“Now call me old fashioned but if you want to get extra cash to families with children I reckon you’ve got to get it from people without children.”

- Perhaps Gruen would like to explain how he reconciles this with “Thou shalt not steal”.

This type of thinking highlights the evil of socialism – it relies on compulsion and force to achieve its utopia where we are all dragged down to the lowest common denominator of equality.

“Our tax system raises revenue according to individuals’ capacity to pay.”

- In other words, the mob casts around for those with more money than them, and proceeds to take whatever they want.

All this need-based mantra hides the fact that need is subjective; I need a home theatre, so does that entitle me to walk up to someone else who appears to be more wealthy than me and help myself?

Socialism, which is what the author is advocating, has been well and truly discredited because it doesn’t work. It lowers overall living standards, and fails to lead to prosperity.

However the absolutely-worst aspect of it is that it fails to respect the principle of self-ownership, and as such is morally indefensible. In the final analysis, it always involves coercion, and it always denies freedom and choice.

Winston
I'd hardly call the scenario you portrayed as 'socialism'. Seems more like responsible government to me.

To a very small degree it is I guess, but I'm not sure what your offering as an alternative to this ?
Are you saying "human nature will suddenly 'get religion' so to speak and immediately begin providing out of the goodness of their capitalistic hearts for the less well endowed ? Well, if they DID 'get religion' and I'm referring here of course to the experience of the early church in Acts 2 where it states "And each gave according to his ability, and there was non lacking among them"
Of course, we now also see that Marx was a plagerist.

Winston, you seem to be advocating a very hard 'survival of the fittest' line here, and thats ok, but I think you should spell out your broader position for all of us to evaluate....

Do you also believe along with Peter Singer that we should 'cull' the weak or disabled infants we produce ?

I totally agree that 'socialism' is a dead and unworkable ideology in this world, but at the same time, unrestrained capitalism is equally faulty and dangerous. One will bankrupt the countrys finance, the other will bankrupt its resources.

So, I argue that a middle road is not just workable but absolutely neccessary. I am considered 'rabid right wing' by some, and probably left of Marx by others. (just depends on the issue) but you seem out there with the economic equivalent of Pastor Fred Phelps from www.godhatesfaggots.com

Socialism as a political idea is far more pervasive in its manifestation than the article here.

So, I always advocate that reconciliation with God, through Christ is the only workable approach to life. No good "system" will ever work, without renewed people to drive it. Further, even a 'bad' system can be joyful if the people running it themselves are renewed and selfless following Jesus words "If anyone would be great among you, he must become the servant of all".

Nicholas has his heart in the right place but unfortunately he neglects the impact of these subsidies and handouts. Of all the subsidies and handouts that I can think of such as private health insurance, child care subsidies, private school subsidies, first home owners grant, baby bonus etc etc etc, I can't tink of any that has offered cost support to the consumer. In all of these cases the resulting increase in demand has forced prices up, in most cases equal to the value of the original subsidy. The costs of child care, health insurance, housing and the rest are no more affordable today than they were before the subsidies.

Sorry Nick, it hasn't worked.

The top tax rates have to be lowered, or else more rich people will just take off overseas and leave the tax bills to the middle class.

Why do you think Rupert Murdock lives in the US and Pat Rafter lives in the carribean.

A certain level of Churning is required, a safty net is needed when someone just have bad luck, whether it is health wise or someone losing their job.

However the more churning that happens, the more money we loses from society, when we take $100 from the rich, only around $80 (an optimistic figure) get to the poor, the rest are eaten up by the beauraucrats distributing the money (Centerlink offices) and government promoting what is available (booklets and ad on tv).

I think the tax rates are too high, but try getting someone to go to an election promising to scrap medicare and reducing subsidies to public school and see what the reaction would be.

People won't be happy even if they get a $120 tax cut, but have to pay $100 more in school fees

Thanks to Nicholas Gruen for his interesting article. Obviously, much of the “churning” is positive, that is, well targeted and effective in building triple bottom line capital for the nation (Social, Environmental & Economic). However, there are is also churning that is working against our interest. These negative ‘churns’ include the perverse subsidies which encourage greater consumption of fossil fuels.
See www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf

Corporate welfare is not justifiable when it is propping up old destructive industry and holding back clean renewable and sustainable replacements.

Regarding the notion that we need low taxes to keep certain people in our country- Do we really want to be held hostage by so base an ethic, or by people who are so narrowly motivated by the current fiscal measures of profit? The best leaders, and there are many of them, act for higher reasons.

Most of the true value in life does not have a dollar figure on it.

PS. Tax does not impede the likes of Kerry F.B. Packer (peace to him). Tax is like genuine competition, both are currently avoidable by those who can most afford them.