Maybe all you high tax guys don't realize this, but it is extremely simple now for people who get fed up with their wages getting "redistributed" simply to work elsewhere, as is happening already in record numbers, accoring to Australia's top demographer.
(see e.g.,http://wopared.parl.net/Library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn54.htm). Its like a new form of democracy for well educated professionals. None of the Western European countries have managed to solve this problem (3 million European scientists work in the US), and it is, of course, harder for, say, a French Doctor to move to the US than an Australian one. So pointing to the socialist European countries as an example of what is going to work in the long term is rather misleading .

If Australia really wants to have a decent number of professionals into the future (doctors, scientists...), my suggestion is that people give up on the idea that high levels of money redistribution (and hence the punishment of the successful) has a long term beneficial effect.

RC I don’t think you are right when talking about Australia’s so called “brain drain” I have a friend who works in the CSIRO in Canberra (he is from England) and he was telling me about a conference he went to in Cairns which 7 Australians and 7 Foreigners would have a talk fest (don’t remember what it was about) anyway the funny thing was the 7 foreigners was actually 14 seeing that the 7 “Australians” were all born overseas and had come to Australia to work for the CSIRO.

Secondly would you leave all your friends and your lifestyle in Australia behind for an extra 20-30K a year? Most good scientist in Australia earn more then $85K a year and I doubt many would move there kids out of school and leave there home for a couple of extra bucks. Sure some do but I would say most of them do it for more then personal economic reasons (maybe for better funding of their research)

I think we should increase tax breaks for start ups to spur more investment in bio tech and high technology. I think its currently 150% but we are competing with the likes of Ireland who I think has tax breaks of about 320% (that’s off the top of my head)

Also does anyone know if this is correct, that super funds cannot invest in start ups?

“Abolish the dividend imputation scheme.” Why tax twice? It would reduce incentives for people to own shares who use it as a way of reducing there own tax.
“repealing capital gains tax concessions” Once again stifle investment and crack down on those who want to invest in new companies.
There are a few minor good points but most of it is anti growth anti hard work and anti Australia.

Hmmmmm I sniff a greenie and anti-globalist I wonder if this bloke was one of the people violently attacking the good people of the Victorian police force on the weekend?

This article echoes the comments of Michael Carmody when he retired as Taxation Commissioner in March. He was concerned about the high marginal tax rates paid by those whose income was between $16,000 and $21,000. His proposal was not to cut the marginal tax rates for those earning over $80,000 as the government subsequently did.

I think if would be fairer if corporations that operate in Australia paid income tax based on their turnover rather than their profit. When consumer corporations decide to take their profit offshore they stop manufacturing in Australia. The mining companies sell their product at a low price to their HongKong or Cayman Island partner who onsells it to the final consumer at a high price. Why the rigamarole. The corporations tax is 15% in HongKong or Cayman Islands. The consumer is in Japan or China etc

Although I can see its easier to tax high wealth individuals rather than corporations

Could Kim's slogan be : Let's have a tax on everything! ? I am sure that would resonate with the voters.

The trick for Labor is to find the right balance between getting things done and leaving the average punter with enough in their wallets to allow them to do what they want to do.

Not an easy task, one that would be significantly more difficult with a slew of new taxes.

re: the G20 protests - I do not support the violence of the small minority who - through their actions - are marginalising a legitimate movement. I do think, though, that there are important matters at hand. I think the World Bank and IMF need to be reformed so as to give third world countries control of their own destiny. And that means rejecting a single neo-liberal template enforced through 'structural adjustment' packages.

As for globalisation - there is good and bad. On the one hand, the world is getting smaller, as global information flows increase - and this is a good thing. It gives rise to greater mutual understanding and the develop of a 'global consciousness'. On the bad side, what Boris Frankel calls 'financialisation': the development of the finance capital sector, and volatile finance capital flows - to the exclusion of productive long term investment - produces instability and uncertainty for governments.

As for dividend imputation - it costs billions in lost revenue every year - and mainly benefits the 20% of Australians who own about 90% of all shares. Why should the rich receive a tax break when there is not enough money for school infrastructure, for reducing hospital waiting lists, and with $100,000 degrees on offer in our universities?

We have one of the most modest taxation regimes in the OECD. Infrastructure and services need to be paid for by someone, and without additional taxation we will all lose from decrepit of missing infrastructure, from substandard services, and from user-pays charges that discriminate against those least able to pay.

