Tristan, I certainly hope that Govt is tough when dishing out welfare. After all, people are getting something from society that somebody else has bothered to get out of bed and go and earn.
I am constantly amazed how when I’m looking for some casual labour for concrete mixing or whatever, people on disability pensions will put their hand up, as long as payment is cash.
So I certainly wonder as to how disabled some of them really are.

Its not about punishing any poor. Its about ensuring that things are not so easy, that those who think that the world owes them a living, are not prepared to help themselves and simply screw the system.

You might not be aware of it, but baby boomers are busily making sure that their super nest egg will be large enough to provide for their own retirement. Costello has just increased that incentive, so the number of share owning gray nomads, benefiting from their own income streams, including dividend imputation that you think is so evil, will actually benefit you, as they won’t be sucking on the govt teat.

Income tax is not the only reason for a brain drain, but it’s a large factor. Why go and work your butt off at the prime of your life, when the Govt takes a huge share of it? People act out of self interest, that’s just human nature.

Change will come to Australia not from one single budget measure, but from a whole host of small changes. Empower people to help themselves, give them an incentive to help themselves, make it worth their while to save, don’t smother them with so many regulations that they prevent them from helping themselves.

There will always be a small % who claim that the world owes them a living. Sadly people often need pain to learn and the biggest thing they can learn is to become masters of their own destiny and not just sit on their butts and wait for the rest of the world to do things for them.

Yabby, very well put.

R0bert

Arjay, Of Course Tristan is peddling envy, when dealt with a lack of skills, envy and tearing other people down is what small minds pursue since before “Cromwell’s levellers” to the present day, envy of “those that can and do” by “those who could but don’t” is the stuff at the core of socialism.

G T – the market Just – of course not but “feather bedding” the indolent and incompetent is unjust too.

Tristan “Col-Rogue,-meanwhile,-doesn't-seem-to-understand-the-difference-between-a-social-democratic-welfare-state-and-Stalinism.”

You have no idea to what I understand.

So check your facts. The British labour party manifesto of the 1970’s was rated as more left wing than the Italian communist party. Your dramatisation of my statement merely confirms your lack of depth in appreciating the historic closeness of communism and the European Socialist movement.

I suggest you look up the word “Entryism” and find out what it means in terms of “hard line Stalinism” and “social democratic welfare” then we can have the real discussion about what you “really” are trying to achieve.

You have now missed repeated opportunities to challenge the life satisfaction versus taxation analysis which I presented.
Attacking me with side issues to deflect from your lack of analytical substance?

As for “Compassion” and “Decency”. Such qualities are things which can only ever be observed in individuals and never in “the State”. Pretending you can make everything equal for everyone is not compassionate nor Decent, especially when the resultant “everything” is significantly diminished by the dead hand of state interference and government control.

Robert “Get over your hatred …”
Excellent post Robert

Yabby – to support your post may I add a quote

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Margaret Thatcher - one of the Greatest Political leaders of 20th Century

Well said Yabby

If-Sweden-is-such-a-'basket-case'-how-come they have a current account surplus of"58.8 billion kronor' ....://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1504&date=20050527
....compared with Australia's foreign debt of about $500b? http://www.theage.com.au/news/kenneth-davidson/the-debt-that-dare-not-speak-its-name/2006/05/09/1146940546241.html

And yes - the British Labour Party did once have a proud democratic socialist tradition which is long gone now. The Italian Communist Party, by the way, had gone down the Eurocommunist road and had effectively embraced the path of reform. Nevertheless, I see nothing wrong with strategic socialisation, and wanting a democratic mixed economy does not make one 'hard line Stalinist'.

In my 'ideal scenario' what was and what was not socialised would depend partly on what was necessary to maintain domestic competition. Hence the private banks would remain un-nationalised - although they would have a public sector competitor - I would re-nationalise the Commonwealth Bank, but mining would be nationalised as an industry that was overwhelmingly export-oriented, and whose dividends could be put to useful social purposes. Similarly, manufacturing would remain un-nationalised, but could become the target of 'co-operative schemes', find additional finance from superannuation funds, and be the beneficiary of targeted assistance where there was the possibility of remaining competitive. Small business would remain private, but once again could become more competitive by embracing co-operativism. Infrastructure such as roads, rail, public transport,postal services,ports, airports, communcations infrastructure - would be publicly owned. Mutualism would be encouraged in insurance, and a public competitor would be re-established. Private hospitals would continue to operate - but public health would be upgraded to the extent necessary to overcome any gap in the quality of service. Private schools would continue to receive state aid, but once again public schooling would be lifted in quality to make it a more appealing alternative. Private media would continue to operate, but the ABC would receive a $200 million increase in funding - while a media diversification fund would attempt to create a more diverse media base.

Finally, investment would be democratised with the creation of a Swedish-style wage earners' fund.

Mind you - this is an ideal scenario - I see no prospect of implementing it - nor would I take this scenario to an election.

>Fine - in your world we can go down the US road where medical costs are by far the largest cause
>of bankruptcy and where people die for lack of money to pay for spiralling medical costs.

The US healthcare system is so costly because it is so regulated.

>A decent society does not let people sleep in the streets - nor does it let people die on hospital
>waiting lists or miss out on life-saving medical care simply because they cannot afford it.

A decent society does not force anyone to submit to charity either. Either we are a decent society or we aren't, no amount of government intervention can alter that.

>...or simply the desire to travel and be near international cultural and fianancial centres.

I find this particularly amusing. What do you think makes a "financial centre"? Surely not minimal regulation and low taxes (sarcasm)!?

Also, do you know what a current account balance actually is, and its significance?

Tristan a suggestion. Before you think about politics, perhaps you should improve your skills in economics. Perhaps Grandma can buy you a year's subscribtion to the Economist for Christmas, so that you obtain a better understanding of economics and save yourself lots of
embarrasment.

The current account has little to do with Govt debt. Australia has a trillion $ GDP and no federal Govt debt. Sweden exports quite a bit, but their Govt owes around 50% of GDP. In our terms that would be
500 billion$ of Govt dept, compared to our nothing.

The debt that we have is largely owed by banks. If Australians had saved more in the past, it would not exist. As there were no tax incentives to save, Australians didn't, so now a good % of our large miners and their profits go overseas, rather then to Australians. Keating understood all this, thats why he made the changes that he did, Costello has continued with them.

As part of a cosy little world, Sweden can trade within the EU, free from real world competition on a number of its products. Australia does not have that option. Mind you, even the EU is now realising that their cosy little world is threatened by the larger world out there, where all that Govt regulation is making many EU countries uncompetitive in the real world, thus the high unemployment rates in
countries such as France, Germany and others.

Your "ideal scenario" was all tried and landed up a big failure.
If you would nationalise anything, foreign capital would soon withdraw investments and you would soon be a banana republic.

Forget trying to reinvent a wheel that falls off Tristan, educate yourself about history, modern economics and what actually works.

The US health system is a failure due to regulation and litigation.
A flawed legal system means that lawyers grow rich in the US, at the expense of the public.