Tristan I think that you have a flawed opinion of what most people think. I have yet to meet anyone in Australia, who has suggested that we should copy the US in many things.

Australia is free to come up with its own novel solutions to problems. There are degrees of which way the pendulum swings.
Virtually everyone that I know, does not argue against a basic
healthcare system, or a basic pension system. Most people are compassionate enough to be prepared to help those less fortunate then themselves, but they also have a sense of justice and don't like to get screwed either.

You can dream up all sorts of ways that you think Govts should spend money, but at the end of the day, those who do the paying are not slaves of Govt and in an ever increasing global economy, they will respond if they think that what you are doing is screwing them.
So your tax base will collapse and you'll be chasing your tail from there on, as history shows.

We need a four on the floor basic social welfare system, where people won't starve and have access to health care. If they want lots beyond that, let them work for it, as others do.

There are good reasons why Victoria had to sell off so many Govt assets. The previous Govt had so mismanaged the economy that there was little choice. Kennet had little choice but to try and rescue what was basically a disaster. Reality does not go away, when we close our eyes and wish it would.

So dream on about what you would or would not do, lots do that, but be aware that whatever you dream about, perhaps you havent even dreamed about the consequences. People can be pretty creative and the more you would legislate, the more they would dream up ideas to get around your laws, if they thought they were unfair. Best to try and create win win situations where everyone benefits, everything else has been and will be shown to be a dismal failure.

Re: Tobin Tax

To put simply, it doesn't work.

A transaction tax may reduce liquidity investment but it will not change the volitility of a currency which is based on much more significant factors (such as economic and political stability) than short-term currency speculators.

See the following:

Harald Hau (2006), The Role of Transaction Costs for Financial Volatility: Evidence from the Paris Bourse, forthcoming in the Journal of European Economic Association (forthcoming June 2006).

"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."

I'm not sure, again, how this would work. Would those on welfare be made to work for welfare 8 hours a week? What if those on low incomes ended up paying more tax? What about people who are only capable of working part-time?

"Virtually everyone that I know, does not argue against a basic
healthcare system, or a basic pension system."

What's a basic healthcare system when Medicare no longer provides full bulk-billing coverage, where dental care is excluded, and where waiting lists see hundreds die and suffer year after year? And what's a 'basic pension system' when we have pensioners dying with their houses burning over their heads - because they were using candles to avoid unaffordable electricity bills?

"Victoria had to sell off so many Govt assets. The previous Govt had so mismanaged the economy"

The income lost from selling of the SECV, SIO and other assets could have serviced that debt - and the overall result would have been better than retiring debt through privatisation and the resulting loss of State assets. The Conservatives, however, have an ideological commitment to privatisation regardless of circumstances - which explains why Telstra will be privatised regardless of whether or not it manages a decent sale price.

Also, Lev - you're right that political factors could still cause the collapse of a currency - but a Tobin Tax would nevertheless curb malicious currency speculation - and this is still a good reason for its introduction.

Tristan, your claims of "hundreds dying and suffering" sound a touch melodramatic to me. I am sure that Channel 7 and 9 would love to know about that, if it were in fact true. Your State Govt is earning a small fortune from increased GST on fuel, they are free to spend it on healthcare or whatever their priorities are.

If pensioners can't pay electricity bills, its just as likely that they blew the money on the pokies. Some people will never learn to spend less then they earn, no matter what their income. Others learn to budget etc, we are not all the same.

You claim that the Vics could have serviced that debt. I have yet to see evidence of that. Call Kennett what you will, he is not stupid.

Telstra was a giant, lazy, beurocratic monstrosity, before some competition was created. I remind you that they used to charge
9$ an hour for internet access. Compare that to today and you will see what getting lazy govt institutions off their butts can do for consumers.

Tristan, how do you respond to my explaination of the inherent problems with public services? I'll post it again:

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.

Tristan,

"Would those on welfare be made to work for welfare 8 hours a week?"

Welfare/work for the dole is a different issue, I don't get what the objection is to that concept but that is not what this is about.

They would work their 8 hours (or whatever the figure was) to meet their share of the responsibility of keeping society going - healthcare, education, aged care, police, defence etc. Col and I would also be responsible for contributing our 8 hours. Forced obligation to contribute to society stops there.

Clearly the idea needs some thrashing out - appropriate exemptions for those disabled enough to be unable to contribute, some thought around full time parents with young children etc. This is an idea for a different way of thinking about our obligation to society not a fully thrashed out proposal. Our current system is massively unjust and punishes, I'm looking for an approach that removes at least part of the injustice in that system, the bit where a choice to work extra hours equates to extra tax obligation (often at a higher rate) and a choice to work less hours reduces obligation for the upkeep of society (paying for that healthcare, education etc).

If 8 hours of pay for a low income earner working full time increased their tax burden beyond what they currently pay then we scale back government spending to till we get a viable level of obligation which can be applied to all capable adults.

R0bert