I think Shadow Minsiter makes the most powerful argument yet.
But I wonder if it isn't a case - just to some extent - of using one extreme to defend its opposite.
Sure the kind of socialism and throwing money at the problem that Africa has experienced is a powerful lesson for us all. And it is a crazy strategy.
But here's a question: Does taxing according to wealth truly make the rich poorer?
And here's another: Isn't it usually true that the wealthy use more of the common weal than do the poor? To give an example, how much of the public road system is used - heavily - by trucks supplying and bringing goods to market, goods that are owned by the very wealthy compared to the wage slave who hardly uses the road and whose little toyota does little damage?
Is this not an example where a national asset is used disproportionatly by a rich person? Ought that rich person pay perhaps a little more tax?
The mining industry which is making a - relatively - few incredibly wealthy is causing genuine hardship to the rest of our society through the two speed economy. Is it not reasonable to ask those benefiting to contribute to rectifying the problem?
Yet another question: There will come a time when the mines will run out of minerals. The mining companies will lay off their workers.
Who will pick up the tab? Who will provide unemployemnt benefits if needed, health services if needed?
The taxpayer will. So, is it really so unreasonable to require the wealthy to pay more in taxes than those less well off who are not benfifiaries of the mining boom?
The fact is that the super rich did not become so in isolation. ANd I do feel that that should be taken into account.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Dear Anthonyve,

Why do these curious myths about the poor
persist? The ideology that legitimates
stratification in our society holds that
everyone has the same chance to get ahead,
and that inequality provides rewards for
personal effort.

Many people believe that if those who can
get ahead can claim credit for their success,
then those who fall behind mist, logically, be
blamed for their failures. The poor are supposed
to need incentives to work, rather than help at
the expense of the taxpayer.

There are few complaints, however, about how we
pay out more in "handouts" to the non poor than
to the poor. This fact generally escapes
attention because these benefits take an
indirect form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions
rather than the direct form of cash payments.

We have to be careful in our explanations of poverty
to not "blame the victim." We need more on the social
forces that create poverty rather than on the supposed
faults of the poor. This doesn't mean, of course,
that poverty is "all society's fault." Some people
undoubtedly contribute to their deprived circumstances.
But poverty, like wealth or indeed any social
characteristic, is the outcome of a complex
interaction between individual human beings and the
social environment in which they find themselves.

Since social stratification is socially constructed
it must, in principle, be socially modifiable as well
provided only that people are conscious of their own
ability to change what they have created. Whether
they preserve, modify, or change the system is
ultimately up to the people themselves. It is
therefore vital to make the right choices in selecting
the type of society we wish to live in and the type of
government and policies that will ensure that we are given
the society that we want.

cont'd ...

I don't think that Winston Churchill meant the quote that Shadow
Minister used in his post - in the way it was given.
I don't think Mr Churchill meant that we allow 1 percent to
get richer while 99 percent get poorer - or that low taxes
for the rich plus tax avoidance and evasion was the type of
society he was advocating.

At least I don't think he did and getting the rich to pay their
fare share is not a big ask.

Hi Lexi,
I wholeheartedly agree.
Too many self satisfied rich are simply winners of a lucky sperm competition, and feel that somehow that makes them better than someone who gets no kick start at all.
Or who, in fact, may have been born with a set of genes that simply made it harder to compete.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Lexi and Ant,

You both missed the point. The difference between idealism and reality is that this is not a zero sum game. As I pointed out, Howard encouraged the rich to get richer, and in doing so this lead to the income of the poor improving far more than it ever did under the well meaning Labor. The super rich miners employ thousands at high salaries, all of whom pay tax.

With the mobility of capital and skilled Labor, Australia is competing for investment and skills. Higher taxes on investments and income encourage them to generate wealth and taxes elsewhere.

I do get your point, Shadowminister, it's valid and well made.
I'm delighted to see the rich get rich, but you're essentially making the
trickle down argument that the Republicans are pushing in the US.
The trickle down theory has been historically discredited when it has been left to natural forces to drive the redistribution.
Only when taxation and other interventions have been used does the redistribution occur.
Right now we are seeing the widest gap between the rich and the poor in history. Many historians and economists (Krugman, for example), in the US are powerfully making the case that if taxation is kept too low and natural economic forces are left to drive a redistribution, then it is not and will not happen.
Even a cursory look at income relativity trends shows that they are correct.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au