I believe there is a curious state that arises, whereby people captured by kidnappers end up, over time, identifying with the cause of their captor, during or well after the ordeal. I believe this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome, following a bank siege there in 1973, in which the hostages sided with the robbers and resisted rescue.

There is another effect that may apply here, called learned helplessness (for example, see http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html). We just keep on accepting over time what we are initially taught is the Way Of Things.

If I was a ruler of a country, I would quietly laugh myself pink as my subject citizens used tortuous psychological efforts as their way of coping with the cruel imposts I placed upon them. Rather than turf me out of my castle, they are so noble, obliging and humble that they quietly go about trying to re-order their affairs and even their emotions, so as to cope with the cruel tax laws I have visited upon them. Heck, they even voted me into office to impose such laws on them.

Whether we pay more or less income tax, whether we educate ourselves better, whether we try to compete with cheap offshore labour, it’s all a big joke: Australia has oodles of wealth, plenty for each person to have their fair share, and yet we all willingly continue to give it up to the dictates of the first robber-baron that manages to con us into voting for their tax system.

Who’s in charge of this country: us or them? If we allow our ample wealth to be taken from us, and then re-distributed in a questionable manner, and we just go along with it (Stockholm Syndrome, learned helplessness), then in whose hands does the power to change this state of affairs lay?

That’s why you are on an invalid pension Shonga and Scout is a Bureaucrat. Just recipients of others hard work and Think of it this way Scout and Shonga. When every buisiness in Australia is bankrupt, where do you think the Looters steal the money from then? To feed you, you would not rate on their scale of priority of Looting, so you would starve like the rest of us. In days gone , in another place, RUSSIA, someone call people “Useful Idiots” however, “Useless Idiots”, was intended, just scribed in the wrong way.

Increase the threshold to 30 thousand and sack State Governments. Australia is not booming, it is in declining and fast, checks for bankrupt’s . It is nearly here. And Andrews article. Fairdinkum mate, by the time you are 24 years of age You should have gotten over all the Moocher drivel, I see it is still plays in your consciousness, not gotten over it? then it is a pathological sickness. You should re do economics, Looters will never save anyone, they destroy everyone. So what economic are you subscribing? “Post Modern” Dreamer :

All- your contribution to reasoned debate is, as ever, unique. It was very kind of you to include your home page link. Knowing your identity means other contriibutors will be in a position to appreciate this: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1411685.htm

Please, just once, try making your comments coherent. Lose the inappropriate capital letters. Improve your spelling. And stop making inane comments such as "You should re-do economics mate". I suspect Dr Leigh's qualifications in the subject are superior to yours.

Take my advice, and perhaps you might be taken seriously for a change.

Scout:

Explain to me how you could possibly deduce from my post that I advocate reducing the pay in worker's pockets?! If you are a bureaucrat then you are a big part of the central economic problem facing this nation- superfluous and incompetent public servants doing terribly inefficient jobs.

In addition, your GST argument remains totally inept. The only flaws economically of GST in Australia are that (a) distribution among states is problematic; (b) the process is too cumbersome; (c)income tax rates are not commensurate. Providing people aren't taxed in numerous other areas (as they are now) what could be fairer to the poor than a 'user pays' system

Here is a take on tax distribution that is interesting. It is attributed to a Professor of Economics at the University of NSW.

Apologies that it goes over two posts.

THE STUPIDITY OF GREED
You've heard the cry in the last couple of weeks from across Australia: "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is accepted as fact. But what does that really mean?
The following explanation may help.....
Suppose that every night, 10 old school mates go out for dinner at La Porchetta's. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They decided to pay their bill the way they pay their taxes and it went like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) paid nothing.
* The fifth paid $1.
* The sixth $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) paid $59.
All 10 were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said:
"Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to give you a $20 discount."
So now dinner for the 10 only cost $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.
The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.
But how should the other six, the paying customers, divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?

They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth and sixth men would each end up being paid to eat. (cont...)

The restaurateur suggested reducing each man's bill by roughly the same percentage, thus:
* The fifth man paid nothing (like the first four) instead of $1 (100%saving).
* The sixth paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
* The seventh paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
* The eighth paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
* The ninth paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
* The tenth paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off, and the first four continued to eat for free, as now did the fifth - but outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but Fred got $10!"
"That's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that Fred got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should Fred get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded Fred (the tenth & richest) and gave him a real hard time.

The next night the Fred didn't show up for dinner. The nine sat down and ate without him, but when they came to pay the bill, they discovered that they didn't have enough money between all of them to meet even half of the bill!

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

There are lots of good restaurants in Monaco and the Caribbean.