It has been revealed that 42.2% of families receive more in welfare than they pay in taxes, ALMOST HALF!

Now doing the math this means that the remaining 57.8% of us have to top us the other half and pay the bills along the way, and we wonder why our seniors are struggling to put three meals a day on the table.

With the recent introduction of the Baby bonus and maternity leave one wonders where the next bill for us 57.8 per-centers is going to come from.

We already pay our medicare contributions by way of a percentage of our wage, yet have to pay to see the doctor, so what's next?

Let's look at the dole.
Many companies now have drug and alcohol free policies, yet, people on the dole, who are supposed to be actively seeking work can be off their face as long as they like and still get 'THEIR PAY' as many of them refer to it as.

Now I accept that this is not everyone who is on welfare, but it still stinks I recon when someone, having been supported by me, can have a life of leisure while I continue to work to plug the holes in the cookie jar. Kids having kids just for the money is a prime example.

It's time us 57.8 per-centers protest to this scandal and demand better value for our money.

Perhaps we can set up a trust fund and pay our taxes into here then release them once the system floors are corrected. Any legal eagles out there like to comment on this option?

What is this, Today Tonight?

...and after the ads we'll find a Muslim that's rorting the system to bash.

We should actually do a story on dodgy landlords, eh Butcher?.

Yeah Bugsy - just another whinge from one of our resident wealthy Scrooges. Just wait for someone to post something like

SOCIALISM BY STEALTH!!

This phenomenon is not new. Howard was a master at giving grants tied to specific social engineering outcomes, such as having children and the number of those grants has increased to the point that all the personal tax dollars can't pay for them. The ATO's figures show that for several years the Australian citizenry has taken more from the Government coffers in benefits, grants, pensions, deductions, rebates and the like than they have paid in income tax. Tony Abbott made the point explicit while Health Minister when he clearly differentiated between "the Taxpayer" and "the beneficiaries" of the health portfolio during a 7:30 Report interview.. As the only "taxpayers" not also "beneficiaries" are corporate entities, he clearly understood where the money was coming from.

I've been advocating zero personal tax ever since and I was chuffed to hear Turnbull's comments about starting to reduce the compliance costs. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out that if the system gives out more than it takes in already, then administrative overhead is also a dead loss. Getting rid of several thousand tax office staff who exist only to administer personal taxes would save billions for the Govt on top of the billions that would be saved for individuals. the people thus freed from the Govt bureaucracy (that also grew enormously under Howard) would then be available for genuinely productive work in other fields. The only loss would be to the social engineering capacity of the Govt.

rectum said

Perhaps we can set up a trust fund and pay our taxes into here then release them once the system floors are corrected. Any legal eagles out there like to comment on this option?

this is the same post you delivered in "let's starve the pensioners to death because they all play the pokies"

I beat you [with FF argument] on that so your minders have told you to bash the dole bludgers [perhaps do a Vanstone and investigate the Wright family - just "add a couple of kids"]

who ARE the minders of the Forum now Howard has gone?

I am thinking Ludwig Van Joe, the new best mate of CSA

and no need for new fund, just release the $65 billion Costello stole from the pensioners to fund YOUR unfunded super, Mate

The original post demonstrates a misunderstanding of the issue.

"It has been revealed that 42.2% of families receive more in welfare than they pay in taxes, ALMOST HALF"

The point is that 42% of *taxpayers* are not actually paying tax, because they're getting back more than they pay out in various kinds of welfare such as Family Tax Benefits, private health insurance rebates, childcare rebates and so on. The attitudes, actions and lifestyles of people on the dole has nothing to do with it.

The point of the exercise was that 48% of taxpayers are propping up the lifestyles of the 42% who consider themselves to be middle class, working, taxpayers, but are not, in fact, paying tax. Roughly half of the people who consider themselves to be contributing to the nation as taxpayers owe their middle class lifestyles to welfare. They just don't call it welfare.

