Albie, ya had me until your second last sentence. The days of a left/right political discourse between the 2 major parties disappeared long ago. The 2 parties have been close to identical on most issues since the mid 80s. Unfortunately the left alternative, the inept Greens, are a very minor influence indeed and are economic illiterates. We need a powerful, left of centre party that can garner votes via "competent" economic and social policies, and present itself as a viable, alternative government. That won't happen in our lifetime, as Australia, just like our master the USA, is now firmly entrenched in far right wing ideology. The wonderful hippy movement of the 60s has dismally failed to change society long term.

Rehctub, one can just as easily and legitimately say, "do the figures take into consideration the subsidies and tax breaks provided to the business activities of the rich, paid for by middle/lower class taxes, because if they don't, then they are not the true figures are they". See rehctub, it works BOTH ways.

Equity between rich and poor is beside the point, what matters is what wealth is and how it is created.

Wealth is goods, services and the bounty of nature. Nothing else.

Goods and services are created by labour. Not by anything else.

Consumption creates no wealth. To the extent to which it consumes non-renewable resources it actually destroys wealth.

Investment creates no wealth – merely allocates wealth created by labour. Profits from investment consume, do not create, wealth.

How should this wealth be distributed? (1) to those who create it – repaid to them in their lifetime before and after they retire. (2) to the costs of maintaining a society – obtained by taxation of the wealth creators. (3) to those who are denied by circumstances the opportunity of creating wealth by their labour (this cost is part of maintaining a society). (1), (2) and (3) are not a rank order.

A very large proportion of the created wealth is being distributed as profits to those who create nothing but acquire great wealth and a great foghorn for bellowing the mantra that they have first entitlement when in fact they have none. The only honest redistribution of wealth is from the takers to the makers, until the economy evolves to the extent that there are no takers, only makers. That’s a worthwhile future to work for while tuning out the entitlement braying of the acquisitions community and the “useful idiots” who internalise and propagate its pretensions.

JKJ, Gee, sorry, didn't know I was privileged to be in the presence of Economic Royalty, your good self no less! What do you do when your not advising Wall Street, or the IMF? Cleaning public toilets with a toothbrush? Get you hand off it kid, you'll go blind. Back into your dog box,fool!

Julian, I'm here to inform you that "no consumption" equals "no wealth".

Let's say you are a dairy farmer or miner. Economically, what happens if people don't consume your milk, or don't consume your coal? That's right -- you go BROKE. Ok, so you start up another business, maybe a supermarket, a guitar shop or a taxi, now what happens if people don't consume food, don't consume guitars and don't consume taxis? That's right -- you again go BROKE.

So, without "consumption" wealth simply DOESN'T EXIST.

Consumption creates wealth, because without consumption wealth is NON EXISTENT.

Sure, other things relate to wealth accumulation too, but the FACT remains that without consumption specifically, wealth can't exist. For example, say you win Lotto. You can only win Lotto via consumption. In other words you bought a Lotto ticket. You partook in "consumption". If you did not consume, then someone else consumed by buying you a Lotto ticket. Nobody can win Lotto without "consumption". The same applies to every single human activity and every single dollar.

No consumption = no wealth.

A poor man never payed tax to support another poor man. Tax high profit companies who are reducing staff

Jay 123, I have o problem with accepting that it works both ways, however, uless all the cards are on the table, how do we make an informed opinion.

And while the rich may well get tax breaks, they also do something the poor don't, they create jobs, jobs, that if not created, many by rich people taking risks, the poor would have a lot more to complain about.

While the poor complain about a $7 payment to see a doctor, the not even rich, people like myself pay $60, that's after paying 2% of my income towards Medicare, the system many contribute to but get little out of, all so the poor can at least afford to see a doctor.