# The Role of Government? Which areas should spending be cut from?



## Rafa (18 December 2007)

The purpose of this thread is two fold....
1. even tho I voted labor, I am a firm believer in small govt and I am hoping that Rudd can deliver. (the howard govt's spending was described by access economics yesterday as 'whitlamesq' , and certainly Costello was not impressed by Howards philanthropy)

2. with the recent labour shortages and bottlenecks, now is the right time to have a lean and mean govt.

To start off with, i'm pro the tax cuts, and in fact would like to see that go further... but what I would like to see is the tax cuts being funded from savings, rather than simply handing back once in a life time company tax, which is not only unsustainable but fuels inflation.



> Access Economics is warning the new Federal Government that the tax cuts it promised will boost interest rates. The Coalition promised $34 billion in tax cuts and the Labor Party matched $31 billion of that pledge.
> 
> But Access Economics says delivering on those commitments will push up interest rates unless there are extra spending cuts. It says adding another tax cut to an economy already at full stretch does not boost the size of the economy and create more jobs. Instead it brings a bigger import bill and higher prices.
> 
> ...




In the 7:30 report last night, the chap interviewed said at least 10b a year in saving need to be identified...

So.... What do you see is the role of Govt.... which should lead into the next question... where should govt spending be cut from?

My Answer...

As I put briefly in another thread.... in my opinion, Govt's need to focus on a few key things

1. Education
2. Health
3. Security (national, local and personal)
4. Social Safety Net
5. Infrastructure (Water, Electricity, Communications (roads, rail, broadband), etc)
6. Various laws, rules and regulations (basic IR rules, criminal law, torts law, competition/consumer laws, environmental laws, etc).


That is it... The rest should be left to individuals.... Middle class welfare HAS TO GO. All govt services provided to individuals (as per Social Safety Net) should be on a voucher based system, not cash. If special assistance for those with children has to be provided, that should be on a voucher based system too.

Is there anything else that they should be doing??

And, what would the govt budget then look like, and how many more people would be available in the workforce then? Could it also then be possible to simplify the tax system, to have a simple two tier system, or even a flat tax like company tax?

Comments appreciated…
PS: and yes, I know I am dreaming cause this ain’t ever going to happen…


----------



## Sprinter79 (18 December 2007)

*Re: The Role of Government? Which areas should govt spending be cut from?*

I for one don't actually support tax cuts *puts up flame proof shield*

Cut funding from defence, with our ****ty armed force we might as well be without one...


----------



## chops_a_must (18 December 2007)

> Middle class welfare HAS TO GO.




That's pretty much it. There are so many things that have been so chronically underfunded, I'm not sure where cuts can be made. Health and education obviously need massive cash injections for instance...


----------



## greggy (18 December 2007)

Rafa said:


> The purpose of this thread is two fold....
> 1. even tho I voted labor, I am a firm believer in small govt and I am hoping that Rudd can deliver. (the howard govt's spending was described by access economics yesterday as 'whitlamesq' , and certainly Costello was not impressed by Howards philanthropy)
> 
> 2. with the recent labour shortages and bottlenecks, now is the right time to have a lean and mean govt.
> ...



Hi Rafa,

"That is it... The rest should be left to individuals...."  You seem to have left Defence out of the equation. But there again I suppose we can all go out to buy cricket bats to fight the enemy when it arrives at our shores. LOL!  I for one hope that they make improvements in the areas of health and education.


----------



## Rafa (18 December 2007)

Hi Greggy, I did that under point 3... defence.... (national)



Sprinter, The thing about the tax cuts, is that it is the best way to stop govt from getting bloated... Is there another way...?

I remember a while back there was an article about scandinavian countries and their version of the 'future fund'.... where all company profits from the boooming resource sector was actualy put straight into that for investment, rather than going into govt coffers.

I would support that, instead of a tax cut, but given that we don't have that yet, a tax cut is the only way of making sure they don't come up with new ways of spending it.


As far a health and education go, there is a lot of room to increase spending there... and have the tax cut... things i would target are
1. First Home Owners Grant - esp for home over 400k
2. Medicare Safety Net (in lieu of a better universal health system full stop)
3. Private Medicare Rebate (what exactly is the point of that, certainly that money can also be funneled into the common health budget)
4. Govt Advertisement
5. Commonwealth State Reform (apparently properly demarking the areas of responsibility can save billions... can't find source at the moment).
6. Education grants on a needs based model (heck, even some of the rich private schools are saying we don't need any more money... but certainly there are plenty of poor private schools that need help, just like public schools)
7. Baby Bonus!!! (What the hell is that!!!)


I would say conservatively, that is at least 5billion a year...


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

*Re: The Role of Government? Which areas should govt spending be cut from?*



Sprinter79 said:


> I for one don't actually support tax cuts *puts up flame proof shield*



I noticed yesterday on the radio a 2 second bite ... someone hoisted a trial kite about a possible (though extremely improbable) rise / adjustment to the GST.  