A more transparent system would cut out tax for the 42% altogether and hand out whatever they get on top. You'd save the costs of processing all that churn and do away with the false assumption that these people are taxpayers

But chainsmoker, as I understand it they would still be taxpayers, just not income-tax payers. There are many other ways of extracting taxes: GST, fuel alcohol and tobacco excises, capital gains tax, stamp duties etc.

The churn will never be removed, no matter what good arguments are against it. Isn't the governments' credit rating affected by the amount of income (ie cash flow), so that the higher the better? It also leaves open the possibility of removing or reducing these benefits later when they are considered 'unnecessary' or they just want some more cash for something else.

Butcher you have done it again.
Zero need exists for me to get my bottom kicked by agreeing with you but some of what you say is right.
Born a communist I evolved into a Socialist.
And am still firmly left of center, proud of it too.
But we splatter welfare all over the place.
We must one day ask can we do better.
We can if we control waste fraud and pure theft.
My preferred outcome is that pensioners get enough to live a life worth living.
Ten thousand story's exist about fraud.
My own nephew lay about that he was got out of bed at 11 am never wanted a job never had one I fed him you did too the dole.
Back yard car repairs bringing in near the same amount as the dole all tax free.
Is it so wrong that a socially aware person wants more for those who need it but less for those who will not work?
C J Morgan every election I man a red neck booth, the same large family troop in nose to tail all have a lifetime on the dole.
They take only national party forms.
And return home to continue to miss use welfare.

All true Bugsy, but I was responding to the suggestion that 'welfare' still means unworthy dole bludgers when it quite clearly applies to a lot of people who consider themselves to be welfare independent, worthy taxpayers.

Can't say I've ever heard anyone commend unemployed welfare recipients for contributing their share of tax in the form of GST, even though the stereotypical dole bludger pays a fortune in tax via massive alcohol and cigarette consumption.

Divorce Doctor......hahahaha that's gold.

Take a pill RAMBO, you're off beat again. The fund I am reffering to is to hold taxes.

Boy it's not to hard to see who the 'UNDER-ACHIEVERS' are!

As for income tax, I agree that there should be no such thing.

Replace it with a transaction tax of say 2%, make us a 'cashless society' so we only use cards to pay for things and all of a sudden you have no black money. Try buying and selling drugs without cash!

Now if that's not a 'user pays' system then what is?

Now if you loosers out there are quite content sitting on your butt while the rest of us fund your existance then go for it. It's a pleasure spending more on ones dinner than you fools fleece in a fortnight. May you wollow in your self-induced pathetic existance you call living!

No offence to those who are actively seeking work or doing the right thing but unfortunately it is these types who tarnish your reputation. I have no beef with you guys.

Went fishing in the early hours of this morning before going to WORK. Caught one Cj and a RAMBO, not bad hey!

Luv ya work guys!

Ah rectum, you've done it again. That is so N-O-T F-U-N-N-Y.

direct from my book to your RECTUM mate

1. Before describing the fever that swept over the
land in the mid 1980s, it is worth delving back to the 1950s
to explain that since the mid 1990s when Centrelink was
"morphed" from the Department of Social Security [DSS],
we have at least partially reverted back to the 1950s. I am
referring to the fact that the taxation system had always
had an incentive to "go forth and propagate" and this was
termed "single/married man tax" back in the old days. Yes
folks, things were a lot simpler back then with men working
and mum in the kitchen. In simple terms a married man on
the same wage as a single man brought "home" more
money than that single man.

2. But there was trouble in paradise even back
then with Greer still in nappies. At that time the pubs
closed at 6PM so dad was said to charge out of the
workplace at 5PM and head straight for the pub to engage in
what was termed "the 6 o'clock swill". Of course some
actually did that, but who's counting? It was enough for
public hysteria to fabricate what in effect was the married
version of the "deadbeat dad". So the gummt did as
gummts are inclined to do at election times and took the
extra money away from dad and gave it directly to mum
[and the kiddies as long as mum was not a pokie or bingo
addict] as "family endowment" [and many other terms over
the years].

