Those “most vulnerable” people again.

Why are these people ‘vulnerable’? In many, if not most, cases they have put themselves in that position: too much consumerism, too many children, too many loans, poor financial skills – the list could go on for ever.

Certainly, as the author suggests, big earners don’t need tax cuts. But, the facts of life are that there is a wide range of wealth in society; there always has been, and there always will be. Those of us on the lower end of the scale have to manage with what we have.

Ray Cleary is keen on the idea of cutting subsidies attached to the ‘luxury’ of private health cover. How about the “most vulnerable” cutting the luxuries of eating ready-prepared food because they are too lazy to cook; huge TV sets; a lawn full of cars all needing maintenance and registration and all of the other luxuries these people have just because people who can actually afford them have them.

Spending more on private students? Well, speak to the state governments. The Federal Government allocates money to both state and private schools. State governments give money to state schools only.

Baby bonuses? Nobody should be paid to have babies; particularly as the “most vulnerable” generally blow it on themselves, not the babies.

Like all stuff from professional welfare pushers, this article is a total waste of time. The Rudd Government will do things little differently from the Howard Government. The social balance will remain the same, and the only answer is for the “most vulnerable” to get their act together and manage their own affairs better.

So it is like this, those who rely on government largesse are the “vulnerable”

The “non-vulnerable” rely primarily on their own resources and resourcefulness.

So, any “cost cutting” by government, when what is being cut is not relied upon by the resourced and resourceful, has to be borne by the vulnerable.

I guess if what Keating did is any guide, at a time of massive government deficit budgets, which was reneged on his “Tax Cuts are Law” pledge, would not wash now that the incumbent government has inherited a massive annual budget surplus (however, I do wonder how long it will take before the usual socialist profligacy and asinine national government infrastructure projects change all that).

As is often the case, I agree with your post Leigh.

I am inclined to agree with Leigh on this occasion. To quote the scriptures, "The poor will be with us always". That is not to say that the government should do nothing to alleviate their condition however.

Whitlam thought that we should spend more money on education, but unfortunately most of the poor are not university material as others also seem to believe. Money spent on educating the poor would be better directed toward Technical education, an area which seems to have been largely overlooked, even by the Labor party. The rich are in a better position to educate their own children.

Let us see whether Kevin Rudd and his cohorts actually do something to revive this much needed area of education so that we can get the poor into the work force and reduce our reliance on imported expertise.

David

There is a major fallacy with suggestions that the Federal government can cut spending by reducing the payments to private schools and the subsidy of private medical insurance.

The fallacy is that people assume that all the people sending their children to private schools or taking out private medical insurance will continue to do so when the subsidy is removed.

In the case of private schools, the government expenditure per student is far below the expenditure on students in public schools, so a migration towards government schools will result in increased spending, not less.

Again, people have repeatedly demonstrated that they will only take out private medical insurance if it is worth their while. The figures quoted in the article are distorted, as people with an income of over $100k face a medicare surcharge if they do not take out private insurance. According to my calculations, it would only take 16% of people currently insured privately to go back to medicare for the government to lose out, even with the subsidy saving.

It is obvious that much of the opposition to these subsidies is ideological, and has nothing to do with the government saving money.

If you really want to save money, you must cut spending on items for which there is no alternative.

The examples that immediately come to mind are the ABC, SBS and the arts.

Other possibilities are politicians' salaries and expenses, but I think these can properly be assigned to the flying pigs department.

Plerdsus, I wouldn't mind seeing your calcuations re private health care.

As it is, the case of the healthcare situation in the U.S. vs the rest of the developed world fairly clearly demonstrates that healthcare costs substantially less when funded through a single-payer system. On that basis it's not at all clear to me that real money can be saved by encouraging taxpayers to partly fund their healthcare through private schemes. Certainly my preference would be that private healthcare should be for services that public hospitals do not offer (private rooms, cosmetic surgery etc.), hence anyone choosing to take up private healthcare gets no significant tax rebate, as virtually all medical expenses are still provided through public funds*. My wife chooses to pay for private healthcare purely on the basis of gaining a private room in maternity ward, and would do so even if we had to pay the surcharge also. I'm sure she's not the only one.

