I didn't say that the current account did refer to government debt. I know the current account refers to the balance of payments re: imports and exports. I know that Australia has a deficit of about $15 billion and a foreign debt of approx $500 billion - which Howard would just like to pretend 'doesn't exist'. Howard has scrapped the R&D concessions for innovative business introduced by Labor while having pretty much nothing in terms of an active industry policy and the deficit has just got worse and worse. Government debt is a bogey wheeled out by conservatives - the twin deficits theory is a fallacy - and as Australia's CAD shows - government surpluses don't lead into a favourable BOP either. Deficit expenditure by governments can feed into economic growth by providing the infrastructure for growth and stimulating the economy - thus improving the capacity to service that debt. Sweden, meanwhile, has comparable unemployment figures to Australia (expected to fall to 4.5% by the end of 2006) - blowing away the fallacy that a large public sector and high taxation will lead into unemployment by 'crowding out' private sector activity.

Col, thanks but it's not one I'm particularly proud of.

I try to avoid letting this stuff get under my skin. Tristans blatent lack of concern for the victims of his "tax em till they bleed and then some more" approach and total unwillingness to the engage in discussion regarding the responsibilities of those who are not in genuine need but choose low incomes hit a raw spot. CSA are busy trying to increase the assessment yet again which makes for a fairly personalised version of Tristan's approach where I am specifically made to pay more because someone else chooses to work less.

The sad bit is Tristan probably does not understand what is wrong with the type of stereotyping his comments reflect.

R0bert

Tristan, to assume that Govt debt does not matter, is kidding yourself. 5% interest on say 500 billion (as per Sweden) would mean 25 billion $ off the bottom line, before a dollar of expenditure is paid.

Australia in fact has more growth then it can handle. Resource projects are being delayed, due to lack of skilled labour. Exports
are being held up , due to a lack of workers, even unskilled people. Fact is that if a job is not within a few minutes of somebody’s house, many Aussies aren’t interested, so we have to import guest workers. Fact is many non working Aussies simply get it too good, courtesy of those who are working.

Sweden has dealt with its unemployment problems, by adopting more market focused policies. Marginal tax rates were reduced,
unemployment payments were reduced, corporate tax rates are lower then in Australia. Incentives to save were introduced, tax on capital is far lower then tax on labour. Foreigners with skills scarce in Sweden, are given a 25% tax exemption for 10 years, to try to attract them.

Your suggestions, like nationalising industries and companies and what is happening in Sweden, are in fact totally different, so stop kidding yourself.

Yes Australia has a problem. Because profits on homes are tax free, Aussies have invested hugely in their homes, leading to a housing bubble, which is unsustainable. Homes in Aus are now more expensive then in many other countries, despite our abundant land. Had tax structures been different many years ago, Australians would own a larger % of BHP, Woodside etc,
so profits from these companies would not be sent overseas, as they are now. Instead we created the housing bubble, which is one reason for the enormous borrowing by our banks from overseas and that does not help our current account one bit.

Tristan “In my 'ideal scenario' what was and what was not socialised would depend partly on what was necessary to maintain domestic competition.”
“Mind you - this is an ideal scenario - I see no prospect of implementing it - nor would I take this scenario to an election.”

I love it, Tristan first promotes his ideal but then accepts that it is the stuff of fairytales (as socialism goes its all the stuff of Grimm – by name and nature)

I would stand full square and 100% behind what I promote and have practiced it, as much as I can do, over the past 30 years or so. You, by your own words admit you do not have the strength or courage to follow your ideals and thus define the hypocrisy and mediocrity which is enshrined in socialism.

If you do not have the courage to stand behind your ideals, Tristan you are a fool for suggesting themin the first place. Maybe that is the difference between us, you “talk the talk” but lack the courage to walk it,

As I suggested before, if you believe it, go out and sell it to the voting public, it has all been tried and failed before. There is nothing new of innovative in your ideas or ideals, it is just the same old rhetoric of failure which socialists have been peddling for the past 150 years.

Again you continue to ignore the negative impact of taxation on life satisfaction and the last time I looked, we were here to experience a satisfying life, not to be drones to generate taxes for a bunch of economic halfwits to squander on grandiose non-performing indulgences of socialist ideology like nationalised transport systems, mandatory “welfare” with union officials running hospitals, schools and aged care centres according to the lines of “keep the indolent in clover.”

Robert the CSA, I have experienced similar. Fortunately now it is past and I focus on funding my retirement super (15% tax), I will be damned if I will reduce my life style to exist on government pension standards.

Yes, it's true that what I'm proposing is not a complete copy of 'The Swedish model'. Sweden actually has lower levels of company tax than the United States. So do we. In regards to company tax, though, I believe we have 'room to move'.

I believe in a mixed economy with socialised enterprises playing a significant role. And while it is true that I would not go to an election promoting my 'ideal scenario', I'm sure the same might be said of the Conservatives who took 10 years to implement their preferred labour laws and who have been unable to completely dismantle Medicare despite an ideological opposition to the socialisation of medical costs.

If I could determine Labor policy now, I would, however, go to an election promoting the resocialisation of Telstra and Medibank, and I would stop wasteful Public Private Partnerships in favour of public funding for roads, rail etc. I would also resocialise public transport in Victoria - where privatisation is a proven failure. If in control of policy at a state level, I would also resocialise water. I think these policies could be sold without falling at the point of a Coalition scare campaign regarding public debt.

I consider myself a Fabian, and thus are committed to the politics of gradual change. You can't get everything you want at once. That's life. But for Labor, it is unacceptable that we are continually going 'one step forwards, two steps back'.

re: public pensions - public pensions shouldn't be so low that those dependent upon them need live in poverty. I believe in easing means tests, raising pensions, and providing free aged care and generous social services to the aged. I would prefer to see higher taxes and higher public pensions than the privatisation of pensions we have with the superannuation system. But given the fact that that system is entrenched, the least we can do is direct funds into programs of national investment.

re:the-status-of-part-time-work-I'm-not-sure-what-you-want.Already I've-said-I'd-consider-tax-breaks-for-those-on-lower-wages-who-work overtime-to-'get-ahead'.It-seems,though,that-what-you-would-like would-be-for-part-time-workers to be taxed at a higher rate. Apart from this I'm not sure what else you could want.

Tristan, the hypenated writing is hard to read, I'm not sure what that is about.

I put up an alternate framework/approach for viewing our responsibilites early in the discussion which is based on the idea that our obligation to society is based on a proportion of our time. That is the one resource that we all have in the same measure, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. We have different totals but close enough to the same number of hours in each day.

Those on very low incomes would meet their obligations with time (community service), others with money. For wage earners our responsibility is based on a combination of average hourly income for hours worked and a fixed number of hours of social obligation.

Assuming that the obligation for each capable adult for the maintenance of society was worked out to be 8 hours per week each person would contribute either 8 hours of pay or eight hours of labour to society depending on their means. I don't know yet how we should address investment income in terms of working out the rate that it is earned at but I'm sure that there is an equitable answer to that with the right brains applied to the task.

That system still means that Col pays more money than those who earn less per hour than he does (sorry Col) but it also means that society does not demand that he give a larger proportion of his life to the maintenance of society than any other capable adult is required to do.

I'm looking at ways of finding a more just approach to social obligation rather than just ignoring a whole swath of injustices in the current system. What I've floated may not be it but I don't believe that we will ever achieve a just taxation system unless we fundamentally change the way we think about the issue.

R0bert