3. So for several decades DSS did in effect provide
"social security" or, to put it another way, it didn't involve
itself with tax as such. And of course the hands out steadily
increased over the years with the main revolution being the
introduction of a pension for single mothers, who formerly
were told by family and gummt "do not blacken our door"

If you want to see real under achievers just look at the NSW Govt.

The real world works this way.Private enterprise in the form of small business provides the goods and basic services,the lawyers,insurances companies form a symbotic relationship whereby the legal system creates the need for insurances and the legal parisites feed off it.For those who don't have the ability to be a lawyer,they get an arts degree and join the PS like CJ Morgan.You then have a PS union to back you.You cannot be sacked,nor can you be made accountable for any stuff ups.In fact you get premoted for stuff ups.Reber Maher retires in her mid thirties on $130,000.00 pa indexed for the rest of her life at the expense of the tax payer for stuffing up her port folio.

With Globalisation comes competition in wages.So in Aust blue collar workers have had a reduction in living standards in order to keep wages lower and businesses here.To counter act these poor wages our Govt have taken money from the middle class and the taxes from the resources boom to subsidise them.Notice that no reduction in PS wages has happened.In fact they are having increases when the private system is going backwards.

It is now better to be a brain dead bureaucrat than work in a productive private enterprise small business.We are going the way of the US.We cannot build essential infrastructure,have enormous debt and are made impotent by our legal systems.China and India will have it all.

sorry, got cut off there

but for the full story see http://www.ablokesguide.com

and this is Chapter 8

What is this, Today Tonight?
Posted by Bugsy, Monday, 22 September 2008 8:10:37 AM

Well actually, no, the weekend Australian Sat Sep 20th, front page.

Why not read it then express your take on it, correct me if I am wrong, I have no problems with being proven wrong, my history shows this.

Only the premise contained in the first sentence was from the Weekend Australian, rechtub.

Considering the unemployment rate is supposed to be less than 5%, presumably due to your eminently productive self, your attack on dole-bludgers and wanting "better value for your tax dollars"is pure TT or ACA.

and we must realise that no more Parenting Payment [which was sole parent pension, lone parent pension, lonely parent pension, sole mum pension, mothers little helper etc etc etc]

Fat Pete done welfare to work and so all those now come under the dole [but at "enhanced" rate - go figure]

all that was done to hide the fact that Howard's ball cruncher on R&D had sent so many overseas he had to INCREASE the unemployment figures to cover up his blooper

but "New Mal" in Parliament today introduced PMB to help us putative pensioners, but nobody was there to second the Bill

what a stuff up

Room exists to truly talk about the subject.
My earlier post mentioned the fat family lining up to vote conservative then going home to the dole, and cash earning back yard workshop.
Weak attempt maybe, but I wanted to highlight my view we take sides on this issue.
We do!
We on the left of center seem to think of those who want accountability as our enemy, and those who get the welfare our Friends.
The other side invented the term dole bludger, and seems to find no victims among those who get welfare.
We, those left of center mostly want better for those on welfare, I do.
But how many ,come on how many of us truly think we serve our case by ignoring the fact some should not get welfare?
My nephew now gone thank you, slept every day as I said and thought work for the dole was unfair.
The dole should be free he said, well current work for the dole is unfair but not for that reason.
His mate? 26 years old got a job for the first time but gave it up!
After a week it interfered with his life style.
I help people get jobs every week but some refuse the help.
I truly would clean toilets or any job if it kept me from welfare my generation thought like that.

Buggsy, you really appear hell bent on branding me as a "dole hater' and I can assure you that I am not.

What pisses me off is the 'true' dole bludger. As belly says, they don't work yet they make a good living in the back yard. Now the making of a living I have no problem with, but collecting the dole at the same time, now there's the problem. I say again, a cashless society will stop all this in it's tracks.

