It seems a core of all is “economic inequalities facilitate productivity and economic growth”.

Slavery is nothing new for a British-style civilization, it is not-reinvented by resent governing minders, it is just being imposted at a modernised scale.

Surely, no economic change in a steady decay of the social Dark Ages

I can see that we are going to end up going off topic here Oliver, but cant resist responding anyway.....

1. Small businesses and farmers receive subsidies. Generally, no. Farmers can access some grants in relation to landcare projects, recognising that it is in the communities interests, not just the farmers, to improve and protect land. Farmers also get a fuel rebate, which is simply a refund of the roaduse tax component of the fuel that they use off road (eg on farm). Not really fair to tax them for something that they dont use, eh. Income support to farmers is simply the Newstart Allowance (dole).

2. Only those that are above the middle class can use trusts. Not at all. Anyone can form a trust - it can be particularly useful if you have a large investment portfolio. However, a person earning a salary of $500,000 cannot run it through a trust. An employee is an employee, and the tax office looks through this structure at what is really going on and levys tax accordingly. Trusts are good and fair vehicles, and only those that dont understand them dont like them. Eg Centrelink - a lot of farmers that would otherwise have qualified for income support during the drought have been unable to receive it because farm income distributed from a trust is classed as off-farm income by Centrelink (and so those that are receiving it are classed as not being dependant on farm income).

Country Gal,

Thanks for your post...

INCOMES AND FARMERS

Regret, I misread your post to say that those on low incomes (under $42K) SHOULD BE taxed, as that level was adequate, and, herein, saw inequalities regarding rural owners and poorer PAYEs: Admit that I have have penchant for being critical of farmers complaining about social security to say single mothers, while lobbying for handouts for themselves. Many, on one hand, are far right wing, except when it comes to agrian socialism. The Japanese rice farmers and the US lamb farmers are the same. Prefer one is a socialist or a capitalist than a hypocrite farmer.

As I mentioned, by me, between us, on another thread in Scandinavia it is not uncommon to cross-train farmers in other industries, so they remain product during economic downturns.

Historically, from the Enclosure Acts through the Great Depression until today, farmers have been a provincial lot,caring little for labour [organic capital]. Similarly, I would posit coutry folk care less about the city, than the other way around.

Both sides of politics maintain farmers are "a special case", more equal than others.

TRUST ACCOUNTS AND THE RICH

The comment about Trust Accounts was borrowed in part from John Howard, who was saying basically that if we don't allow the Rich to get away with here, they will do so somewhere else. A PAYE has a lesser opportunity to minimise tax.

If are tax account, I wonder if you have clients who live "in town" and bee hive or a few head on acres to minimise tax?

OTHER

Equalities would be achieved with a simplified tax system and more tier.

[Earlier statistic should read produce 3.5% of GDP and consume 5% of GDP]

Kirrily or Frank,

What do either of you feel would be a fair Gini Co-efficient for Australia. 20?

Playing money-flow games resolves nothing but an illusion of “healthy economics” – gambling surplus is a perfect example of factually increasing the debt while none produced but REDISTRIBUTED only on a basis of foreign borrowing.

That is Australian egalitarianism - stealing money silently.

MichaelK,

Playing money-flow games resolves nothing but an illusion of “healthy economics” – gambling surplus is a perfect example of factually increasing the debt while none produced but REDISTRIBUTED only on a basis of foreign borrowing. - MK

- Please elaborate a little more.