Tell me - what's preferable about user-pays charges - that are little different than a 'flat tax' - compared to progressive taxation based on capacity to pay - where business pays for the infrastructure it benefits from? People like Western Red are just concerned that THEY will be more tax - and have no concerns for the social needs of the majority of Australians - or the infrastructure needs that are so vital to our society and economy.

How is investing in infrastructure and services "anti-growth" and "anti Australia". Is there some essentially Australian neo-liberal ideology that we all must subscribe to in order to be recognised as citizens? Furthermore - infrastructure contributes to growth. Investment in fixed capital is the lowest it has been in decades. Poor quality roads, rail, education, ports - this is something we all pay for in the end. Infrastructure contributes directly to growth. As the Scandinavians show, a subtantial progressive taxation regime combined with incentives for industry and infrastructure investment - are a recipe for growth and economic success.

Thank you Tristan for putting some Left positions clearly. But when you use these statements to query Mr Beazley's pronouncements you are wasting your time. What you are talking about are matters of governmental social policy. What Mr Beazley (and just about all other politicians) is talking about is how to get enough votes to win an election. These statements are definitely not in the same speech register. You can't apply logic to politician's statements. Sorry, I am so cynical about our politics. Too much politics and not enough wise government.
I like the idealism of your social policy but I question its efficiency. I would like a world where it was "to each according to their need, and from each according to their ability" and I tried to practice that for a time. But sadly the world does not work like that.

Whow, this article has stirred me into a second post. I wish the ALP would indeed adopt the policies that you advocate and state them clearly. Then it will go down in a massive landslide, but honest and true to its principles in defeat. Instead what we will get is a focus-group directed, popularist, play-it-safe, don't-offend-anyone, ALP campaign that gets 50% plus or minus 3% of the vote after preferences. The true left should stand up and be counted, and take it on the chin electorally.

You can only achieve change in Government not sitting on your moral high horse in the political wilderness.

I don't agree with all of Tristan's ideas but some may have merit.

Having lived under Conservative and right wing Labor I will take the latter every time. They may not be Left enough for some, but for the mass of people they are at least Left of the lot who are there now.

In a liberal democracy change will always be incremental which means Labor has to stop being a permanent opposition and get in and stay in and make changes over time.

Can any political party really promise any tax cuts? Given our inflation rate and the impending recession, I think not.

Easy times: there is a lot of movement of scientists back and forward (which is good), so its easy to find examples of foreign scientists in Australia (particularily at the best places like the CSIRO). According to Hugo, the actual number and demographics of those that there are is currently unstablished (tracking people is hard).

The real problem is the future, since the average age of the workforce is high (over 50 in universities if I remember correctly), and many competitor countries have the same problem. Thus there will be high competition for the same people which will make it both harder to keep people in Australia and get the type of people you want from OS. I don't see high taxes helping in this respect.

Tristan: I'm also glad you're so honest about your position (especially at election time). My suggestion is that instead of increasing taxes to pay for infrastucture and the like, try including people's homes in benefit calculations. This way you wouldn't have people paying benefits to others that own more fixed assets then they can ever dream of. That might be very politically unpopular, but I don't see why people without money (often young) are subsidizing those that do, even if those assets are fixed.

Tristan Ewins said: "How is investing in infrastructure and services "anti-growth" and "anti Australia". Is there some essentially Australian neo-liberal ideology that we all must subscribe to in order to be recognised as citizens? Furthermore - infrastructure contributes to growth."

The economic rationalist aversion to infrastructure investment is...well...irrational. Heavyweights such as the RBA and OECD have explicitly warned that Australia's widespread infrastructure constraints, especially deficiencies in export-oriented infrastructure, are stunting growth and putting upward pressures on inflation. According to Wayne Swan, addressing the backlog of economic infrastructure projects could add an extra 1% to long-term GDP growth and 2% to export growth.

The Federal Government can seem to find a few billion here and there to fund improvident and inflationary election bribes, but according to Howard/Costello/Minchin, infrastructure investment is unproductive and risks a budget deficit. I think I even recall Minchin once asserting that infrastructure investment wasn't the Commonwealth's responsibility. Better, Howard/Costello/Minchin argue, to let the States and the private sector foot the bill for essential nation-building projects.

