The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Could we have a more egalitarian society? > Comments

Could we have a more egalitarian society? : Comments

By Kirrily Jordan and Frank Stilwell, published 30/4/2007

Opinion polls indicate a preference for increased social spending, and a willingness to pay the taxes necessary to fund it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Oliver,I dont have any clients that live in town and run a few head of stock to get tax breaks,although I know it does happen. The worst offenders are city-dwellers,who think they are farmers with 5 sheep and an alpaca. A colleague of mine recently moved to Sydney and couldnt believe that none of her new firms "farming" clients had more than the stated 5 sheep. It does happen,and I think it is wrong. Most tax breaks given to farmers are in the form of income averaging,which recognises that they might make $1mill one year and nothing the next 4 years. Professional entertainers and artists get the same averaging for the same reason - recognition that there is little consistency of earning generation from year to year.

I do get your point about right-wing farmers not liking others getting social security. Single mothers in particular. I think the problem is worse in other countries more so than Australia,but there is definitely an element here. I think it stems from very conservative family values more than anything - which is why single mothers get singled out.

With regards to your point about Scanindavian countries retraining their farmers,I dont think that this would solve our problems. Firstly, there tend to be not many jobs in close proximity to farming regions in Australia (if farmers arent spending in town, then the other businesses are struggling too). Secondly,in times of drought farmers tend to be busy with their farm anyway. They need to cart water and feed stock,and they still plant the crop if there is rain at sowing time (the problem has been the last several years that there has been no followup rain so crops have subsequently dried). They still have machinery to service,dams can be desilted when dry,fencing can be caught up on (often falls behind when times are good as busy elsewhere). Shearing still happens for what stock are left etc etc. Very few farms actually shut down. But if you can come up with specific ideas,then I am sure that the farming community would be prepared to listen.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 4 May 2007 11:33:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal,

Good, interesting posts. I had forgotten about the Pitt Street Farmers. My comment about Scandinavian countries was not from an academic source, but a tour guide. I think farmers in downtimes helped out the mobile phone industry. Given the distances in Oz, I guess something virtual. I am aware of a Shire President who aimed to set some local non-farm industry, but the farmers remained focosed on the Land. Maybe, some form of wealth management, which allows preferential treatment of non-farm investment by resident farmers, in the same way companies are encouraged to invest in R&D? Migrational shift and diversification?

Both my parents, wife and in-laws are from the country. It was visiting my in-laws, where I saw the mental disconnect in attitudes towards wider community welfare and farm welfare.

Do you feel some communities have already reached there Nauru Moment? That is, no longer sustainable.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 4 May 2007 1:46:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver I see your point about the Nauru moment. I think there are many communities that are marginally viable, if at all. The question could be put that propping these communities up may help to alleviate some of the crowding problems that either are or will be faced by our large cities and coastal communities. Its governments responsibility to think decades ahead of our current situation to promote investment in infrastructure in areas that might not currently be profitable, but would be for the greater good of the country eventually. Not sure that any government (or potential govt) that we have at the moment is anywhere near far thinking enough, partiularly in this regard. Its all the more important if we are targeting population growth. Immigration can even be used as a tool in this respect - yes you can move to Australia, but you cant live in the city for X number of years.

Most farmers (and those living in the country) would happily pay more tax if they thought it would come back to them in the form of various services. Instead they see hospitals closed, rail lines closed, roads disintegrating, school struggling to keep teachers.... most feel that there is a leakage from regional areas to the cities, and I've seen a number of other posts on this forum and various statistics that suggest similar (I'll have to go and try to find some now!).

I agree with you in regards to preferential treatment of off-farm investments. Problem is that current support policies discourage this by putting caps on levels of off-farm assets that can be owned if assistance is to be sought. Whilst I understand why this is the case, it is definately a disincentive.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 4 May 2007 3:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oliver,

Straight to the point. Money itself is a paper and money represents amounts of energy initiating the projects vital for society. If tax increases from money-turnover -round the gambling machines and GST,- it represents potentially increasing inflation only, because volumes of funds are not sustained with factual volumes of goods being produced and available for further potential consumption.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 4 May 2007 9:46:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal and Michael K.,

Thanks. Busy. Will come back. In the interim:

CG: There is a link between shutting down train lines and disintergrating road. I forget the exact numbers but about 10-15 years ago in the Open Road there was article which said that a truck weighing say five times as much as a car 10,000 times the damage. As I say, I don't recall the exact numbers but this was the ordor of magnitude.

MK: Understand.
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 6 May 2007 6:44:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Economic's is the point most governments miss because;

"Extreme inequalities in income and wealth may actually undermine economic efficiency because they create more conflict and require more resources to be allocated to controlling its effects."

The wolf crying 'Poor Bugger' me on these issues do not work. Problems need to be faced if they are to be solved.

Look at the Health and Water crisis.

Look at the skills shortage... and the A Moral ways the fast guns are suggesting we fix this?

Where is the 'TAFE Strategic Planning Services' for the people in Cooktown and Cape York, where is the infrastructure required to plant innovation or equitable change? A case for the future in (wait for it) a persons work choices?

Where is there local advocacy for these things?

Do we all just leave our homes - crowd-out our cities, as they do in the third world?.

Is this the new Australian fabric we all worked so hard to avoid.

Where's the egalitarian ideal or policy practice possible for rural isolated areas which are indeed crucial for cohesiveness, especially when we don't even have a mediation or legal aid office - officer or service except if we ring Cairns.... STD, or go the 380 or so road kms to get there... cricky eh?

The problem is that governments implicitly formulate policy priorities on assumptions that economic inequalities facilitate productivity and economic growth, because they do not understand economic's as a science - and that it is different to ordinary equations of finance .

Things that happen in small towns are far more personal than cities and for this reason the problems we find in small towns are exactly about what has to happen, if we mean to have these so called "Egalitarian policies" taken seriously.

This is a real reason why Aboriginal people in Australia and nations oversea's make small progress on issues of 'self-determination'.

We need to see economic's itself as something that delivers a egalitarian framework.

This is at the heart of why we must REFORM or face the consequences.

Really Good Essay TA!

http://www.miacat.com/
.
Posted by miacat, Monday, 14 May 2007 12:13:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy