"I think tht people are kidding themselves, if they think that by raising the GST to say 20%, they would obtain all this money from the rich, to give to the rest.

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. How much do you think you will give to each of the 80% you want to redistribute to, how much do you plan to screw out of those 0.7%?" (Yabby, 11 May)

The bit about 0.7% is a total furphy. As the GST is levied on ALL consumers, it is geared to getting a greater volume of tax out of everyone, but particularly those that spend more in the economy, like companies and rich individuals. The idea that only 0.7% of the population should be included in an analysis of the GST is the sort of sensationalism the Daily Telegraph puts in its headlines.

What raising the GST would really do, all other things staying equal, is that it would redistribute the tax burden so that the well off and very rich pay more than they have. And there's a lot more of them out there than the 140,000 that Yabby talks about. Also, don't forget that large entities like companies pay a lot of GST.

Of course low and middle income earners would pay more as well. But the government could calibrate accompanying income tax cuts so that these groups pay a lower overall percentage of tax (compared with what that were paying before an increased GST). The net effect would be to push the tax burden higher up the wealth scale where it really ought to be.

Yabby, get back in the creek!

"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 are so out of touch. Have you ever tried to survive on a pension? Do you know how much is left to survive on after rent if you haven't paid your house off - or even if you have? Your attitude smacks of detachment and callousness.

see: "Government benefits for unemployed people,for-single-parents, for aged pensioners who don't have superannuation back-up, are border-line, enough to live week-to-week, fortnight-to-fortnight, as long as there is no crisis, as long as you don't need your teeth fixed. They have to go to a dentist because there is no Medicare for dental care. As long as you don't have to live through winter with no decent heater, and the only heater you have being a $20 bar heater from Woolworths that just chews through electricity and leaves you with a $700-$800 electricity bill." http://www.nowwethepeople.org/fair%20go/Dodds_speech.html

and re: the public sector - there is accountability through the electoral process, accountability to ministers etc - and in the case of government business enterprises through competition with private sector counterparts. Re: public hospitals - it's up to citizens to mobilise to demand lower waiting lists and better quality care - the dysfunction is in the political parties who refuse to listen the these complaints and assume the only thing the public wants from governments is another tax cut. In some cases the public sector is inherently superior re: provision of services. Take the closure of rural branches with the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. For quality of service, the profit motive ought not be all-consuming.
IN some instances, also, such as airports and postal services, the competition argument is a furphy - and there was never any rationale for privatisation. Market signals have an important role to play, also, but sometimes, as was the case with the government school I went-to-in-years-11-and-12,-there-is-a-culture-of-care-and excellence-that-is-fostered-regardless-of-the-profit-motive-and- market-mechanisms.

Rob, I think you missed the point of the argument. If you want to leave the poor and middle classes no worse off, somebody has to pay. The stats of 0.7% come from here, if you work it out:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1389983.htm

Yes companies pay a lot of gst, but they can also reclaim it as a
Legitimate business expense or pass the cost on to the end consumer. The GST is an end consumer tax in the end.

So there are far less rich people to screw then you thought.
Next the really rich spend a lot of their consumer $ overseas on holiday trips, again you miss out.

Tristan I’m not out of touch at all. I have quite a few friends who
are pensioners and I know the solutions they have reached to
make life comfortable for themselves, even if not luxurious.

Many sell their city homes for the high land values and move to regional areas, which gives them quite some cash and a better quality of life. They do a bit of babysitting for cash, or other odd jobs that they usually enjoy. They run a few chucks, cut a bit of
firewood for heat, grow some fruits and veggies in the garden.

In WA pokies are banned, so they can’t blow their money there.
Tell me if I’m wrong, but every time I’ve been East, what I’ve seen
is plenty of pensioners regularly playing the pokies, so where does that money come from?

If you want to raise more funds, spread your taxbase at a low level, so people don’t have the incentive to avoid it. Bring in a
10% death duty and a 10% tax on profits from selling your own home. Those rich you don’t like, all live in expensive houses and when they sell their place, they can make millions tax free.

If somebody sells a house and pockets a half a million $ profit, why should that be taxfree, yet you want to tax people even higher on their wages and on their daily spending.

>and re: the public sector - there is accountability through the electoral process, accountability to
>ministers etc - and in the case of government business enterprises through competition with private
>sector counterparts. Re: public hospitals - it's up to citizens to mobilise to demand lower waiting
>lists and better quality care - the dysfunction is in the political parties who refuse to listen the these
>complaints and assume the only thing the public wants from governments is another tax cut.

Ah, of course it's not the system, but the people running it. Classic socialist apology. If people can't run it properly, then it's not meant for people, is it?

There IS a problem with the system and that is, as I said, that when a service is a "given" and consumers are forced to pay a fixed amount without the option of paying more or less, demand will skyrocket. If you don't have to pay more to get more, then there is nothing to stop one from demanding more; there is no increased price signal to curb demand. At the same time when you're being forced to pay for something, you're going to want the most out of it. Even if taxes are increased to provide more better services, demand will not be curbed because the service is still a "given", and people will want the most out of it. Because public services are collectively paid for, an individual has no incentive to ease their demand, because they know that that alone will make no difference to their personal fiscal burden. It's called the tragedy of the commons.

Your ideas have been tried many times before. They are unethical and they have proven not to work. How you continue to defend and propagate them is beyond me.

My ideas have never been tested in this country - which has never had anything more than a threadbare welfare state.

It seems you'll only be happy when it takes a $100,000 loan to get a degree, where those who cannot afford quality aged care are treated like animals and 'inconveniences' by the selfish and heartless, and where life and death become a matter for the chequebook as the public health system is degraded further and further.

You're probably one of the more fortunate - and you are probably resentful of having to support those less fortunate than yourself. Why, after all, should the poor have equal access to quality education when you can afford a (heavily subsidised) private education? And who cares if some are on hospital waiting lists for two years so long as you can afford your own (again heavily subsidised) private health insurance? Your politics are the politics of driving a wedge between those on average full time earnings and the poor - with the intent of marginalising the poor, encouraging 'downward envy' and depriving them of any voice.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives seek to criminalise legitimate union activity, including the right to take industrial action, negotiate for leave for trade union training, and for access for trade union organisers. Charitable organisations, also as part of this broader process of reaction, are threatened with losing their tax-free status for being 'political' and speaking upon on matters of poverty and injustice.

While splintering the working class and making collective organisation more and more difficult, the working poor can then be isolated and forced onto poverty wages under individual contracts. And while this exploitation reaches new heights, you expect more and more in the way of tax cuts for the wealthy and for capital.

For some this is not a theoretical debate. For the millions who cannot afford dental care or private health insurance it translates into pain and suffering that you care little for because you are one of the fortunate. It's the politics of selfishness - and it's disgusting.

Tristan, you seem largely ignorant of the fact as to how good the welfare sector has it in Australia. PAYE tapayers contribute around 115 billion to the budget, welfare recipients take 91 billion or 80% of that! You should go down on all 5s to thank those many workers for making things so easy in Aus, compared to elsewhere on the planet, where they would simply let you starve.

I know plenty of welfare recipients who own their own homes, have a car, tv, video, phone, dvd, you name it they have managed to budget for it. Do you have any idea what real poverty is ? lol.

Life is simple, get off your arse and paddle your own canoe. Don't expect everyone else to do it for you, unless of course you are very selfish and very lazy.