* there is undoubted benefit in freeing up public beds, but I do wonder exactly how much money is saved by doing so.

wizofaus,

Calculation of the percentage of private medical patients who need to go back to medicare for the government to lose out on scrapping the rebate.

Here are a few rough figures, which I calculated on the back of an envelope, and which I offer to someone who knows more about the detail to improve. All figures are per annum.

Current cost of 30% rebate = $3.5 billion per annum.

Add to this the other government payments to the private medical industry (age care, gold card, special rebates etc.), say another 800 million.

Now we know that people who use private medical pay extra costs not covered by insurance, and we can assume these add another 30%.

The sum total of the above figures gives a total cost of the private medical/hospital industry of around $19 billion. (My contacts think it is larger).

I think it is fair to assume that costs are broadly similar in public and private medicine, so we now need to calculate the percentage of private patients who need to leave to cost the govt the $3.5 billion it would save by scrubbing the rebate. If any more leave, it is behind.

Scrapping the 30% rebate must increase premiums by 42.85%, so people will leave.

3.5/19 = 18.42 % is the break-even figure.

Several contacts in the medical field consider this figure too high, and consider a figure around 16% would be closer to the mark. This would also take into account the fact that costs would not fall in proportion to patients, as many costs are fixed.

This calculation only involves the federal government, and does not include the increased costs state governments would incur.

I think it would be of great benefit if a poster with more detailed knowledge could improve this calculation. Exactly the same argument applies to the private school debate.

plerdsus,

You're calculations don't take into account that the costs of providing the public standard of health care are much less than that of private. The private health expenditure total is about twice that of the public expenditure, but with a third less people. This results in an average cost ratio of 3:1.

Thus $19 Billion in private health cost would be covered by about $7 billion in the public system. Or essentially, the 30% health rebate could pay for the public care of about 50% of those on private health cover. The statistics I've seen suggest less than a third of current private health subscribers made the jump after the introduction of the rebate.

This means that overall its a welfare program that costs the government money and mostly helps those wealthy enough to help themselves. It's classic Howard middle (and upper!) class welfare taking away resources from the public system. If it was means tested to target only those where it may make a difference then it could be an overall money saving program.

Why is it that people like this Ray Cleary choose to twist the statistics to lie to us?

Is it that they are natural born liars, & can't help themselves, or they just dishonest, & work on the theory that most of us won't care enough to read too carefully?

Whichever it is, I only got to his first lie, so didn't see all that much. I always stop reading, when I'm being lied to. I can probably guess most of the pitch. "Give us more money to help the bludgers, whops, I mean the drunks no the disadvantaged.

So what's the truth? Is he so dumb that he believes this cr4p? Or is he just another com man? I don't suppose it matters much, so long as you realise that if you trusted this bloke, you would be ripped off for sure.

Interesting that you all saw through him. May be his theory is not correct.

"State governments give money to state schools only". This is incorrect - in QLD at least, quite reasonable sums go from the state's coffers to help fund non-government schools. The previous federal government's contribution however, was very much more unequal with around two thirds of the funding going to the one third of children in private education. I have no problem with the ordinary old Catholic school recieving some government funding but I take exception to the large sums that Howard was granting to elite's such as Kings college. The parents of some of these kids could afford to buy a state school - why were they recieving such upper class welfare?

And having had many arguments with an elite college student, I can state with confidence that there are those amongst the wealthy who are not intellectually gifted enough to be college material either but mummy and daddy can afford to provide them with a top of the range start (partly paid for by those who earn very much less).