Call me a realist, but the problem I see with Tristan's ideas is that they're too idealistic. Not that idealism is bad mind you, but that it's far too easy to say, but much, much harder to do. Yeah, it would be good if all the suggestions were to happen as easily as they sound, but they won't. Experience tells me that for most people, anything that comes easily isn't worth having. Conversely, only those things society works hard for are what they'll value. And then, history has shown that society only does things when everything's on the verge of going pear-shaped (just look at how governments are madly scrambling at the moment, after decades of inertia, to implement water policies in response to the drought). That's why I think Tristan's ideas, as they are portrayed, just won't work at the current time.

While progressive taxation is a seductive idea for the Left, it doesn't work because it concentrates taxation on too narrow a part of society and the economy. It's better to gradually widen the base of taxation so that as many people as possible pay a fair share. (At least this plays to the psychology of society, where the people collectively believe they deserve the freedom to both make a go of things if they want and be taxed the same as their neighbour.)

Once done, the government can determine its welfare offsets so that those least able to look after themselves are helped out. As the world becomes more competitive, Australia is going to need all the nous, innovation and knowhow it can get to make the country overall a wealthier one. This isn't going to happen by wrapping the country in cotton wool as a result of ramping up the progressive taxation system. (As a matter of fact, even a flat tax regime is a progressive tax - just not as progressive as the one Tristan has in mind.) They don't say that 'politics is the art of the possible' and 'everything is political' for nothing. Putting those two truisms together, Tristan's ideas can't possibly work.

As to whether or not my ideas can work - they have worked in Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries, and they have worked in countries such as Denmark and Holland. It's true that the entire program might be too difficult to implement over one term: but I think that the Left ought be uncompromising - with the aim of framing and relativising the terms of debate. If only a couple of my proposals were adopted - even in ammended form (half-dividend imputation, carbon tax) - the surge in revenue would be enough to address waiting lists and pay for investment in education infrastructure.

The entire program might take several terms: but providing for quality and free aged care for all is a pressing problem that will only grow greater as the population continues to age. Some in the ALP are talking about investing Future Fund proceeds into infrastructure. This is a good idea - there is an enormous backlog in infrastructure provision - but some time or another we have to confront the fact that taxes will have to rise to pay for increasing health and aged care costs.

As for broadening the tax base - there is no doubt that those on middle incomes would need to meet a substantial proportion of the tax burden if we were to move in the direction of providing a European style of social wage. Howard won with a GST - and looks to be a good chance even promoting nuclear energy, and continuing Australian involvement in Iraq. NZ Labour, what is more, has won successive elections on a program of raising the top income tax rate, and re-establishing a public bank. This shows that it is possible to win elections on a platform of progressive tax reform.

The change might have to be incremental - even over a number of terms - but Labor isn't even proposing incremental reform - we're talking about effectively going backwards. One thing Labor cannot afford to do is make an opportunistic move for tax cuts: fueling inflation and narrowing the revenue base.

Of course we want the government to increase spending. In addition, most of us would also like the government to abolish all taxation.

Any deficiency in government financing could be covered from the sale of politicians assets.

“I think the World Bank and IMF need to be reformed so as to give third world countries control of their own destiny”

That is exactly like suggesting a bank is best managed by a bankrupt.

The reason the IMF and World Banks were conceived was to enable developing countries to themselves, develop responsible economic practices through having conditions and benchmarks attached to their borrowings, rather than continue with non-sustainable (often) socialist grandiosement programmes (aka pork barrel projects).

Dividend Imputation was introduced by Keating, in one of those rare moments of reason, although the practice is not universal.

DI removes the “double dipping” by the tax authorities, when comparing share dividend income versus interest income.
Simply put, an interest cost is a legitimate deductible tax cost for funds of the borrower and such incomes are assessable by the lender.

Dividend payments are paid from an after tax income stream (franked) by the company and without dividend imputation, that income would be taxed again upon receipt by the share holder.

Upon receipt of dividend the investor receives benefit of the tax already paid at the corporate rate, extended as a value, he can then offset this tax, already paid, against his own assessable income.

Infrastructure and services should be on a user pays basis, better I choose the quality standards for the infrastructure and services which are supplied rather than have some disinterested bureaucrat making such decisions for me.

It is like government businesses, they have, traditionally, only operated as monopolies, which destroys consumer choice and makes the consumer the victim of a commercial tyranny.

They require injections of under-scrutinised consumer tax funding, rather than being financed at arms length by investors taking risks with their own money (basic commercial accountability).

They presume to know what individuals need and want, which is the corrupting and contemptible presumption behind socialist political arrogance.