Furthermore, why should one be allowed to be 'off their face' while being supposedly actively seeking work when more and more work places have zero D & A policies in place?

Any constructive answers here buggsy? Or do you just want to re-affirm your support for the 42%'ers

"Buggsy", you are clearly an UNDER ACHIEVER, just like I am apparently a public servant. Just as well we have the whingeing slum landlord and his cronies to tell us.

Belly - we already knew that National voters are AGRARIAN SOCIALISTS! Hardly surprising that they're 'dole bludgers' as well.

Why don't we just shoot 'em?

The topics that you have raised are unrelated and share only the word 'welfare'. It's really just a rehashing of how we can get people off 'welfare', without realising of course what tradeoffs are and the social benefits are for them to be on it. If they are collecting the dole, they are less likely to be running a meth lab out of your lower end rental property to make ends meet.

I have seen what a lack of welfare does for people, in the state of Indiana alone hey were busting meth labs at the rate of 1100 a year. Indiana has a population of about 6.5 million, many of them at the lower end of the economic scale.

I really can't stand dole-bludger-bashers, it's lazy. Noone likes the fact that people take advantage of the system, reducing this number has been tried with aggressive policies and tactics before, but you always end up hurting not the potheads ( they often have and alternative source of income), but older people who can't find a job because of their age and don't qualify for the pension. I know a few of these as well. And they have to deal with landlords complaining about repairing properties and putting up the rent whenever possible. It's not a hypothetical- I know these people.

You can be a boastful about how well you are off and how 'productive' you are, but it won't impress anyone who who has to deal with the unlucky ones.

Bugsy have you even been hungry? truly Bl@@dy hungry?
Have you sat at the table 3 meals in a row eating pumpkins and spuds nothing else?
Have you gathered the skins the next morning and cooked them?
Have you at each meal seen mum and dad not eat so you could?
I the eldest survivor of 16 kids have.
I can tell you of so very many big bush family's who saw the eldest working before they became teens to feed siblings.
Why must we be blind to welfare theft?
How can you think a proud trade unionist with that background could ever want other than a better life for those who must relie on welfare?
Pot heads? can you think its a welfare thing to smoke pot.
I want Kevin Rudd to re craft welfare to see if we can make superannuation contributions easier, to help those who need it to continue to live a life worth while.
But no free rides for bludgers.
A social activist till death I put some on welfare in that group, no Friend of the true needy or mine.
Some middle class middle income people are blind to reality the poor are often victims of those who think they are helping.

Belly, I generally agree with you. But what percentage of those 42% that rechtub is talking about do you think are 'bludgers' or are guilty of welfare theft? I would much prefer making sure that the truly needy aren't falling through the cracks, and they do fall through, especially with programs designed to try and eleminate the bludgers. I have seen it so often, every time a new 'initiative' or policy is enacted that is supposed to target those you so dislike, many more who don't deserve it cop the collateral damage. Again, not a hypothetical.

Maybe you should direct your anger at rechtub, as I cannot see what your problem is with me.

I DO have issue with not being able to call Gibo, Richard Cranium, but butcher can be called rectum...

What's with that?.

Here are my points
1. I don't brand everyone on the dole or welfare as a 'dole bludger' I do however feel that as a provider of the dole by way of taxes, I am entitled to expect that the recipients be in a state that would not hinder their ability to either find work or comply to industry requirements. Anyone have a problem with that?

2. CJ, the capitalist hater states that I offer a sub standard property for rent. For this I get branded as a 'slum lord' What he/she fails to recognise is that this sub standard property also attracts sub standard rental income. So where is the problem here I ask?

3. The article at the centre of this thread is factual. It appeared on the front cover of the weekend Australian and clearly states that some 42% of families contribute less in taxes (including GST, stamp duty etc)than they claim in financial benefits. Effectively, they are a drain on the remaining 58% who prop them up AND pay ALL the bills.