Lastly, yes the scriptures do say something to the effect of "the poor will be among you always". They don't go on to decree "so bugger 'em, let 'em rot". Having recently returned from the U.S, I have witnessed first hand the results of such an attitude and rest assured - it's not a pretty sight.

Does the word GREED come mind? I am sure you all know the differences between labour and liberal! Its like a tennis game! At the moment its 15/40 and its the rich too serve again!

I find it interesting that the author proposes that the government should cost cut - from somewhere. "somewhere" is yet to be defined, however. I agree in part with the baby bonus, except I'll go further - don't bother sending out the baby bonus which WILL get blown on shoes, clothes, trips down to the Gold Coast etc etc. I speak from personal witness of a young lady. I fail to see why people should receive any payment at all for a lifestyle choice to have children. If someone wants to have children - well, support the child/ren yourself. This money would be much better spent in health, education (for all)and general infrastructure e.g. roads etc - that is needed now and in the future.

Leigh - You said it all. I come across the "vunerables" all the time in my work, and their resistence to changes in their lifestyle is unimaginable, even when the financial benefits are described.

"...well, support the child/ren yourself."

That attitude ignores the fact that the parents are not the sole beneficiaries of raising children. Society in general benefits greatly from an adequate supply of labour, so it's in our society's best interest to ensure a reasonable birth rate. Secondly a person raised with a lack of education and support will be of greater burden to society further down the line (welfare and/or crime) than the initial marginal cost of quality education and welfare.

Of course, the baby bonus isn't a particularly smart way of spending the money.

Leigh, "Why are these people ‘vulnerable’?"

Because we've adopted a form of capitalism where its considered productive to screw people over.

"But, the facts of life are that there is a wide range of wealth in society; there always has been, and there always will be."

The facts are that this range of wealth is increasing. We're rapidly heading towards an economic feudalistic class system.

"How about the “most vulnerable” cutting the luxuries of eating ready-prepared food because they are too lazy to cook; huge TV sets; a lawn full of cars all needing maintenance and registration"

As opposed to those "most vulnerable" who have a nice big house, boat, 3 brand new cars, a healthy investment portfolio and would have private health cover anyway, getting a nice big fat 30% rebate payment from the government.

Desipis “That attitude ignores . . . blah . . . the line (welfare and/or crime) than the initial marginal cost of quality education and welfare”

Actually that is incorrect. The sort of children we want and which “benefit society” are most commonly born to those who do look after and encourage them to contribute to the society in which we live.

Unfortunately, too many of the “vulnerable” fail to conform with this maxim and thus, should refrain from breeding in the first place.

I am not some sort of ratbag leftie, like say Romania’s Ceausescu. I do not demand women have children for the greater benefit of the state or believe in banning contraceptives and abortions to ensure population growth, so I see no likelihood of achieving the optimum population where only responsible parents have and care for the children they produce.

Desipis, your statement is a contradiction in terms. Please sort it out before you post in future.

As for “Because we've adopted a form of capitalism where its considered productive to screw people over.”

Rubbish.

The capitalist system of private ownership has outperformed the centrally planned economies of every government which has inflicted central ownership and central planning on its population. I recall the “iron curtain” was built not to keep the victims of capitalism out of the peoples utopian republics but to stop the mass exodus of people seeking a better life under the terrible capitalist system. I recall the East German guards on the Berlin wall were order to kill anyone who dared attempt escape to the west.

I would suggest your denunciation of the capitalist system is repetition of theoretical socialist dogma, unsupported by any evidence of merit to the contrary.

As Margaret Thatcher wrote “Let our children grow tall, and some taller than others if they have it in them to do so”

Margaret was, of course, using height as a general metaphor for ability, skill and earnings potential.

Better freedom of diversity, freedom of choice in cars and TVs, than all being limited to the “height” of the “most vulnerable”

Desipis,

I am quite astounded by your unsubstantiated allegation that private medical costs would be three times those in public hospitals. Several commonsense reasons suggest otherwise:

1. Although private hospitals are usually more spacious (higher building costs) they mostly only do the simple and therefore cheaper operations, leaving the more difficult (and therefore more expensive) ones to the public ones.

