very little economic certainty, however, I do I believe have a profound sense of economic security.

Security comes from believing one has a solution to ones financial challenges. Economic certainty is to know how much one will have in the future. The best any government will provide is the lowest level; of economic certainty. Living in a poverty trap might suit some but not me. I aspire to more than the pittance of the state handout and have strategies to ensure I will not qualify for the age pension.

So Linda, interesting as your dissertation might be, it offers no hope to anyone. It would assure suffering and poverty for all and my life is worth more than that. So I will work to be my best and be rewarded for same.
Along the way I may even create employment opportunities.

Darn it Shonga, an employer, your answer. I would employ people and without the employers inventiveness and risk taking, jobs would not be there to employ employees in.