Producer there will always be the lucky & the unlucky. If the bomb lands on your house, unlucky. If it lands on the one next door, lucky, unless you were visiting at the time.

My kids are lucky, I've been careful, bought wisely & have a bit to leave them. The kids of the old fart renting across the road are unlucky. He always earned much more than me, but spent every penny. Now he can't afford the rent on the nice house he lives in, or to repair his expensive car. Tough luck kids.

Many other old farts had nice retirement packages, but got greedy, & invested in high reward rip-offs, & now have nothing. Silly people, that is not bad luck, it's bad management.

I don't know about those poor vets. That $800 I paid for a couple of hours treatment of my dog & a dose of ant tick serum was pretty rewarding to the vet I thought, as was the $400 to put down the one with a snake bite.

Those disabled through a work injury are usually reasonably well compensated, & overly so by those claiming stress leave. Those disabled by their leisure activities don't deserve taxpayer compensation. If I had crashed my Brabham at 170+ MPH down Conrod straight, would I then have been entitled to expect the public to keep me for the rest of my life. I for one don't think so, so had private insurance. Of course if I'd crashed at 170 miles per hour, they may not have had to support me for very long.

Do go on any time. This old fart is good at shooting holes in thought bubbles, particularly when they want to spend other peoples money by force, & I enjoy a good jouste.

Hasbeen you may think you are good at shooting holes in thought bubbles, the test is do others share your narcissistic opinion.

Perhaps based on the concept of luck we should dispense with all forms of government. We could replace it with hasbeen’s is theory "survival of the luckiest and stuff everybody else". I suppose it is okay for Arthur, Eddie, Nathan and the other nights of the half round trough to do what they do, providing they don't get caught. They should only be penalised if there are luck runs out?

If you as an individual have worked hard and have been frugal, you and those like you deserve to reap what you sow. However if you were unlucky enough to lose it all as a consequence of poor law, governance or dodgy business you would be okay with this?

I however believe that all who participate in a meaningful way are entitled to a fair share irrespective of luck. Those who “make” deserve more than those who “take”. Collectively we should not “take” more than we collectively “make”.

I believe (to borrow a phrase) that there should be no taxation without representation. There is a significant percentage of our population that is not represented by government. A proportional system would rectify this “improve our government system".

A proportional system is nothing but a way for the smarties, with no chance of ever gaining a majority, to sport the system, & gain the "balance of power" which the majority did not give them.

You only have to look at the catastrophe that is Tasmania to see what such a system gives. A glance at the Gillard fiasco reinforces that result.

No system of Government will work unless we work on changing the general mentality of the electorate.
Import intelligent teachers to educate our young, then have the adolescents participate in two years of national service & within a couple of years improvement will be very obvious.
Get our Police trained in Indonesia & make our judiciary responsible for their rulings.
A better society in no time at all & the Government can focus on doing what it is supposed to be doing. Any opposition should refrain from criticising until 6 months before an election.

Dear Producer,

<<I believe (to borrow a phrase) that there should be no taxation without representation.>>

I strongly agree regarding proportional representation, but even that's a poor-man's choice: had government been involved only in what is morally legitimate for it to be involved with, then I wouldn't consider it any big deal who happens to be at the helm carrying out its duties.

It's not really about representation - there should be no taxation without consent!

Perhaps you quote the phrase because in some situations indeed, wishing to be represented may indicate such consent, but this does not apply to the current situation in Australia where government interferes with our lives regardless, thus our only reason to be represented may be to defend ourselves against its tyranny rather than a genuine desire to be involved in a common project.

If we freely chose to use the money which the government prints, then this too should indicate our consent to be taxed on it. I see no problem with printing money that has strings attached - don't like to be taxed, then don't use this money!

However, as the current law stands, it is illegal to use other forms of currency in many areas of life, or alternately, such usage still incurs tax in Australian dollars (that arbitrarily includes the bartering of professional services as opposed to non-professional ones).

Until this law is fixed so people can choose for themselves whether they want to have anything to do with the money that governments print, using money does not indicate consent to be taxed on it, hence as it stands, taxation is currently immoral.

(note however, that use of foreign currencies could still indicate consent to be taxed - subject to mutual agreements between the governments which issued those currencies)

Hasbeen you old fart, I’m waiting for you shoot holes in the majority of my last post. Perhaps you aren’t the jouster you claim?

Individual I agree most (not all) of your philosophy although the solutions are very narrow and draconian. Changing the system of choosing a government to a proportional one that is representative if nothing else, you must admit is democratic and fair.

Yuyutsu proportional representation is not a poor man’s choice. The poor man’s vote has the same value as the rich man. One vote has the value of one.

Proportionality is not a panacea for all the ills of governance. It is however, fair and for better or worse represents as close as possible the wishes of the voters.

I believe it would “improve our government system”.