2. Staff salaries have to be broadly comparable, otherwise in an era of a shortage of medical personnel the lower paid staff would simply move to the other.

3. Whereas private education flaunts luxury (paid for by the parents), medical facilities are mostly based on medical need, and so would be expected to be comparable in cost.

4. In some towns, particularly Port Macquarie, the only hospital is private, and all medicare procedures are carried out there. I wouldn't think medicare would use private facilities if they cost three times as much.

5. In every business that I know that has both public and private operatives, the private is more efficient. Why do you think Iemma is trying to privatise NSW electricity?

As was said to me, I would like to see your figures, or is ideology overcoming common sense? You condemnations of capitalism incline me to think the latter is the case.

Hmm. The righties on this forum seem determined to simply ignore the charges: namely, the extreme hypocracy in which they condemn the low earning recipients of welfare while wealthier Australians recieve large sums of middle and upper class welfare.

Is it because they believe that welfare payments for poorer people act as disincentives to take responsability for themselves, while for some reason, welfare payments to wealthier people act as incentives to take responsability for their own healthcare, retirement incomes, children's education etc? If this is the case, would someone care to explain the legitimacy of this incredible double standard?

. The private health rebate costs 2.5 billion a year - half of this goes to the richest third

.The first home owners grant of $7000 was not means tested so many high income buyers recieved a windfall

. The Howard government was subsidising - to the tune of 570 million dollars anually - people who can afford to send their children to private schools that charge fees in excess of $12 000 a year.

There are plenty more examples. Billions are transferred to already wealthy households yet some would have us believe that spending on the poorer among the sick, elderly and the unemployed and low income earners must be curtailed to prevent upward pressure on interest rates. Would someone care to explain why fat welfare payments to the wealthy do not have this effect? And why lower income earners should pay to subsidise the lifestyles of the rich? And why only lower earning welfare recipients are "bludgers".

Tories - masters of arrogance, huberis and double standards.

Leigh,
Of course its their own fault. They should have chosen their parents much more carefully.
Seems the poor are less deserving than massive corperate profits. We don't want to impinge on executive bonuses do we?
The US shows us where this extreme market view is leading.
Please go and visit some countries where the poor are not looked after: A civilised society IS worth it. Better to support the odd bum here and there than have to line the backyard fence with razor wire.
Nations were built on Government spending, they are destroyed by profiteering.

Fozz “the extreme hypocracy in which they condemn the low earning recipients of welfare while wealthier Australians recieve large sums of middle and upper class welfare.”

Governments are elected to represent their electorates. They promote policies to get elected to govern, with the interests of the people foremost in the mind.

That is ALL the people. Not just the vulnerable but the able and wealthy too.

It is a matter for The “low earning”, as individuals, to resolve how to improve their earning opportunity. It is no different for me or anyone else, who may modestly claim to do better than earn a subsistence income.

There is no hypocrisy in anyone considering their own and their family’s well being above that of others, the “vulnerable” included.

“Is it because they believe that welfare payments for poorer people act as disincentives to take responsability for themselves, while for some reason, welfare payments to wealthier people act as incentives to take responsability for their own healthcare, retirement incomes, children's education etc?”

I would note the “welfare payments” you speak of are not payments at all but are income tax breaks.

Let us make this very clear now, seeking subsistence is entirely different to having the government tax impost / burden reduced.

I do not elect parliamentarians to tax me. I elect them to leave me alone to make my own mistakes, instead of paying higher taxes for them to make mistakes on my behalf.

I believe that big government, employing thousands of civil servants to run huge bureaucracies is the worst way of organising a nation. It extinguishes the consumer choice motivator, which is the most critical input measure of any service delivery.

I support small(er) government.

No one is motivated to do better because of higher taxes, quite the opposite, yet no one is motivated through the receipt of welfare benefits.

I suggest, there is no “greater common good” or social benefit possible from levying higher taxes to support more welfare.

“Welfare” will never substitute for the self-esteem and sense of acheivement produced through self-determination.

plerdsus,

According to the latest budget numbers the federal government spends $9B a year on acute (hospital) care. Double that to include the state contributions and you get $18B. This is a bit short of $1k per person.

Basic private hospital cover with no excess runs at a bit over $1k per person which seems reasonable until you realize that this only covers 25% of the scheduled fee, the remaining 75% is still paid by the government. They're spending $4.4B this year on 'motivating' people to move to private health care which saves them 25% of the cost for the 10% of the people or about $1B (2.5% of $42B).

It's not the costs of the actual facilities that is the issue, its the cost of the insurance system that is, as this is where the government money is going.

Col Rouge,

"It is a matter for The “low earning”, as individuals, to resolve how to improve their earning opportunity."

The problem is that they will attempt to resolve their problems through crimes such as theft, robbery, drug dealing, prostitution. These all result in a greater cost to the community than adequate education and welfare systems which create positive opportunities. Have a look at the countries that top the Human Development Index list. Then look at the rates of social spending. Hyper-capitalist nations such as the US don't do so well.

"It extinguishes the consumer choice motivator, which is the most critical input measure of any service delivery."

The consumer choice motivator (aka free market) is a very useful mechanism for optimizing service delivery, but it is by no means perfect or a solution to every problem. It also depends on _informed_ choice which is frequently not the case in todays society.

"I support small(er) government."

I support smarter government. There is plenty of pointless bureaucratic crap in government, but plenty is needed to support our civilized society. A lot of the achievements and profit made within the capitalist system are dependent on the civilized structure which would not exist without tax payer support.

Desipis “The problem is that they will attempt to resolve their problems through crimes such as theft, robbery, drug dealing, prostitution.”

Are you suggesting “Welfare” be paid as a form of blackmail or protection money, in return for a peaceful life?

If that was so, I would have considered “organised crime” as a career opportunity.

“Hyper-capitalist nations such as the US don't do so well.”

The US scored .951 and Australia scored .962 (both below Iceland at .968), I would say you are “splitting hairs”.

However HDI needs to be considered subject to the following caveat

“A large part is standard of living, . . Others like freedom, happiness, art, environmental health, and innovation are far harder to measure.. . ”

Americans have a respect for wealth but also the social expectation to engage in private “philanthropy”.

Philanthropy is among the HDI “harder to measure” and more significant in USA than Iceland.

The US has a lot of fee based education but many students qualify for scholarships which significantly subsidise the cost of education. scholarships provided by the philanthropic bequests of private individuals.

Bill Gates earns heaps and spends most of it on philanthropic pursuits to benefit others.

Warren Buffet has incorporated the majority of his Hathaway interests into a charitable foundation, rather than leave it to his children.

The USA provides more charitable support to less developed countries than any other nation on earth.

“The consumer choice . . . but it is by no means perfect”

Consumer choice is like democracy, neither is perfect but both are better in their field than anything else which has ever been tried.

“depends on _informed_ choice which is frequently not the case in todays society.”

We are individually responsible for researching our own decisions, including the “vulnerable”.

“I support smarter government.”

Then leave it “small”, until government has proved its intellectual capacity to handle more.

“civilized structure which would not exist without tax payer support.”

“tax payers” can provide as much through private choice as through government taxes and with less bureaucratic overhead.

Hear hear Desipis, I agree with pretty much everything you have said.

Col Rouge, "I would note that the welfare payments you speak of are not payments at all but are income tax breaks". Incorrect. Welfare is targeted for a specific purpose, to ensure that the fundamentals of life are met, in this case medical reasons, shelter and education. When a wealthy minority who have little or no need of support claim half of the health rebate, this is welfare. When a wealthy minority receive a grant meant to assist struggling first home buyers, this is welfare. When elite private schools recieve an injection of funding straight from the public purse while the parents of many of it's students could afford to buy a whole government school, this is welfare. It exists to help those who would struggle to afford such fundamentals. To have those who could easily afford them and much more besides plug their feeding tubes into the system thus reducing the amount available to those who cannot afford is the grossest of abuses.