(as you say sprinter...) ...... *puts up flame proof shield*

PS I'm not saying yay or nay here  - just speculating aloud.


----------



## Sprinter79 (2 January 2008)

You can't get rid of the first home owners grant for properties more than 400K. I can't even buy a crappy dog box on a cricket pitch in one of Perth's dodgiest suburbs (Coolbellup) for that. 

Obviously, there needs to be tightening of the 't & c' for this scheme, and much needs to be done to stop those buying houses in their toddler's name.

Working in the public service, even with a booming economy here in WA, we're operating on Changi rations. Our new pens in the office all have those stupid link chains on them, like you get in the bank.... because they were the cheapest ones!!!


----------



## Rafa (2 January 2008)

spending crackdowns only just beginning...

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22995956-953,00.html


> *Public servants to lose massage perk*
> PUBLIC servants will be ordered to pay for their own massages after chalking up more than $200,000 in taxpayer-funded rub downs.
> The practice was widespread under the former Howard government, with the former prime minister's own department enjoying more than $6000 worth of back rubs at taxpayers' expense.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

rafa said:
			
		

> The practice was widespread under the former Howard government, with the former prime minister's own department enjoying more than $6000 worth of back rubs at taxpayers' expense.



Is that with or without GST raf?


----------



## Rafa (2 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Is that with or without GST raf?




hehe
this is all small bikies...

i think the big savings from direct govt spending are the promised 30% reduction in staffing levels in the ministers office (ministerial staffers and advisors), and the reduction in govt advertising... 

that should be 100's of millions straight away...


----------



## treefrog (2 January 2008)

no good tinkering around the edges - scap the lot and start again

e.g.

suppose you were one of only 6 shipwrecked (or aircrash etc etc) that made it safely to an isolated island.
Your mutal assessment was that you would only survive if you used the local resources as rescue was improbable.
at the end of a year your community was thriving, individuals were fishing, gathering, growing, building....totally self reliant.
Two of your fellow survivors called a meeting and said we have a wonderful idea - we will organise you four - tell you what to fish for and how many to get, what to grow, what to build and how to build it and generally keep control of the group. obviously you will have to provide enough of whatever you are doing to look after us because will will be just too busy with our governing roll.
now we all need to vote on this idea and need another two besides us to effect it

will you vote yes, or no??

in practice most vote yes - as evidenced by your last vote in local, state and fed elections - 1/3 to tell the other 2/3 what to do

moral - ask yourself what you really want a govt to do because they multiply worse than rabbits and are equally as useful


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 January 2008)

......   40 year old joke at least - but maybe those of you with dementia have forgotten it 


> THE GREAT ROWING RACE
> 
> Aussie and Japanese big business decided to engage in a competitive crew race. Both teams practiced hard and long to reach their peak performance. On the big day, both teams felt ready. The Japanese won by a mile.
> 
> ...


----------



## chewy (2 January 2008)

Environment missing from the  6 point list? 


On a side note I was told that if all income was taxed at a flat rate of 10% with no deductions allowed it would equal the current tax haul. No idea if it is true - anyone do the maths? But if so I'd be happy to pay a flat 10% with no deductions. 

I was also told that if the 10 richest people in Aus paid 45% on their annual earnings without deductions it would equal the current tax haul. No idea if that is true either though lol


----------



## treefrog (2 January 2008)

just rang the local health service and newbie on switch (festive season shortages I guess) answers "Good afternoon; Broken Health Service"


----------



## treefrog (2 January 2008)

chewy said:


> Environment missing from the  6 point list?
> 
> 
> On a side note I was told that if all income was taxed at a flat rate of 10% with no deductions allowed it would equal the current tax haul. No idea if it is true - anyone do the maths? But if so I'd be happy to pay a flat 10% with no deductions.
> ...




probably true chewy, but not a snowball's hope of getting up because the masses (low socio-economic types) would start paying tax rather than none at present

and of course u can scrap the income tax and GST altogether and just have a 1.5% tax on *all* transactions and still get the same income but have a heart for the poor tax office peoples tossed out of work for that one!


----------



## ithatheekret (2 January 2008)

treefrog said:


> just rang the local health service and newbie on switch (festive season shortages I guess) answers "Good afternoon; Broken Health Service"





HAHAHAHAHA      a this site never fails to make my day , good one .

ROFLMAO


----------



## Kimosabi (2 January 2008)

Spending should be cut from ALL areas of Government....

The proper role of Government is to protect the rights and privacy of the individual.

Any deviation from the proper role of government will lead us down the slippery slope to Tyranny.

The first thing that should happen is that we take control of our monetary system back from the International Bankers.

The illegal ATO should be dismantled immediately.

It should be the Individuals responsibility to look after themselves not the Governments. Why should money be stolen from one person to support another person? This is what charities are for.

Why should I have to work 4 - 5 months of the year to pay Tax?

Why can't I keep the fruits of my labour?

Why is the Dollar I earnt yesterday, worth less Today?