Sound government and politicians recognize that they are there to serve and not to master their electorates and certainly not to run commercial monopolies with unaccountable tax revenues.

re: the IMF, World Bank and the Third World - what does forcing third world nations to privatise their water and electricity supplies have to do with 'responsible economic practices'. And what value democracy in this scenario? What if most people what public ownership of gas, water, electricity, education - and structural adjustment packages - determined directly by the United States as the most significant contributor to the World Bank/IMF - DEMAND small government, privatisation etc? As was the case under Pinochet, the requirements of democracy take a back seat to the demands of the neo-liberal ideology.

As for dividend imputation - 90% of shares are owned by only 20% of the population - and 1% of the population hold 50% of all shares. What should we be giving tax breaks to these people while Howard 'cracks down' on single mothers and the disabled. It's not about the fairness or otherwise of 'double taxation'- it's about the INTERESTS of the wealthy - something both major parties play to with little concern for the fact that lower income Australians are paying proportionately more tax as a consequence. The trick is to make those on lower incomes believe that their interests are the same as those of the wealthy - unfortunately many succumb to the hegemonic ideology. In any case, company tax is so low that the amount of tax before dividends are paid is scandalously low in any case.

re: government monopolies - monopolies in infrastructure ought be accountable through the ballot box and the public sphere. In some cases, private infrastructure holders - take public transport in Victoria - attract massive public subsidies. (in Victoria over $500 million for Connex and Yarra Trams) Where are the 'private sector efficiencies' here? In the case of the Scoresby freeway - the project cost about 2.5 million - but will return $7 billion to investors before reverting to public ownership. Again - how do consumers benefit from 'user pays' here? Even the Liberals in Victoria were opposed to tolls on the Scoresby freeway - but Col is blinded by his ideology.

Tristan says: "Some in the ALP are talking about investing Future Fund proceeds into infrastructure. This is a good idea - there is an enormous backlog in infrastructure provision - but some time or another we have to confront the fact that taxes will have to rise to pay for increasing health and aged care costs."

This fundamentally assumes a Keynesian economic model where the state pays for everything out of taxes and taxes alone. But the great advantage of globalisation (there are plenty of disadvantages too) is that there are now lots of avenues to getting things done (such as building infrastructure and perhaps one day running education programs, etc) compared with the old days where the government controlled a captive, static society. What about industry super funds financing the building of infrastructure instead?

As to the comment that taxes will have to rise to pay for increasing costs, this is not necessarily so. Consider the following scenario: if an ambitious company were to see an opportunity to steal a march on its competitors by expeditiously building some infrastructure (say broadband, fibre optic cables, tollways, ports, etc), it might decide to do this itself rather than wait for the government to plod through its bureaucratic processes. This in turn takes the financial responsibility off the Commonwealth to fund the project, leaving it with a windfall to spend somewhere else. By business jumping in in this way, they effectively take some of the role - and the funding responsibility - away from government. Isn't this another way to skin the cat? The problem with the progressive tax regime propounded by Tristan is that it euthanases the goose (the positive economic effects of globalisation) before it can ever lay a golden egg (generate wealth creating businesses).

The Keynesian paradigm is an old one. The future will be a blending of state control and market forces, where the state steers the effects of the market. This means letting the market do what it does well, but according to rules set by government for the benefit of people in society.

Unless you want to be paying close to 50% tax rate it would be impossible to have Australian social security mirroring Scandinavia. I was there last year and in Oslo I paid $17 for a cardboard box of pasta and a muffin at a 7/11 style store!

I think the Australian system is far better were you reap what you sow and those who do little are still looked after.

One thing that I think should happen is the GST should go up to 15% and cover everything including food. This would enable tax cuts for the lower and middle class and people would only pay tax on what they spend.

The IMF and the world bank are not the problem it’s the corrupt kleptocary that are. If this were not true why is Botswana doing so much better then Cameroon? They are similar in culture and both started from almost the same position. But one is democratic and the other is a dictator ship.
Privatizing is the best way the 3rd world can get western money and know how it to help them build there economies.

Tristan,

this idea of providing free aged care for all doesn't do anything for equity. Perhaps you haven't been looking at demographic data and wealth, but I think you'll find a fair proportion of elderly people are extremely asset rich (which is not surprising given that assets increase across a lifespan). By offering them free aged care, what you are effectively doing is getting potentially poorer people (who pay the tax) to subsidize them. Thus you have a Robinhood in reverse situation where the poor subsidize the rich. No doubt there are some poor elderly people who the government will need to look after, but with no means testing, you are simply creating a subsidy for the rich.

