"Last-I-saw-about-2%-of-taxpayers-earn-150k+ before-tax. About-140
thousand-people-in-Aus-are-worth-1.3million-Aus$-plus-a-house.-Thats 0.7%-of-the-population."

Obviously you need a broader base than that - and tax reform would have to move beyond income tax. Also those on above full time AWE (roughly $55,000/year) would have to pay a larger proportion of tax - not just those on $150,000/year and over. This is what, at the moment, the ALP isn't willing to face. Beazley is too busy trying appear to promise everything to everyone - without saying where the money for education and training - let alone health and aged care - is coming from. In particular the ALP needs to consider means testing Family Tax Benefits for families with higher than average combined incomes.

"Throwing-money-at-things-via-Govt-expenditure,-is-not-answer-to-everything-either.-There-is-huge-waste-now-in-Govt-services.-Far- too-much-paperwork-in-the-health system, not enough money spent on the coalface. State Govts can change that tomorrow if they wish."

If you're willing to provide a more detailed proposition I might consider what you've said more seriously - but it's interesting that neither Coalition governments nor State Labor governments have been able to solve the waiting lists crisis despite it being the number one priority in Victoria. Cutting hospital waiting lists will cost over $5 billion. That money's not going to come simply from 'cutting red tape'. 'Throwing money at the problem' is the only way to solve the problem. You can't train more doctors and nurses, provide vital infrastructure or provide more beds without money.

"Roughly half the Australian population own shares directly Tristan,
you are kidding yourself if you think its only the rich"

And the top 10% own about 90% of them while the top 1% own about 50% of them. Dividend imputation grossly favours the rich.

Robert - I would consider tax breaks for those on low hourly rates who work overtime to make ends meet if it could be proven to be workable. But ideally we should have a more highly regulated labour market, with good penalty rates and a high minimum wage. Combined with a comprehensive welfare state this would eliminate the need for those on low incomes to work overtime - and provide more scope for quality time with family.

Tristan, “I-see-no-reason-to-conclude-that-public-education-is-'essentially'-inferior-to-private-education.”

I said it is unaccountable. However, extrapolating from any situation which lacks “accountability” the notion of inferiority is a certainty and since where the service supplier is not accountable to the service user there is no accountability.

Having experienced the public health service of UK, Australia and USA, the service delivery supplied by the UK was significantly inferior to the user pays private services available in Australia or USA. The UK care level were non-existent the “budget” spent on assuring a cushy environment for “jackboot union” ward orderlies.

As for the rest of your “ideas” -
re “The-tax-system-takes-into-account-the-injustices-of-market-determination-of-wages,-and-recognises-the-need-for-capital-to-make-a-contribution-to-the-maintenance-of-the-infrastructure-that-it-uses.”

Yeah whatever, I work in three distinct roles and earn more than just six figures. Most people who don’t earn as much as me don’t work as hard or as effectively as me. They have never taken the risks or gone out on to the edge as I have done and therefore do not deserve the rewards I achieve.

If you think your ideas are so “good”, test them and present them to the voting electorate.

Alternatively – ask those who experienced all the “egalitarian delights” of the old soviet socialist states why they kept climbing over or digging under the iron curtain.

Ask the South Americans why they keep finding new ways of getting into USA if the “capitalist” model is so bad or why there are no "boat people" arriving on the beaches of Cuba or North Korea.

Suggestions of raising GST? To 20% - why? The government has more money than it knows what to do with, hence the successive budget surpluses brought to us by this responsible Federal government (versus the profligate and financially incompetent pigs who went before), We no longer have any public debt (versus Keating’s “banana republic” management).

Get up and see how many gullibles will follow your political manifesto into the abyss of socialist ineffectiveness. I can guarantee you, your political career will be “still born”.

I have seen it all before and it does not work, ultimately self-responsibility and accountability is the only thing which does

Col, allow me to link two of your passions on OLO and suggest that if Tristan’s mother had properly exercised her pro-choice decision, we would not be having this anti-market debate with him right now.

Not that you seem insecure, but the sarcasm is all towards Tristan.

Well said Col.I don't care how many multi-millionaires Australia produces,I will find a way of selling them something.

Tristan is peddling the politics of envy and Labor in the past have been the masters of appealing to our weaker side only to let it's faithful down time and time again with by wasting tax payers money on hair brained socialists utopia.

Since the Howard Govt have got our country into fairly good shape again,the socialists are again smacking their chops in anticipation of spending billions on their schemes.

I think there are better ways to help the working poor like raising the tax free thresh hold to $35,000 and reducing the tax on investments they hold.

Get the 1.5 million on full time social security back into the work force,make the public service more accountable and efficient.You will then find that we'll have to import more foreign workers from OS to do the menial jobs we find repulsive.

Once a country loses the work ethic and laze around drinking vodka it takes years to change that culture.The capitalist system is far from perfect so let's hear some suggestions on how to improve the system that works best.

Arjay,

Janet Albrechtsen agrees with you on the perils of NSW government in “Our pathetic addiction to big government” (The Australian, 10/5/06)- http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19080299-32522,00.html

It's the kind of government Tristan promotes.

>'Letting the market decide' on its own, however, is not inherently just - as the market does not
>account for how hard or how well a person works.

That statement implies the existence of an objective measure of "how hard or how well a person works", when in fact there is no such thing. How hard or how well a person works is determined by the subjective value that each individual has of that work. One of the fundamental problems with the socialist mentality is the notion that value is objective.

Even if there were an objective measure of "how hard or how well a person works", there would be nothing unjust about someone receiving less than that if they consent to it.

There is also the problem of coercion, which you failed to address. Not letting "the market" decide who trades what implies the violation of the right to make one's own decisions.

>Also-basic services-such-as-education,health-and-aged care-should-be-available-to-all-on-the
>basis-of-need¨as¨a¨basic¨human right,and-for-the-sake-of-equality-of-opportunity.

But this also raises the question: does an individual not have the right to NOT provide these services? The right to these services implies the neccessity of forcing someone else to provide them.

>The¨Conservatives¨have¨an¨ideological¨predisposition¨against¨the¨public¨sector¨that¨ignores¨the
>facts¨-¨and¨tries¨to¨blame¨crises¨of¨underfunding¨on¨some¨'inherent'¨flaw¨with¨public¨provision
>of¨services.

The first inherent problem with the public sector is that there is no direct competition for consumers. Everything is supplied and obtained through the state, and consumers cannot choose not to participate. The public sector has no incentive or even signal to improve its efficiency. Because of this monopolistic character, a potential competitor cannot easily compete against a government monopoly that people are forced to participate in, as they would be asking consumers to pay twice.

Secondly, there are no price signals for either consumers OR potential competitors. When people are forced to pay for something, without the option of paying more or less, the service will be considered as a "given", and demand will skyrocket. At the same time, a potential competitor won't sense this price signal as potential profit to be made, because there can be very little competing with the government monopoly that people are forced to pay for already.