BOAZ_David,

You've read my mind. That's what I've always said! The problem is, every time I express that point-of-view, I'm branded a chauvinist pig.

I don't deny a woman her right to work. The problem though, is that now that they all have careers, there's no going back. My wife wishes she could quit work and stay at home for the kids we plan to have (as well as sell her art work on the side), so I'm trying to get work that will pay enough. Sadly though, it looks like our babies will be shoved into day care once they're 6 weeks old. It's cruel but we (the human race) can't just stop re-producing.

Originally, women wanted to have their careers so that they had a sense of independence and, I guess - in a worst case scenario, the ability to walk-out on an abusive partner. The irony of this situation is that households are now dependent on TWO incomes; hence we are back to square one. Abusive or not, we will have to depend on our partner's income since we now need that second job. So effectively, at the end of the day, all we've done is add stress to each household.

Society swings from one extreme to the other. Will we ever find balance?

PHILB,

Love your style mate.

Let's just hope that the Liberal Party never gets a leader as far-right as some of the cretins on this forum. If they do, maybe I'll see you in the soup kitchen one day. If so, I'll invite you back you my cardboard box for a swig of my cask wine bladder and we can chat about how it's our own fault that we didn't become tycoons in a society that beats-up on those who can't defend themselves financially.

BTW, some funny reading that I think sums-up some of the 'self-made' men on this forum...enjoy - http://www.hcdems.com/misc/joe_conservative.html

PhilB, I'd be fascinated to hear from you how this is a party political issue. What would a Labour government do differently, and what effect would this have on the individual and the economy?

It is very easy to sit back and take cheap shots when there is a government in power that you disapprove of, but it is much tougher to offer an alternative.

Because this is not about government policy, it is about how our society chooses to conduct its affairs.

Even a Labour government would balk at the idea of nationalising housing, which is about the only action that would have any economic impact. Otherwise, both sides of politics seem to have chosen to live in a fairly bog-standard capitalist democracy, along with most of Europe and the US.

Where you live in our country is dictated by the amount you can afford. If that is a problem for you, then I have the sad duty to inform you that the majority of your fellow Australians, of most political hues, have decided that this is a fair and reasonable measure.

Even Boaz can't think of a solution, except to deny married women the right to work. That's pretty draconian, don't you think Boaz? What political party is going to pick up and run with that, do you think?

This is not political. It is economic. Live with it.

Reading back I got to PHILB. With tears forming in both eyes the first smoke alarm went off so I closed the kitchen door and found my cheesy toast had popped up but cindered. Then the next alarm went off far side so I closed that way too and exhausted the kitchen with the fan and window opened. That was the last two slices so I gave up on minute breakfast choices on the run.

Mate; I am still smiling about your description of our hapless lot

Pericles, I repeat, the government could prick the (slowly deflating) housing bubble by increasing capital gains tax on investment properties to pre-2000 levels, and diminishing or abolishing negative gearing on investment properties. There would be a flight of investors from the market. Again I repeat, there are 1 million individual Australian prpoerty investors plus plenty of cash from managed funds in the market. Government policy, not economics, is keeping them there. The market has been manipulated by government policy just as it has it many other spheres of the economy. I don't hear too many free-marketeers advocating the kind of policy changes dicussed above because, personal pecuniary interests aside, they know that the result would be short-term political AND economic mayhem, whatever the long term economic benefits.

Most free-marketeers see government intervention as undesirable because it is an unproductive use of capital, so you certainly won’t see them supporting capital gains tax.

It’s one of the most counter-productive and discouraging taxes ever conceived by socialism – an envy tax.

By “transferring” (some would call it theft) capital to the government, you deprive business and industry of access to funds which could be used to improve productivity, thus improving our overall standard of living. What do you want – work longer and harder, or shorter and smarter?

Taxation simply transfers wealth from one to another, and in that sense is to our overall detriment. It does not contribute towards improving our economic well-being. Ask yourself, in this age of high taxation, are we moving ahead, or going backwards? Are rising house prices (and electricity prices and water prices and a whole host of other increases) a sign that perhaps too much is being stolen from the golden goose?

Free-marketeers understand that everyone is better off under a free market. Yes, there will be cases where some lose out, but if we continue to insist that the central goal of our economic system is to protect the weak and less fortunate, then it won’t be long before we all join them.

The large number of property investors has a very real advantage in that rental prices are kept low - probably the main reason why the Economist figures are as they are. If we discourage property investment as some have suggested then a few more will perhaps be able to enter the property market but a very large number of people will find their rental costs skyrocketing due to lack of properties available. It is my experience that those who finally do manage to buy their first house are as eager as anyone to see prices rise as quickly as possible - strangely the altruism suddenly disappears.