Now can't you all see that if this were not the case that our seniors, most in desperate need, would be better off if there were not so many mouths to feed.

Now I say to anyone who is in this 42% group. If you have elderly parents that are in need of finacial assistance while you sit back and collect walfare then shame on you. You should hold your heads in shame as that is as un-Australian as it gets.

Many of the elderly went without, fought in wars and lived like animals all so they could provide us with an education and a better life than they had lived in their younger years.

Remember they are our forefathers and this is their hour of need! We can't help them if we keep spending the cash.

Buggys, you say :they are less likely to be running a meth lab out of your lower end rental property

Then you say : the potheads ( they often have and alternative source of income),

So please explain what their alternative source of income is if it is not drugs?

rechtub, the article is merely at the start of this thread, it is by no means at the "centre" of it. That 42% (of families) is not the "unemployed" or pothead sub-group, they constitute only 5% of the population. That 42% is not "sitting back and collecting benefits at the expense of the elderly" at all, that's only your take on it, a pretty simple one at that. That you deduced that potheads can sell drugs as an alternative source of income when needed was very clever of you. Mind like a steel trap I can see, you had better be careful, it might go off and snap your neck.

Go back and read the story: the figure in Paul Keatings time was 38%, gee we had a real trouble with the junkies back then didn't we? And it just got worse as the economy got better, now it's 42% and the unemployment rate is less than 5%!

Oh and you may want to look into what the definition they use for "family" is: "The definition of families includes all of the nation's 9.754million so-called income units, including couples with children, single parents, singles, childless couples and the aged."

And to further the analysis: "The Melbourne Institute's tables suggest a clear welfare bias has operated towards couples with at least one parent in work." Pardon us for getting rebates for having children, clearly that just isn't on. We should just make sure that both parents are working, because thats what it takes to pay most rents these days (unless we live in a shack 2 1/2 hours away from the city of course).

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24381570-601,00.html

Your little rants about dole bludgers and drug-users in the context of these articles are, to say the least, misplaced.

rehctub: << CJ, the capitalist hater states that I offer a sub standard property for rent. For this I get branded as a 'slum lord' >>

As a small business owner, I'm hardly a "capitalist hater" - but I will admit to an antipathy towards slum landlords in general.

From Wikipedia:

"A slumlord (also spelled slum lord) is a derogatory term for landlords, generally absentee landlords, who attempt to maximize profit by minimizing spending on property maintenance, often in deteriorating neighborhoods. They may need to charge lower than market rent to tenants. Severe housing shortages allow slumlords to charge higher rents.

The phrase slumlord first appeared in 1953, though the term slum landlord dates to 1893.[1]

Traditionally, real estate is seen as a long term investment to most buyers. Especially in the developed world, most landlords will properly maintain their properties even when doing so proves costly in the short term, in order to attract higher rents and more desirable tenants in the long run. A well-maintained property is worth more to potential buyers.

In contrast, slumlords do very little maintenance on their property (ordinarily, just enough to meet minimum local requirements for habitability), and in turn offer low rent rates to lure tenants who will not (or cannot) pay high rent (and/or who might not pass background checks should these be required to live in the higher rent areas)."

I particularly dislike those slum landlords who suggest that low income earners who pay no net tax, as described in the article in The Australian, are bludging off the system. Many of those who are in this situation are families with several children and one breadwinner who receive more in family benefits than they pay in taxes due to their low incomes, and rehctub's attempt to characterise them as dole bludgers and drug addicts is contemptible.

Mind you, his stereotyping is probably based on the kinds of tenants he attracts to the substandard housing he rents out.

I accept that my thread may appear to be ‘off topic’ however the beginning of it was just an introduction. Sorry if you were misled. It was not my intention.

(Part of my original thread) At no time have I stated that the 42% are ALL DOLE BLUDGERS. Nor have I stated that all on the dole are bludgers. Refer to paragraph two.