It seems that many of the wealthy are not shy of accepting substistence in the form of such publicly funded featherbedding.

"I do not elect parliamentarians to tax me". You didn't elect anyone this time around, the mob that you voted for got the boot so whether you want to pay tax or not is irrelivent.

"I suggest that there is no greater common good or social benifet possible from levying higher taxes to support more welfare" I doubt that wealthy health rebate recipients, wealthy home buyers and elite schools would agree with that since that is where their trough is filled from - the moneyed classes will always attempt to throw the burden of taxation back upon the shoulders of the common people.

Your comment about welfare never substituting for the sense of achivement attained through self determination is the most bizzare of all in the context of what we are discussing - the wealthy are living off welfare, plain and simple.

Col Rouge,

"Are you suggesting “Welfare” be paid as a form of blackmail or protection money, in return for a peaceful life?"

I'm suggesting we teach people how to fish rather than just hoarding our own supply. Although I guess we could just feed them cake.

"The USA provides more charitable support to less developed countries than any other nation on earth."

As a % of GDP it's quite low. Even with the private donations included, it is lower than the government aid of many other developed nations.

"Consumer choice is like democracy, neither is perfect but both are better in their field than anything else which has ever been tried."

Yes. In some cases consumer choice is more effective. In other cases a democratic government is more effective. You need to assess the situation to determine if 'consumer choice' will actually work as intended.

"We are individually responsible for researching our own decisions"

Making people responsible for things without giving them the skills or resources to do them... that'll work well.

"Then leave it “small”, until government has proved its intellectual capacity to handle more."

I'm usually much happier with government run institutions than with ones run by large corporate organizations. The irony is that all the bureaucracy you hate about government organisations is just as common in large corporations as well.

It is interesting to note the outcry when the "vulnerable" (meaning the poorest) are offerred any type of assistance to improve their lot or just to maintain a living existence, yet the billions of tax dollars spent on corporate welfare and policies (like WorkChoices which exploited the most vulnerable lower incomes for the sake of obscene profits) are largely ignored and even applauded as good for the economy. How can increasingly larger numbers of vulnerable groups be good for the economy?

As far as inflation goes, how can increasing pensions (just as one example) create inflation. Pensioners are living on appallingly low incomes now and barely scrape by, any increase won't be spent on mad consumerist pursuits it will be spent paying for the ever rising prices of groceries (of which the spoils are less and less going to the producers of those goods but to middle men and duopoly supermarkets), petrol and electricity bills.

There is plenty of fat in government that could be cut (via natural attrition or generous retrenchment packages) and many examples of duplication of services both at State and Federal level.

More money is needed NOT LESS for social and community programs that will offset the ever growing gap between the rich and the poor and much less emphasis on economy at the expense of 'community'. It is about developing polices that include not exclude, and provide equal access to opportunities.

If the economy is doing so well why are more and more people struggling to make ends meet, paying off ridiculously high mortgages which take up a much higher portion of income than previously, and higher demands on charities and community services.

And moreover...are we being fed untruths on interest rates and inflation etc - is it a case of damn lies and more lies?

Middle class and higher income earners are spending more money on material things that is true but they are generally spending it with money they don't yet have ie. the bank's money in the form of CREDIT of which the banks give out freely and make money on interest payments. There is an irony in this and maybe a need to encourage banks to behave more socially responsible.

There is also an irony or contradiction in governments telling us to halt spending to curb inflation while at the same time espousing the virtues of capitalism which fosters rampant consumerism for growth with no thought to sustainability. I can't think of a system (as yet) that might work better than the one we've got but we can curb some of the excesses of capitalism through responsible regulation and bring back public ownership of our most essential services and utilities. Why aren't governments doing this and why are they moving more and more to the right and buying into the myths of the virtues of a free market.