EasyTimes said: "Privatizing is the best way the 3rd world can get western money and know how it to help them build there economies."

Wholesale privatisation may have been trendy back in the 1980s, but the track record of the IMF and World Bank in the Third World has been far from impressive. I doubt even you would have the temerity to argue that the "Washington Consensus" has not been an adbject failure.

Poor countries require essential investments in health, education and infrastructure before they can compete internationally. The World Bank and IMF instead demand that nation-states reduce government support, and insist on pushing weak developing economies into markets where they have no hope of competing. The success of the East Asian Tigers aptly demonstrates that the state-led, export-driven developmental model is far more effective than the gratuitous deregulation and privatization agenda adopted in Latin America at the behest of the IMF and World Bank.

re: private provision of infrastructure - yes it can be done - but is it more competitive? The Scoresby freeway shows a project that cost about 2.5 billion to build, yet will cost consumers $7.5 billion. The Vic County Court building, costing taxpayers over $500 million over 20 years, only cost about $130million to build, and will not even revert to public ownership. Cut out the middle men, the profit margins, the higher cost of private capital - and you're left with the fact that the public sector can finance infrastructure more competitively than the private sector.

Re: using superannuation funds - this is an idea I'm thinking a lot about lately - and I'm undecided. The CFMEU as suggested some kind of public finance corporation comrpising the combined capital of the Future Fund and super funds. This idea seems to have merit as a means of mobilising super funds for the public good - but once you factor in the cost of tax concessions is it still a more competitive way of financing infrastructure compared to issuing government infrastructure bonds? I'm writing an article right now - so expect to hear more from me on this. Certainly it's a better way than the PPPs we're used to.

The straw man of a 'static' Keynesian past is unconvincing. Goverment can still finance infastructure at a more competitive rate: and infrastructure is still essential for competitiveness and growth. Counter-cyclical expenditure, when necessary, still makes sense. A democratic mixed economy is the real alternative to neo-liberalism.

re: Aged care - we have a choice - between a quality universal system - and a two-tiered system where those who cannot afford to pay have sub-standard care, those in the middle are forced to sell their homes to get any care at all (my grandma's home was only valued at somewhere around $70,000 and still she was forced to sell), and only the wealthy are assured of securing quality care. This is worse than a flat tax, and is inhumane and barbaric.

about the GST next time - no more room.

Re Aged Care - I am not sure that wealthier aged persons get better care than the patients around them. The wealthier patients certainly pay double the weekly fees of other patients.

Hostel aged care costs are divided into 2 bits
- there is a deposit of say $100,000 paid to the owner of the building - this money should be refunded within 3 months of death (oops) moving out
- there is a weekly sum for board, paid to the operator for providing staff, food and care.

The weekly sum for board is about 80% of the aged pension, paid by persons whose annual income was less than $63,000 [2003]. Wealthy paitents pay double this amount.

In Victoria the average cost of a nursing home meal is $0.70 and its quite common for patients to loss weight upon admittance eg The Age reported that a woman was admitted weighing 60kg and 3 months later she weighed 40kg. When I took my elderly mum out to dinner I joked that old people in this state starved to death and she agreed as she tucked into her meal.

I have seen aged care providers miraculously find hostel beds when they realised that the frail gent had $60,000 in his bank account.
Aged day care service providers will grudgingly admit to a service having a spare day so that if the patient is disruptive they can be eased out of their 1 day a week and if they are co-operative then they can access more care.

TE “what does forcing third world nations to privatise their water “
I thought the biggest problem with third world countries was – they did not have “water systems” or much of any other system, for that matter.

And these sovereign nations you talk of. The IMF and World Bank do not have the authority to force them to do anything.

If I borrow money from any bank, that bank has a right to put conditions on the loan, like checking the quality of the security, checking my “credit worthiness”, arranging a repayment schedule etc. It is no different for nations.

Oh if these countries were really democratic, they would find raising funding a lot easier.

One of the attractions of Australia is a history of stable and responsible democracy, for us to borrow money we do not have the legacy, like say, Bolivia of 200 revolutions..

Now DI “90% of shares are owned by only 20% of the population - and 1% of the population hold 50% of all shares.”

I note you have not attempted to addressed the patent in equitability of double dipping dividend compared to interest income.