Let's look at the dole.
Many companies now have drug and alcohol free policies, yet, people on the dole, who are supposed to be actively seeking work can be off their face as long as they like and still get 'THEIR PAY' as many of them refer to it as.

Now I accept that this is not everyone who is on welfare, but it still stinks I recon when someone, having been supported by me, can have a life of leisure while I continue to work to plug the holes in the cookie jar.
Continued.

Bugys, you say;
That 42% is not "sitting back and collecting benefits at the expense of the elderly" at all

So how do you figure this out. Taxes are collected and a portion is allocated to ALL WALFARE. Of cause the elderly are effected by how many mouths are fed before they get their share. It’s not rocket science, the more handouts allocated, the less each one receives.

Pardon us for getting rebates for having children, clearly that just isn't on.

For the record I don’t oppose any child being supported, what I do oppose to is that some children get support while others miss out

Imagine a system that sees ALL CHILDREN being provided with free meals every day at schools, free uniforms, hats etc, free text books and alike. Now that’s a fair system. Why shouldn’t all children be treated equally and be given the same?

At present a percentage of money intended for the support of children is wasted on plasma’s, grog, drugs, gambling and tobacco. Now if you don’t see this then you are blind to what is happening.

Welfare paid in dollars should be re-branded as ‘wastefare’ IN MANY CASES.

CJ
You have just described 80 to 90% of landlords.

My inner city unit attracts well to do executives who pay high rents, a price one pays for river and city views, therefore it is constantly upgraded and kept in top order and the returns are high. The Whitsunday one is somewhere in the middle and not in a holiday pool, items get fixed, not replaced while one of my rural properties is in poor condition and RENTS ACCORDINGLY.

So in essence I guess I am a slum lord, a normal land lord and an excellent land lord all in one hey!

Make no mistake. An investor invests in property to MAKE MONEY. Now if this means an upgrade when needed, then so be it because the returns are there. However if the rental returns are low, then we fix it rather than upgrade it.

Now what is wrong with that?

What amazes me is that you make any money at all, when even basic statistical skills seem to elude you.

That 42% includes the elderly, how can they accept welfare at their own expense?

"Imagine a system that sees ALL CHILDREN being provided with free meals every day at schools, free uniforms, hats etc, free text books and alike. Now that’s a fair system. Why shouldn’t all children be treated equally and be given the same?"

A wonderful workers paradise, where we all equally fund your children with free meals and books exactly the same as the children of the lowest paid workers, while you still get to keep your three properties and boast about how much money you're making? Yes, that sounds very nice and so very fair, where do I sign up?

It just goes to show, you don't have to be smart to make money, you just really have to want to make money.

One last piece of advice: stop watching TT and ACA, that crap will fry your brain faster than kg of ice.

You're a legend, rehctub. One wonders why a paragon of material success like you feels the need to put the boot into those who are less fortunate than you.

Besides which, as Bugsy has pointed out, you don't seem to understand that the 42% figure includes the elderly welfare recipients who you claim are being ripped off by all these parasitic dole bludgers and drug addicts.

I think that Bugsy may also be correct about the intellectual damage that too much viewing of ACA, TT etc can cause.

Ah Bugys, I see you have once again failed to answer my questions.

I don't know why you keep referring to TT and ACA, did they pick on you?

You have this delusion that well off families kids are 'well off'. Well you are wrong. Spoilt rich kids are well off, there is a difference!

As always you have displayed your 'tall poppy' syndrome outlook, "ah bugger it, let someone else pay for it". They can afford it.

Remember, my kids are no different to yours, so why treat them any different?

Of cause seniors (and I quote seniors, not pensioners) are part of the 42%. It is just that when they commenced work they didn't have all the 'hanger onners' that are there today. It's a 'welfare soup' out there. This why they suffer.GET IT!

Mate loose-rs, having loose-rs to become loose-rs is the very cause of the failing system we have right here today. The 'world owes me a living' generation. I'll bet there's loose-rs out there wishing they could have more loose-rs just to get the baby bonus hey!