And...given that we are one of the most highly taxed nations (personal tax, GST, government charges, stamp duties, local government rates, petrol and alcohol taxes and a myriad of other hidden taxes in an increasingly 'user pays' society) there is not much chance that the masses will be out spending too much 'real' money antyime soon.

I am unaware of the exact amount of charitable support provided by the U.S to anyone else (does this charity include pumping money into the mess they created in Iraq?). Having spent a little time in the U.S however, I can assure you that charity is rather short on the home front. Or if it is not, it has little positive effect on the appalling situation created by a system of governance that probably leans toward your ideal. The social safety net for the most vulnerable (or is the exact same thing to be called a tax break if the more well off are recieving it?) has been pared back to bare bones and in some states is just about non-existent. The net result is that many a large city is made up of little islands of wealth dotted throughout a sea of crap. I didn't expect the Hollywood walk of fame to be swarming with beggars. With a minimum wage of less than half of ours and no real social welfare to fall back on, you witness what amounts to a second-world country at best inside a very rich country. It is quite simply NOT the place you see on t.v.

It is crystal clear that charity does not work nearly as well as justice.

Having seen what could have been here in Oz, I thank God Howard got the boot.

Hmm. It appears that the righties have either accepted that the well off are recieving an obscene amount of subsistence that can not be honestly called anything other than welfare or they lack the testicular fortitude to argue the point further or they are all dead.

Any one of those options is ok by me.

Does 50\50 come to mind! I guess i can judge from the rich and poor.
The division between the rich and poor is, and has become a national crisis, but lets not forget, that GREED IS IN ORDER! People! Our system is fighting against ourselves, and their will be loser's.( anyone want a home lone?)
So what is the answer? !Can I make one suggestion? Think out side the box! Isn't the meaning of life, is too live?! Why do you need so much money. LOOK! The headlines are. Put your heads in, or you are all going too die! hahaha. Just joking! The system is not quite right yet! but give it time.

OR, Should I have said pull your heads in! You make the choice. the clock is ticking.

Fozz” the mob that you voted for got the boot so whether you want to pay tax or not is irrelivent.”

I would not be surprised if Krudd & Co became a one term parliament.

Whether I pay tax comes down to how I arrange my circumstances, what “tax losses” I choose to write off and since the ATO require my annual returns, I figure it is far less “irrelevant “ than whatever you pay.

“the wealthy are living off welfare, plain and simple.”

The rattle of the envious small mind are it bangs from side to side, against the cranium.

Despsis “Yes. In some cases consumer choice is more effective. In other cases a democratic government is more effective.”

Democratic government relies on the feedback of consumers and attempts to reflect it. It is the socialist rabble government which thinks it knows best for everyone and raises taxes to control how we spend. The problem is it starts as socialism and ends up as despotic communism.

“Making people responsible for things without giving them the skills or resources to do them... that'll work well.”

“Skills acquisition” has never been a problem for the competent, only the incompetent and one of the skills is how to source the resources.

Pelican “Middle class and higher income earners are spending more money”

Like I said before, “It is the socialist rabble government which thinks it knows best for everyone and raises taxes to control how we spend.”

Whereas, democratic government leaves the decision and choice with the electorate.

Fozz” It is crystal clear that charity does not work nearly as well as justice.”

They are incompatible measures or facets of humanity.

“Justice” is by definition “blind” and “Charity” is significantly influenced by the visible circumstances of the recipient.

Fozz “obscene amount of subsistence” only those who receive more from government than they pay in taxes are the recipients of subsistence. If someone’s net tax paid exceeds the value of benefits received by one dollar, they are net contributors, not recipients of subsistence.

Please prove how and who receive “obscene amount of subsistence”