Instead you have applied the rhetoric of socialist small minds and envy.

I thought most shares were owned by superfunds, mutual funds, unit trusts and other institutional investors, who act in the best interests of their beneficial members (us).

Some private companies are owned by private individuals, I own 100% of one and 50% of two others. If DI was not there, I would pay myself a service fee instead of a dividend. The outcome is the same but dividends avoid me having to raise more invoices and consequential GST accounting (the inputs = outputs).

Actually the USA does not have DI but when I was doing my tax exams in UK, I recall some particular accounting for franked income, although not much of the detail now.

TE, before waxing lyrical about the implications of tax policy it is useful to have acquired some rudimentary understanding of the topic.

“Crass Ignorance” is no substitute for “good reasons”.

“Government monopolies”

Sheltered workshops for the incompetent, through institutions which lack any accountability or commercial transparency. A bunch of bureaucrats holding court over public funds and paying off their mates behind closed doors. I could go on but it only gets worse, like the collapse of Tri-Continental and the 3 billion dollar loss courtesy, the Kirner government.

$1000 for every man woman and child in Victoria, at the time.

I would not waste money like that but then, I was not given a choice.

I would not give a transport company a dollar either, I suggest you read my posts on the public transport thread -

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5052

I do not support subsidizing anyone’s ride to work and never protestors rides to rallies against the work place laws.

Transport companies thrive or fail on their commercial merits, not by sucking the financial marrow out of the rest of us.

“Company tax is so low that the amount of tax before dividends are paid is scandalously low”

What level does “Scandalously“ start at?
What level of tax is “acceptable” and what level is “virtuous”?

Applying “emotion” to tax is stupid. “Tax” is an unavoidable evil. It is there because governments need to fund the basic services, police, security etc.

Tax is not something which can be described as morally “desirable” or “scandalous”; except by those who believe that we individuals, who elect parliamentarians, are incapable of deciding how we should spend our own incomes.

Of course, government monopoly businesses are so inefficient that they cannot generate a profit, so would not qualify to pay tax anyway, except water services.

The Brack’s government has sucked $100 million per year out of the water rates paid by Melbourne water users as a “special dividend” instead of the water companies (check the accounts, public record) being allowed to use those funds to build the infrastructure which you are now claim is not being undertaken. That has the stench of socialist humbug and hypocrisy to me.

Tomorrow – My Future fund and I want a better risk and return profile than a “sheltered workshop for unionists”.

Those troublesome protestors, Col - getting free public transport. Wouldn't it be better if we live in a Pinochet-style neo-liberal utopia - and we could just let the death squads take care of socialists, unionists and their ilk.

As for 'crass ignorance' - I'm well aware of what DI is. And I believe the billions in revenue foregone could make a substantial difference in cutting back hospital waiting lists (which the Libs like to complain about - but they cut expenditure when they get in government), in providing affordable and quality education for all, and in providing for the aged and for their carers. With the top 20% owning 90% of all shares, it's clear whose interests you care about, and whose you do not.

And you're right - the US does not have dividend imputation. Most of the world doesn't. When you add state company taxes to the equation, the US also has significantly higher corporate tax rates. Certainly we could do to introduce an infrastructure levy, or raise Company Tax by as much a 5%. Meanwhile, in Australia, the government boasts about having next to no debt - but no-one mentions the backlog of unconstructed infrastructure that is creating a drag on the entire economy.

As for the third world not being forced into anything: these countries are driven to accept 'structural adjustment' packages in return for credit, including privatisation. And it has nothing to do with credit-worthiness, and everything to do with the ideological agenda of the main contributor to the IMF and World Bank: the United States.

The neo-liberal Right loves to evoke the language of 'envy' when condemning socialist or social-democratic policy - but the market is not 'essentially' fair or just. Regulation and redistribution are necessary to create compassionate and just outcomes. The alternative is a US style health system, or a US style labour market. This may seem like utopia for you (low income tax for the wealthy, low income earners being exploited and denigrated as 'trailer trash') but for most of us the prospect is appalling.

Col_Rouge said that “If I borrow money from any bank, that bank has a right to put conditions on the loan, like checking the quality of the security, checking my “credit worthiness”, arranging a repayment schedule etc. It is no different for nations.” However the founder of the Grameen Bank, Muhammad Yunus, said that in the third world, loans to farmer often came with unfair conditions like the crop can only sold to the lender at the price he decides to pay.

