"One the other hand some worthwhile things might miss out because other groups had better PR machines but then that happens already so where is the loss?"

OK, so we already have a minor problem, so where is the loss in turning it into a massive problem?

You are basically choosing a very poor solution to the problems inherent in people delegating 'politcal' decisions to a few chosen politicians. People already put very little effort into the political decisions (basically voting) that they make now. This would not decrease that problem. The idea would basically lump the public with the most boring decisions that politicians make and expect that because the decisions are in the hands of uninterested members of the public rather than someone who is paid to look into it that a better decision would be made. All that would happen is that public servants who are meant to get on with their job instead spend a lot of the time (=money) on advertising, like charities currently do.

There are far better ways to get around the problem. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by getting rid of the parts of our democracy that people actually like while not removing the bits they don't like.

Country Gal

“A compromise Ludwig, you dont pay for my child-related tax concessions, and I wont pay for your pension (when you eventually need it).”

Nope. That’s not a fair compromise.

People have babies for themselves, not for the good of the country. So they shouldn’t expect any direct tax concessions. Afterall, they get a huge amount of subsidy via general tax-funded services such as health and education.

If our society needed to encourage people to have more babies than they otherwise would, then yes some direct subsidies would be in order. But that is certainly not the case in Australia.

However, we do need direct subsidisation via our taxes for the financial safety systems of unemployment benefits and pensions.

So… no deal to the idea of not paying child-related concessions and thus foregoing a pension.

How about this: I don’t pay for child-related tax concessions and you don’t pay for my lump sum bonus when I turn 50 with no kids. Or putting it the other way round: I don’t pay for child-related tax concessions and I don’t get a lump sum for being a good little non-reproducer in this society which desperately needs to achieve population stabilisation, when I reach 50.

What’s that you say? Mmmmm, no I didn’t think you’d agree to that!

“Wouldnt it give us all a great sense of purpose if we shifted to direct funding”

Perhaps; if we could direct our taxes to where we wanted them to go. But of course, that would mean that some areas would get all the money they needed and more while others would miss out badly.

It just wouldn’t work. We must have a consolidated revenue setup, with decision-makers in government deciding how to divvy it up.