Ah! the inevitable "but communism failed" straw-man has come already.

A minimum wage and basic health care are *not* communism: it is civilisation! Looking after the less fortunate is part of what makes Australia so desirable to live in. I cannot believe that these folks are so against helping poor people, but don't bat an eyelid at the billion dollars the RBA has been giving to our Banks.
It seems that it isn't charity they object to, just charity to those that actually need and deserve it!

Look at your history folks: Countries that allow the rich to walk all over everyone else go into decline. It is bad economics! Communities and nations grow by working together in synergy while exploiting their natural advantages. The hard working are rewarded, the slack/incompetant are kept in a state fit for humanity. A few government sponsored dole bludgers are *far* more desirable than hungry muggers and an ever more distanced elite.

I think the author got it spot on: these people think that because *they* don't get a benefit then no-one else should. The far Right is nothing but selfish people with no solutions except what has just been tried and failed.

Please, please, please do some travel and see what it's like in countries without such things! It is not nearly as much fun being rich when the poor have nothing to lose by killing you. If you play "law of the jungle" too hard, you *will* suffer the claws of someone who needs your resources to feed their kids.

The power elites will hold this attitude so long as they are allowed to by the general populace. Howard made it acceptable to be a short sighted, culturally bigoted, regressive, selfish idiot. Rudd, alas will not reverse this so it is up to everyone else with some sense to shout down the remnants of "economic rationalism".

touche OzAndy

OzAndy - touche

Ozandy writes

'It is not nearly as much fun being rich when the poor have nothing to lose by killing you. '

Of course many that would kill you for a mobile phone have been indoctrinated that if you are white then you deserve to die. The killer may also have a number of wives (maybe a touch greedy).

The inference that it only the rich in material things that are greedy is a fallacy. Men whether rich or poor need to deal with greed. Rewarding those who want to bludge has always been a failure. Thankfully we have a safety net in this country for those in need. Unfortunately this generosity is seen by to many as a right rather than a privilege. No wonder their is so much abuse of the system.

Assuming that we could find sane definitions to "above the poverty line" my gut feel is that a guaranteed basic income might be far more effective than the complex web of payments the government currently takes from taxpayers uses up a portion of it administering programs then hands out the remenants through all sorts of different scheme's.

We have had years of trying to weed out those who use the existing scheme's to avoid meeting their obligations and they appear to still be with us. We have the silly situation where some people find that they make less working than not working.

The difficult bit is deciding what level the payment should be at. It costs more to live in a capital city than it does to live in a regional area but there are all sorts of reasons why people live in cities (including access to employment opportunities). Should the scheme pay more or less depending on where someone choose's to live. If it does not then how do we define the poverty line that we need to be above? Does the scheme expect those solely reliant on it for income to be able to afford a car? Is that a car per recipient or a car per household? Does the size of the payment vary depending on how many people share a home and therefore share the costs of that home?

The issue of what is the poverty line gets even worse when we think of a world wide scheme.

R0bert

Runner. No implication that only the rich are greedy, nor that the rich are rich because they are greedy.

My point is that looking after the poor is not only ethical, it is a good cost/benefit decision too. Similarly stopping the wealthy from abuse of their power is necessary: as history has so recently demonstrated.

Politicians used to talk about "regressive" or "progressive" policy. We need to recognise that the last decade was very regressive in policy, and now we need some balance.

It is the rich asking and receiving handouts that is truly corrupting and wrong. For every "dole bludger" I support with my taxes, I am also supporting 10 middle class babies, 2 wealthy private schools and the negative gearing on several beach properties...

I don't object helping the needy, but I object greatly to helping the well-to-do.