Re: IMF and World Bank have come under a lot of criticism for being instruments of American economic imperialism insisting that development loans be used to pay large fees to expatriate experts and use capital intensive equipment rather than local manpower and technology to complete projects.

Col_Rouge said “I thought most shares were owned by superfunds, mutual funds, unit trusts and other institutional investors, who act in the best interests of their beneficial members (us).” hee hee hee! Col_Rouge obviously runs his own superannuation fund because he wouldn't be so sanguine if his super was being managed by the largest superfunds in Australia who are seriously less than competent and protected by government regulation they are “sheltered workshops for the incompetent”. But the CFMEU is just copying an idea from Singapore which used superannuation monies to invest in housing

Transport companies thrive or fail on their commercial merits, by the same argument the user should pay each time he travels on Eastlink.

In 1992 Victoria had a unified water system, now we have “water companies” so why do you think its OK to sell off the assets the government built at fire sale prices. The UK has private water companies and this year has had water restrictions since March!

A little search of Wikipedia indicates that the state treasurer has better credentials than you to hold the state's purse strings.

See you at the MCG, 9am Thursday!

Dear Tristan,
of course I am right USA does not have DI, I have some experience of US tax, having lived there and paid it for 3 years, we do not all get our references from discarded Keynsian textbooks.

However, the basket of taxes levied in USA is so totally different, with each state applying different rates of Sales tax and some applying local income tax, that the comparisons you are alluding to are fatuous.

Well Tristan, you have one thing right, I do have an idealogical agenda.

I would suggest you get one too. At the moment you are content to publicly humiliate yourself offering up the discarded and discredited drivel of socialism – which is far from being an ideology, more like a mediocrity.

“the market is not 'essentially' fair or just”

Oh the world is not a fair or just place at all. I have never suggested it is. If your policies depend on everything being “fair and just” you are screwed.

My philosophy of life is to play the hand you are dealt and do your best, that way everyone will ultimately benefit.

Your philosophy requires micromanagement to level the ground for everyone by stopping those that achieve from benefiting from the fruit of their innovation, thrift and efforts by stealing from them with regressive taxation.
You will spend all your resources flattening dirt for people who just do not care.
A waste of time effort and opportunity, as we can gleam from the stench of socialist stagnation which pervades your posts (50 year old references to Keynes).

Regarding the future fund.

Beazley would love to fritter that nestegg away, spend the lot on grandiose icons to the union movement, chisel some off for the labor party like they did on the lease for Centenary House.

Future fund is designed to cover the superannuation packages of retiring civil servants. It should be managed and invested independently of parliament and not used as a swill trough for socialist to pork barrel their electorates (nice mixed metaphor – swill and pork barrel, Keating was heavily into pigs too).

Billie “pay each time he travels on Eastlink.” (aka Scoresby tollway) Well if Bracks had not got away with lying to the public about that it would be a freeway. It was intended as a freeway and 2 days after being reelected in 2003 Bracks & Co declared it a toll way and lost the $400 million federal funding.

Blame Bracks & Co for that Billie, not me.

The infrastructural requirements of the UK water have no comparison to Australia, subterranean aquifers contain most of the water (eg in the south the chalk of the South Downs). A more even pattern of rain fall means the level of dam reserves do not have to accommodate extreme seasonal falls.

As for UK water restrictions, Cornwall has had seasonal water restrictions going back 30 years. I dunno where you do your research for your posts but I suggest you find a new source, you are spouting incidental and irrelevant drivel.

Re “treasurer has better credentials than you”

Brumby’s qualifications, per your source state “he graduated in commerce in 1974,”…” Diploma of Education in 1975”

Oh billie, don’t turn this into a “size of di*k competition”.

The only credential that John Brumby has which qualify him for the role of state treasurer, is being elected to parliament, an endeavour which I have never pursued.

As far as “credentials” , my professional accreditations outrank his commerce degree and teaching diploma hands down. We might consider giving him some credits against exams for the commerce degree but that would amount to no more than 1/3 the papers he would need to sit to qualify for membership.

The most offensive part of the parade of the trolls (the trade hall trollops rally this week) is those usurpers of public services, who are to receive free travel as a bribe to attend and doubtless threats by union thugs behind closed doors, is they suggest bringing children. I recall when the wharfies dragged their wives and children onto the picket line, to hide behind skirts and prams. A despicable act but what we now expect from trailer trash.