Enjoy your poverty!

Fair enough Bugsy you are quite right.
I do understand just what you say about the over kill.
But I still without shame want more for those who need it and less for those who do not.
I think we must also balance that 42% many are on such low incomes we should support them.

rechtub, one of the best things I can think about Australian society is that there is a general intolerance of w@nkers. The only people I usually hear complain about the "tall poppy syndrome" are rich w@nkers or those that want to be one. The Australian people quite like nice rich people, but they can't stand upstarts and grandstanders and those who are well off but would still remove what little others have in the name of efficiency. If you feel that you are being persecuted by the tall poppy syndrome, I can fully understand that, given the type of person that you project yourself to be. As for your thinking that $5,000 or so is enough to convince people to have children so that they can buy a plasma screen tv, well I can understand why you are so rich now. Anything for money eh? And so your exhortation of "enjoy your poverty", while initially comes across as being arrogant and blustery (and not just a little w@nkerish), has taken on a whole new meaning for me. I think I will enjoy my "poverty", but it shall be one of only monetary concern, and a self imposed state. I suspect yours however to be far deeper and less enjoyable in the long run.

Belly, we all want good social justice outcomes, but I also live in the real world and understand that any change to the system must be slow and cautious, since large and rapid changes just confuse everyone and usually end up hurting the types of people you want to help. I have seen it first hand on multiple occasions.

So bugsy,

Did you realise that you couldn't afford to provide for your own children without 'hand-outs' before or after you chose to have them?

I think it was after my landlord put up the rent after I asked him to change the smoke alarm.

I think it was after my landlord put up the rent after I asked him to change the smoke alarm.

There you go mate, an improvement, not a repair hey!

Sorry mate, it's that 'iron trap of a mind' I possess!

Once again, you have avoided the question. Perhaps it's to close to the bone hey?

Also noted, not one reply to my 'cashless society' comment. Wonder if we are all doing the right thing and not working for CASH hey?

Thought you might at least comment on the 2% transaction tax. Fairest tax around, the more you earn/spend, the more tax you pay. Now what can be fairer than that I ask?

Avoided what question? The loaded one that's just chock full of assumptions? The one that's just like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The only thing that you could get close to the bone is one your butchers knives. Indeed it does appear that the trap is not made of steel at all, but instead is ironic.

As for a "cashless society" and a transaction tax, all I can say is that's a great idea! Why don't you take that to the government right away! I'm sure they would love to hear it and won't laugh at you at all.

Well bugys, let's move on hey. I'm over this tit for tat!

Now with regards to your last comment, transaction tax and a cashless society.

Trans tax
A 2% flat tax would be one that is taxed on ALL banking transactions from accounts to eftpos and alike. Each time a transaction is made the 2% tax is collected. The more you spend, the more you pay. Very fair to me. I would pay more tax than others and visa-versa. It is said that if this were introduced then all other taxes COULD be removed. Luv to see that!

Take GST. This is a very unfair tax, especially for the needy. I get my GST back yet the ones who rely on 100% of their income just to survive don't. In theory, this could be wiped.

At present the black money market is huge. Now GST was supposed to deal with this but it has in fact made it worse as it is used as an automatic discount tool if you pay cash..

There is nothing to stop me from taking $50 to $100K per year from the till and not pay tax on it. That's wrong!

Many people are paid cash so as to avoid commitments such as child support, they fudge their incomes.

Every drug deal is in cash. Many pay for holidays, nights out etc with black money, all of which should be attracting taxes which in essence rob the public purse and we wonder why there's not enough to go around.

So in theory, could we become a cashless society?

In theory, a cashless society is possible.

But the reality of it would be far from desirable. The fact that it would enable a totalitarianism and control over individual affairs that would eclipse anything seen in the 20th-century should ensure that it remained merely an academic exercise only.

