Yabby, to suggest that governments have achieved what they have "at the expense of hardworking taxpayers" carries the implication that we would be better off if we did not have a government willing and able to provide the framework for a modern, prosperous, democratic nation. Given that the only countries in the world where governments do not take on this role are desperately poor, backward nations, then I for one believe that having a strong, capable government is worth every cent of my taxes, especially given how low Australian taxes are relative to most other OECD countries. Perhaps you would prefer anarchy.

And I'd suggest you also have a rather different definition of "flourish" than I do. Modern capitalism really only began to truly flourish during the industrial revolution, at a time where governments (or ruling monarchs) began to see the benefit in significant projects such as roads, railroads, sewers, schools, funding exploratory/trading missions around the globe, etc. etc.

As far as taxes/fees on credit cards etc - currently there is a miniscule $2/month goverment fee on store cards with interest free terms. If this were, say, $10/month, I have no doubt it would seriously discourage many people from the otherwise seductive nature of such offers. But I also accept that as individuals, we very easily succumb to believing we can handle more debt that we truly can, especially when times are good. It concerns me just how easy it is to collect credit card after credit card, to the point that it is possible to end up with a total credit limit that is more than value of a typical mortgage (this happened to us at one point). I certainly agree that an informational campaign is long overdue (but again, would rely on government acting as a type of "nanny"), but given that the consequences of overborrowing can spill over to many other people - not least of which being family members - then there is a good case to be made for tougher legislative restrictions on lending institutions.

“carries the implication that we would be better off if we did not have a government etc”

Nic, I did not state that, you drew that conclusion, big difference!

I certainly don’t believe that our Govts are worth every cent of our taxes, for I have
yet to see them spend our hard earned resources so wisely. In fact, as many Govt
services have no competition, it needs constant pressure and calls for accountability,
to see that our money is not sloshed around too wastefully.

Then we have the issue of over governance, which is a huge issue in Europe and is becoming more so here. Eg Woodside, for their Pluto project to go ahead, needed
over 450 different Govt approvals! An abalone aquaculture project that I know a little about, needed 27 different Govt approvals. Govt paper shuffling is massive
and increasing. It costs all of us, especially those involved in exports, where the
playing field is quite unlike the local one.

Why should there be any Govt tax on credit cards? Yet more officials to administrate it! We need more productive people and less paper shuffling.

Modern capitalism is flourishing now, because more and more ordinary people
can afford to be providers of capital. Something like 42% of the Australian population directly own shares. Virtually all Australians own shares through their
super fund. Anyone can save their pennies rather then waste them and invest in
banks, insurance companies, or any other industry. Grey nomads are the wealthiest
by generation, but then its their life’s work and savings that are involved. The
youngest are the poorest, but that is to be expected, as they have only just left
the family nest, with their lives in front of them. The one politician who understood
the value of all that, was in fact Mark Latham.

We can see from lotto winners, what happens when you give people money. Some blow the lot and are back on welfare, others double it. People need to learn to help
themselves, the nanny state cannot protect them forever

Ok, let me rephrase it - to suggest that governments have achieved what they have "at the expense of hardworking taxpayers" implies there is a cheaper way of achieving the same thing. I've yet to see evidence that this is the case. The US spends twice the percentage of GDP on privately-provided health services than other OECD nations that have government-provided health care. Indeed, there are a very limited number of examples where you can show categorically that private enterprises have been able to supply the services governments traditionally have at a substantially smaller cost.

You say modern capitalism is flourishing in Australia partly because of superannuation - but superannuation is a classic example of the government acting as a "nanny state": effectively forcing us to save and invest our money instead of spending it on consumables.

Why would raising the current $2/month fee on store credit cards with interest-free terms to $10/month cause any more paper shuffling? I fully expect it will create a lot less, as far few people will be seduced into such offers. At any rate, often paper-shuffling is the price we have to pay for maintaining a stable, functioning economy (and democracy - a system itself that is notoriously inefficient). As a software developer I fully understand the trade-off between efficiency and stability/usability /efficacy. It's one thing to keep waste and red tape to a minimum, but unrealistic to believe it can ever be got rid of completely.