Col_Rouge At one stage I worked for a supplier to UK water boards and the people I dealt with in the UK water boards envied the unified water system in Victoria.

Its unfair to expect railways to be stand alone user pays when roads are built with funds from consolidated revenue.

Why do you object to low paid workers getting free public transport to the rally at the MCG on Thursday when you probably claim travel expenses on your tax return. This egrious item has been called "sanctioned tax fraud" by Michael Carmody, retiring Taxation Commissioner in March 2006. Contract teachers and nurses who are hired by the day are unable to claim travel allowances and they often can't work without a vehicle to get them from home to work when they have less than 1 hours notice of the work. And I grit my teeth when a Liberal member of Parliament complains about the car provided by the grateful tax payers of Victoria for their use.

Being a state treasurer might require more networking, vision and macro economics than is needed for chartered accountancy exams. With the complaints you still make about effort you put into passing your exams are you sure you were actually up to the task. Even as you quaff your french wine you are still a red neck.

Your article totally ignores the need for national banking.

ie. A national bank that can generate and direct credit to worthy

national infrastructure projects-rail, road, water piplines, dams,

irrigation projects, science and research facilities.

i dont see why an infrastructure tax should be placed on buisness when

we all benefit.

Offshore tax evasion must go and its practioners consigned to hell.

Tobin tax. Ok

Carbon tax- Irrigate plant forests soak up cabon if you want too.

I like the effort that you put in-

Billie “the people I dealt with in the UK water boards envied the unified water system in Victoria.”
So what the opinion of a group bureaucrats who have made a career of soaking the UK public from a position of monopoly power does not mean what they say is worth a toss.

“Its unfair to expect railways to be stand alone user pays when roads are built with funds from consolidated revenue.”

Roads are funded totally by tax imposts on motorists. Check the national accounts. Different states publish the value of the fuel levy which they charge for roads to say nothing of the GST and duty on motor fuels.

The vast majority of roadways are “free for all to use” and not charged on a “user pays” basis,
I do not recall railways ever being structured on a “free to use” basis, except when unions try and blackmail transport companies to supply free trams for their rallies as a bribe among the bullying which they pursue to get their membership to attend. Railways were nationalized from and remain structured on “fee for use”.

That those railway companies cannot tailor their expenditure to fit within the constraints of their income merely shows they have not come to terms with McCawbers law of economics (read David Copperfield for more detail). Which remains a fundamental insight into economics and its implications for wise, healthy, successful and virtuous living.

The ex tax commissioners view of deductibility is irrelevant. We elect people to decide tax law. Public servants are there to enforce said law, not to decide what it should be.

As for “networking, vision and macro economics”, You do not have a clue to the extent of my experience in any of them. If you did, it would surprise you.

I do not drink French wine (lambrusco maybe) and you calling me “redneck” is likely pure coincidence.

Jellyback “A National Bank” oh never again, when governments start down that path we end up with Tricontinental and the other horrors of incompetence. If projects have “merit” they will always attract the funding they need.

Col_Rouge your previous post is a triumph of political cant in the face of the measured opinions of experts’ experience. I think the people who work in the water industry or collect tax might have a more valid opinion than someone who is unfamiliar with that industry or politicians who spend 5 hours at lobbyists lunches.

You could be the Victorian auditor general but while you continue to hide behind a nom-de-plume we will never know.

We do know from your previous posts that you left a pre-Thatcher England in the 1970s and you have always had the security of universal health and dental programs and public housing.

Australians of the same vintage as you remember when you had to pay to go to the doctor. If you had a cleft palate, if your parents couldn’t pay, you had a hole in the middle of your face. Australia had such a shortage of housing that migrants lived in very crowded conditions. And Australians still have very poor access to dentists - look at their smiles, but then you don't catch public transport.

So if you want to go back to the laissez-faire conditions of the UK well go. Aren’t there more homeless people in the UK, isn’t the economic prosperity centred on the home counties?

And why refer to english authors like Dickens who wrote about LONDON in the 1860s to effect social change?

What I find interesting is how almost uniform the living conditions etc etc are in English speaking countries (I only exclude NESBs because I don ' t have a clue what they are like).

I say uniform in a majority sense not as an absolute. The key differences would appear to be about the size of the underclasses and their relative dispossession. For the middle classes life is pretty "Big Mac", plasma TVs, 2 cars, similar disposable incomes, and so on.

I would say our underclass is smaller and better off than their underclasses.

Maybe we should be aiming to keep it that way ?