I don't think you have thought through the logistics and consequences.
If dollars are kept in electronic accounts and are not actually printed, then aren't they really theoretical dollars?
What distinguishes these dollars from the theoretical dollar values of shares or other assets? Billions can get wiped off the market in a day, but this is because they have only theoretical value, something that is only tested when people actually try and buy or sell the asset.
The value of physical money is kept because of its supply is limited by the government and previously it used to be pegged to precious metals (eg.gold), because it is not easy to increase or decrease the amount of that particular commodity.
what's to stop the government from just pushing a button and immediately devaluing your savings? Who keeps the records?
Security would be a major issue.

And contrary to intentions, far from getting rid of the 'black money market' or 'shadow economy', you will only change the nature it, just as you changed the nature of the real economy.
The currency of economies only exist to enable trade, when they become inadequate to do so the real currency changes.

At the lower end I would forsee a barter economy re-emerging and/or a defacto currency being used, eg gold or silver could make a comeback as an untraceable defacto currency.

Lastly, what happens when the lights go out? That is to say, blackouts can be caused by any number of things, cyclones, terrorism, accidents, lack of maintenance etc. What happens to a local economy if the power stops?

I do hope you get my point about unintended consequences and how it's easy to hurt the very people you think you are helping but honestly, I don't think you've thought this through, and that's being kind.

If dollars are kept in electronic accounts and are not actually printed, then aren't they really theoretical dollars?

Well it's probably a stupid argument anyway but, money would still exist it would be kept in a vault rather than in circulation.

What distinguishes these dollars from the theoretical dollar values of shares or other assets? Billions can get wiped off the market in a day, but this is because they have only theoretical value, something that is only tested when people actually try and buy or sell the asset.

Fluctuating prices of meat, produce (bananas was an example) and fuel may not change the value of the dollar but it sure changes the value you get for your dollar. An outbreak of 'mad cow' would see billions wiped off the value of the local meat industry.

I see no difference in the value of money whether it be notes or plastic.

Lastly, what happens when the lights go out? Fair point, have no answer!

Finally, many small businesses get robed either by staff or break ins. Now if there were no cash, this would remove this billion dollar problem that occurs every day.

Anyway, as I say, it is probably a silly argument.

Australia really has a system of Government that has elements of both Capitalism and Socialism both.In 1961 I was working in sales for an American Company.The "pitch" included a rule that one never says the word "pay", always say "take care of".An American always had great trouble talking his German wife into buying something on credit.My technique was to explain that in America, cars and other things like household appliances were cheaper because people bought them before they had the money, thus allowing manufacturers to produce more items that a ready market could afford now!

The guy was on my side from then on!The girl wanted to wait till they had the money.
'That's what I've been trying to tell you Honey! the guy would say and sign at once on the dotted line.

That was long ago, but the mugs are paying the price now, and the money men should be told to "Take care of it themselves!"

rechtub,

I can see we are getting somewhere. The dollars in a vault are not theoretical dollars, they are merely dollars not in circulation. The supply of real money is controlled by the government via the mint. The amount of money the mint has printed is known and accounted for. These are real dollars and these real dollars can be kept in reserve by banks in their vaults while their electronic dollars (that is, credit) are out there getting shuffled around. Now, the number on your account statemnet is a promise to pay that amount in physical real dollars if you should ever want to cash out. In actual effect, your bank account does not contain real dollars, it contains a prommisory amount you have loaned to the bank so that they can use it to invest and loan out to others to make money. They only have a small percentage held as actual cash.

Now, what do you think would happen when the monetary system is backed by nothing? That is, if you wanted to "cash out" and not use the banking system, what could you use in the 'cashless society'? In actual fact everyone would be running on credit and the number of actual dollars in the system could probably be blown out of proportion if not kept in check by the government, and thus the government must know where every one of those dollars is so that they can always know what the total number of dollars in the system is. At the moment they don't have to because they know how much they printed and how much should be in the system. You can see where the totalitarianism comes in don't you?

I haven't even started on international exchange, but I don't think I'll worry about that.