Actually,-I-am-not-a-university-student.-The-photo-is-seven-years old,-so-perhaps-that-has-something to do with why some of you are making that assumption. Perhaps it's time I updated the photo. And even if I was a university student - that's no reason to be denigrating.

Also - I consider myself to be a liberal democratic socialist - but that really is the same thing as being a social democrat in my book. The split in social-democracy that goes back to the First World War was improtant at the time, but is now dated, especially given the decline of communism. The matter of principled internationalism is still relevant - but that is something best fought for within broadly based parties rather than advocated from the margins. I am not a communist - I think communism is an unattainable ideal. Basically, I see all progressive responses to the 'social problem' as linking in with the 'socialist tradition'. I am not at all hostial to liberalism - and welcome contributions to the debate that suggest my proposals are compatible with the progressive liberal tradition.

I believe in a mixture of public ownership, co-operative enterprises, and private ownership of business including wage earner funds - essentially a 'mixed economy'. As a utopia, I'd like to see wage earner funds and co-operatives proliferating the private sector - but 'utopias' are hard to achieve - politics is a long, hard grind and I think it would be a miracle if we ever achieved in Australia the kind of situation that has existed in the Nordic countries for decades. The proposals in my article would barely begin to achieve this. Nevertheless, in the long run, this is what I'll fight for.

Also - I agree with some of the writers here and thank them for their contribution. The kind of proposals I'm making here are the same kind of proposals that might be made by social liberals in the United States. Liberalism does not mean 'neo-liberalism'. Some liberals see that state intervention can sometimes empower the individual rather than disempower him/her. And there's nothing to stop a liberal from realising the advantages of socially-provided infrastructure.

Anyway,-I-hope-good-spirited-debate-continues-and-that,-from-here-on,-the-personal-insults-end.

Tristan, much of the debate around just societies/income redistribution etc seems to be based on what I consider to be a simplistic view of the work/income/quality of life equation which results in an inequitable system.

I would like to see the debate widened to address other parts of the equation.

I'll toss in some bullet points for items which I think need to be considered in the debate
- Employment income is generally a trade off against personal time and to some extent quality of life. My choice to work full time brings with it a personal cost in terms of time to persue recreational/personal interests which those who make different choices share to a lesser or greater degree depending on their own choices.
- A taxation system based primarily on "taxable income" does not take any account of the tradeoff between personal time and employment income in the way it impacts on individuals. It impacts entirely in the financial realm and ignores the time benefit enjoyed by those who choose a lesser involvement in paid employment.
- Employment lessens opportunities to save in other area's - shopping around for bargan's, growing more of your own produce, doing more of your own repairs/maintenance etc.
- Gross income is not a consistent indicator of the effort put in to earn that income. Should someone working 50 hour weeks at a low base rate pay the same tax as someone earning the same taxable income from investments based on inherited capital?
- Gross income is not a viable indicator of the actual need that a person has for that income. Someone recovering from a divorce and who is effectively starting over will have different needs than someone who is well established (or plenty of other scenarios).

Personally I don't think that any taxation system can effectively deal with most of these issues. What may help the debate is an end to the claim by some that a taxation based primarily on income is just or equitable and get back to the reality that it is primarily expedient.

R0bert

Robert - what you say about the inadequacies of the tax system is true. There is a trade off between personal time and hours worked for many people. Also, though, there are many people who have no choice as to whether or not they work part time, full time or on a casual basis. The PAYE income tax system cannot discriminate - but, as you suggest, there's little that can be done about this. Having a progressively-scaled income tax system is still one of the best ways of ensuring distributional justice - but yes - it is flawed. Ideally, though, I might add, no-one ought be forced to work overtime - and I would like to see a 35 hour week introduced here as exists in France.

KAROOSON, the "fruits of our labour" belong to whichever individuals laboured to obtain them, not to society as a whole. Neither you nor anybody else is entitled to the wealth created by another, just as nobody but you is entitled to your wealth.

Redistribution of wealth is completely unethical as it requires great coercion to pry peacefully aquired property out of the hands of another, and if it must be done then it may only be justified when done to protect every individual's natural right to freedom and property, and certainly not to impose some idealistic subjective fantasy on everyone.

You have a small point Honeybee, I should have been more specific with Socialism: There are many strands, and are all based on the same premise of philosophical hypothesis. Basically to steal by fraud some one else’s effort.

The point you advocate and some others is a partnership of Looters of witch doctor Ideologue to confuse the aggressive Attila’s. Government and so called private enterprise, which is unusual, because at a point of time, in a certain place, such a thing was invented in Italy, and was adopted as policy by Germanys Socialist's, perhaps this may contradict what pantheistic Hypothesis you may well be indoctrinated with. It is called FASCISM.

You learn many things on OLO; I would hope some learn from historical mistakes.

Tristan, you argument has too many floors with holes.
In the first instance , there must be industry to produce wealth before it can be looted, Loot does not grow on trees, nor do big pots of gold appear from a forth dimension in our wallets or bags. It is earn and is recognition and a reward for effort. That conflicts heavily with your Ideology.
See here: http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/22/

Your vision exists in the Middle East oil rich countries, but understand the nature of their societies , and how fractured and lacking they are

Tristan, I don't see that there is "distributional justice" in the income based taxation system. I suspect that a belief that there is contributes to the divide in the debate and an unwillingness to work towards better solutions. Those who consider the current system to be providing some kind of justice are unlikely to work towards solutions which lessen the burden on those currently carrying it.

I'd like to see a change in the language of the debate so that it was recognised that what society is doing is taking away from people the results of their labors to help deal with the needs of society. Not justice, rather a pragmatic means to an end.

I've floated the idea previously that taxation could be based on a certain number of hours per person and paid either in hours of "genuine" community service or money (based on average hourly income) depending on which was most available. Clearly the idea would need some thrashing out but could form the basis of a fairer system.

All capable adults would then have an identical obligation to society in regard to the one truly finite resource we have - time. Plenty of justice in that.

R0bert