Col: " ... consider how disastrous it would be if the low paid unskilled worker had to deal with the complexities and decisions which a CEO makes on behalf of a company “

Has occurred - workers, with both shares and involvement in every aspect of company operation - and very successfully. An American mining company operated this way (I can't recall the name, but no doubt someone here will provide it); also such operations have occurred in Australia.

I was a Liaison executive ... (which meant resolving issues between clients and management, who had made monumental cock-ups) ... with a well-known, $ multi-billion company. Board meetings would often occur in the presence of cleaners. Apparently, cleaners either had "no" ears, or couldn't understand. Indeed, they did - and they were intelligent enough to predict something that would occur. In fact, board meetings were more about cover-ups of incompetence than sound business practices ... Cleaners being present at the "coal face" of "stuffups", so to speak ... generally knew more about the goings on than the director.

I am not a socialist, but I believe that the government is there to care for those who by some misfortune, are unable to care adequately for themselves.

Is the government only there to prop up business disasters resulting from bad business practices and incompetent CEOs?

Snake, I believe the age pension in "most" cases is "adequate" - pharmacists always ask whether a card-holder is prepared to take the same medication, but a cheaper product.

mjpb, I believe was referring to previous households, long gone, when grandmother, maiden-aunt Lil and other family members lived together, and supported each other, either by time, effort, or perhaps, financially.

Col Rouge, I would never let my children know if I were in any financial difficulty. I certainly would never accept financial help from them.

However, as my children are university educated and financially well off; I do expect them to be aware of others less fortunate, be compassionate, and to contribute, well, to those who need it.

Fester “Governments are run by humans and I dont think it unreasonable that they should be measurable by human qualities”

Governments are run by bureaucrats. “Policy” might be dreamed up by politicians but the business of running the machine is a civil servants role.

You show amazing faith if you think “Sir Humphrey” was merely a parody.

Bureaucrats, blindly directing resources, balancing public perceptions with political objectives and located remote from “the coal face” do not get to consider the human impact of the services they administer.

They are obliged by law, to treat people based on scales of legally interpreted objectivity. They are not allowed to engage in treating individuals as individuals, else they will be accused of favouring one worthy applicant over another, irrespective to the individual human needs of differing people.

That process is neither humane and certainly not a reflection of anything remotely akin to “compassion”.

“without the concept of a life, let alone an understanding of the need to plan for one? How could such an individual be held accountable for anything?”

That is the usual extreme case which is another loaded comment

However, why I referred to the compassion and philanthropy of individuals is because that is what, has always happened, to some degree with or without government involvement.

The early school systems were set up by the clergy, not by government.

I would agree, education is a worthwhile investment.

That might explain why many people choose to purchase private education for their children, if they can afford it.

Individuals freely exercising a capitalist choice.

JR “price of everything and the value of nothing...”

Are you describing yourself or just showing your lack of originality by using cliches?

Danielle “workers, with both shares and involvement in every aspect of company operation”

CEOs and Finance directors are employees too.

ownership of the entity, through say employee shares or more commonly superannuation investment, has nothing to do with technical/operational direction of the entity. “

The ashes of companies who ran with inexperienced or unqualified CEOs abound. You will always find historic examples, many of which have expired.

ENRON comes to mind. “The smartest men in the room”, building an empire on a fraud. The only reason they got away with it was because they had their auditors in their pocket.

“the government is there to care for those who by some misfortune, are unable to care adequately for themselves.”

I thought we were talking about a far broader group than those slighted by some temporary set backs or rare chronic afflictions.

There is a world of difference between government supplying temporary support and taking on everyone as a life long commitment from cradle to the grave.

“Is the government only there to prop up business disasters”

I would rather government got out of the business of propping up any business. Governments have an uncanny knack of backing the wrong horses and there is no accountability for their errors.

Better the commercial risk takers with more disposable income (from lower taxes), assess businesses ventures, rather than the government raise taxes for blind speculation.

“amassing of money “

I have never suggested “amassing money”, for its own sake, is a virtue.

Values of that sort are dependent on how far up Maslows pyramid one has evolved.

However, such wealth comes only as a by-product of what we provide to those who value and pay for our services.

Criticize CEO’s as individuals, please do not make generalization to a particular job role the worth of which is negotiated with the business owners.

“aware of others less fortunate, be compassionate, and to contribute, well, to those who need it.”

No argument here, see my Margaret Thatcher quote of Sunday, 24 February 2008 11:17:00 PM

“Compassion” is not possible through government (my previous post)

Col Rouge

I have been following this thread and am dismayed by the lack of understanding you have for people in general.

I agree with all the points that Danielle has made.

Also as you seem to have difficulty in comprehending Johnny Rotten's succinct posts I will state that you, Col Rouge, have amply demonstrated that you are concerned only with money and know the value of nothing.

I know you will take this as an attack, it is not, it is an observation and analysis of all your posts to this thread.

I wonder if somehow your daughters should have such misfortune that they require help, beyond any you could provide, such as medical treatment beyond even your means, would you not seek government assistance?

I am sure that you have benefited from such government assistance in the form of negative gearing on investments - yet you would deny a safety net for others less fortunate than yourself.

All of us are only a disaster away from poverty - as Johnny said, the greatest plans can and do go astray.

And to coin another cliche (and they become such simpky because of their truth):

Pride goeth before a fall.

Good Luck Col, I think one day you will need it.

Fractelle “Col Rouge, have amply demonstrated that you are concerned only with money and know the value of nothing.”

Strange statement.

From it, I could presume you are only interested in judging others without bothering to get to know them properly.

“it is an observation and analysis of all your posts to this thread.”

So, based solely on those posts, you are prepared to declare that I am “concerned only with money”

I hope you are not a doctor or someone else who works in diagnostics.

The important function of diagnostics is to understand your subject and from all the information available, produce a correct diagnosis, relying on more than just a few words on a particular post.

As for “I know you will take this as an attack,”

Certainly not, there is a proverb

“Do not attribute any action to malice that can be explained by stupidity.”

As for

“government assistance in the form of negative gearing on investments”

All investments are subject to negative gearing. It is not a rule of tax which is particular to individuals but applies to corporate investments and comprises one of the basic assumptions of the professionally accepted view of accounting standards and tax law.

“That all costs attributable to a revenue generating activity are allowable offsets in determination of the measured net result of that activity.”

If you want to rewrite the rules of what you call “negative gearing” I suggest you write to the international accountting standards board.

My objection to removing what is called ‘negative gearing’ from say private investment housing is it would then apply a different standard of treatment to that versus all other forms of investment.

It is a fraud prevaricated by those who do not understand what they are talking about, the envious and those hypnotized by the gingoism which attracts the pig ignorant.

Happy to debate “negative gearing” anytime.

“Pride goeth before a fall.”

Do not presume that because I do not dwell upon or use as an excuse to ask for handouts, I have lived a life unaffected by setbacks, some pretty serious ones.

Fractelle, I have to tell you that having the temerity to criticise old king Col is like prodding a nest of vipers, and you managed a swipe at his fave form of welfare, negative gearing, to boot. Well done.

Again Col proves his complete vacuousness on value. He believes that the wealthy are more entitled to government handouts than low income people.

Just obscene.