Pericles, I give up, you just won't defend your position, so there's little point. Those who make statements should be willing to defend them, that's called discussion or debate, otherwise they are merely pontificating. I see no conflict between having ideals and the practical world, they are not mutually exclusive, unless you refuse to think, which would seem to make you a sheep, scared to dream, scared to rock the boat. Thank god we do rock the boat, if we didn't you wouldn't be able to sit so smugly in your chair praising the status-quo, it wouldn't exist, we'd still be hiding from the storm, begging the spirits to save us, lol. It wasn't stick-in the muds like you who got us here, it was the Idealists who made their dreams reality who built the world we know.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! This takes the proverbial biscuit, Maximillion.

>>Those who make statements should be willing to defend them, that's called discussion or debate, otherwise they are merely pontificating.<<

It is the sure sign of a lost argument when you accuse the other party of the very fault of which you are most guilty.

It is you, not I, who has been making the indefensible statements, and "pontificating" about the ease with which we could as a society, do without money. You have provided nothing, not a shred of support for this hypothesis, except for the trite "it's good to dream".

Here's a thought. Point out to me one of my "pontifications" that is unsupported. and for each one, I'll give you two of yours.

Deal?

DEAL!
You have not answered a single question I put to you. You posts are all about how the current system works, informative, but not relevant to my questions.
As for mine, I haven't ever claimed to have all the answers, that would be the height of hubris, but have put forward ideas that I thought merited consideration. Since you didn't respond to them, it was a little difficult to engage with you in debate.
Ball's in your court now, if you'd care to have a go at a few or all of the eight I posted before, I'll quite happily discuss your answers, and answer them in turn, or debate the mechanics of it all, as best I can anyway.
Labelling it Idealism and "not realistic" or "too hard" is merely sledging, not discussion, it's pointless really.
You are not unintelligent obviously, so away you go

The trouble with modern day welfare is that it has extended beyond the safety net principle to include middle class and corporate welfare.

Welfare in the form of handouts like the first home owners grants is inflationary for a start and only serves to perpetuate the current economic crises. Baby bonuses were part of the mindless Costello's one for each parent and one for the nation propaganda and while well-to-do middle class families receive their $6K bonus, the disabled and elderly continue to live in poverty.

Yes indeed what has gone wrong with the welfare system? Perhaps it should be called the pork barrelling system because any altruistic notions of aiding the truly needy has been thrown out with the bath water.

A well managed economy would utilise taxes for the purpose they were intended - to provide services, intrastructure and a fair and equitable safety net - not a windfall for the middle classes. I don't object to my taxes going to those who truly need a hand up but to see it paid to people who are fully employed is not what the system originally intended.

Imagine if this 'wasted' money was actually used on the health system, reducing waiting lists for dental and operative care and increasing mental health support and disability programs. Not to mention public transport infrastructure and rural health.

Here is some interesting feedback on welfare.

As some you you are aware I run two retail outlets, both located in average wealth areas.

Three weeks ago when the first $900 filtered through, I think to the pensioners, we saw a definate increase in consumer spending.

Last week, I think the $900 went to others on wefare and we had a definate surge in trade, up around 25%.

This week I think it is the somewhat 'better off' that have received thier $900 and guess what. Sales are shocking. I am tipping at least 30% down.

Now if my timing is correct this would suggest that what has happened is exactly what was predicted, that being that the better off have either saved the cash or used it to reduce debt. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

If I am right however, this makes my idea of a 'debit card' system with an 'expiry date' well worth considering in the future as it will force recipients to spend the money or loose it.

What ever happens our welfare system is 'running on empty' and simply cannot be sustained.

Another point of interest is that retirees seeking the pension is up by some 20% which is placing yet further strain on our failing system.

Something is gonna give!

What a strange claim, Maximillion, that you...

>>...have put forward ideas that I thought merited consideration. Since you didn't respond to them, it was a little difficult to engage with you in debate.<<

I presume you mean:

>>...why not scrap the entire idea of “money” completely? Why have a medium of exchange at all? We could easily still organize our world to provide for all, and without the greed and suffering that has been its hallmark to date.<<

I explained that this might not be easy, and gave plenty of examples why it is so.

Your response has simply been, to paraphrase, "if you can't dream, what's the point?"

>>OK Pericles, yet again you’ve NOT answered my questions<<

Unfortunately, your "questions" are unrelated to this discussion.

>>Why is the tax system so un-democratic, so unfair to the PAYE workers?<<

For example, this is an opinion, not a question. Which is fine, because this is an opinion forum. But you would need first to support it with some examples, and then show how those examples apply across the board, before it can be discussed properly.

Over to you.