This sound's like institutionalised Robbery to me, by we are all happy to put up with it.

The Federal Government should be a small as possible and be responsible for Defense and International Relations.

The States and Local Government should be primarily responsible for local matters like Health and Social Security etc.

You people need to wake up and realise that we are all being shafted up the Ass in this country...


----------



## Rafa (2 January 2008)

treefrog said:


> probably true chewy, but not a snowball's hope of getting up because the masses (low socio-economic types) would start paying tax rather than none at present
> 
> and of course u can scrap the income tax and GST altogether and just have a 1.5% tax on *all* transactions and still get the same income but have a heart for the poor tax office peoples tossed out of work for that one!




Spot on...

The inefficiencies in our tax system are phenomenal... we have one of hte most complicated tax system in the world, all designed to give people employed in the tax office, all those accountants in jobs AND allow the mega rich to pay the least tax

personally, i'd have no problems paying my tax if i knew most of it was going into productive use, and only a minimum amount in administration... (does anyone know what the real figures are?)

Hence, i still maintain tax cuts are essential, cause anything that reduces the size of govt is a good thing. There is still plenty of savings that can be found elsewhere to fund social needs.

PS: quite like that 1.5% transaction tax... simple and so easy to implement, especially now in the age of the cashless society. The poor can also get it credited back, to make it equitable, but pretty much the more you spend, the more tax you pay.


----------



## cashcow (2 January 2008)

*Re: The Role of Government? Which areas should govt spending be cut from?*



Sprinter79 said:


> Cut funding from defence, with our ****ty armed force we might as well be without one...




Actually, Defence suffered mightily over the past 2 decades and is probably only just getting back to sufficient funding levels in recent times.  Despite this, our ADO/ADF is widely recognised as one of the most efficient and innovative for its size.

It strikes me that those who make these sorts of ill-informed comments would be the first to complain should the proverbial ever hit the fan on our shores (again).


----------



## cashcow (2 January 2008)

Back on topic, I think the vast majority of middle class Australia misuses the insta-wealth they've been handed over the last decade.  Whilst I dislike the amount of tax we pay, I can't help but feel perhaps the gov'mint could put it to better use than the masses, by investing in all the usual areas (education, infrastructure, health, etc).

Maybe rather than a blanket income tax reduction, they should make more useful things deductable and that will encourage people to do something worthwhile with their tax savings instead of buying a faster V8, bigger McMansion and brighter plasma than their neighbours'.

*steps off soapbox*


----------



## Sprinter79 (2 January 2008)

How much money got wasted in the defence budget on those few stuff ups?

By the way, how do you know I'd be the first complaining? I'll be heading straight for the black market :


----------



## Julia (2 January 2008)

Rafa said:


> As far a health and education go, there is a lot of room to increase spending there... and have the tax cut... things i would target are
> 
> 3. Private Medicare Rebate (what exactly is the point of that, certainly that money can also be funneled into the common health budget)



Rafa, I don't agree with abolishing this.  Private cover is simply essential given the woeful standard of Queensland Health hospitals.  Can't speak for the other States.  Cost of medical care appreciates exponentially and the rebate makes the security of private cover  more affordable.




> 7. Baby Bonus!!! (What the hell is that!!!)



Absolutely this should go.  One of Costellos's more bizarre ideas.
It has increased breeding amongst those who will always be dependent on welfare, thus just perpetuating multi-generational welfare.  The basic idea of providing more workers to contribute to the tax system for when we have so many more on age pensions makes some sense, but not if the extra baby (or six!) is simply going to be drawing the dole.


I'd like to see some trimming of the generous retirement schemes for ex members of Parliament.

So far Mr Rudd seems to have a pretty good sense of what matters to the populace, is clearly keen not to be a one term government, so I'd feel optimistic that he will in fact do some worthwhile trimming.


----------



## Sprinter79 (3 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Rafa, I don't agree with abolishing this.  Private cover is simply essential given the woeful standard of Queensland Health hospitals.  Can't speak for the other States.  Cost of medical care appreciates exponentially and the rebate makes the security of private cover  more affordable.




The trouble is is that the rebate has given the PHIC ammunition to ask for more rate hikes...


----------



## Rafa (4 January 2008)

agreed, i think the rebate has simply fueled the profits of the private health funds...

how much does the this rebate actually cost??

I found this article on the web, as with all web articles, please check for any inaccuracies...

http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/79/Segal.htm
(drs is doctors reform society)



> Why support private health insurance in Australia?
> Leonie Segal
> 
> Leonie Segal is Deputy Director of the Health Economics Unit, Monash University.
> ...





So, thats 2.6billion dollars a year.... !!! (excl medicare levy surcharge, which can even be scrapped), in comparison, the est cost by Labor to fix public hospitals is 2billion over 2-3 years... the budget savings by scrapping this private health insurance push could mean plenty of money to fix the universal health system for all, and money left over as surplus.

We could have the best health system in the world, if we only focussed on having one system.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2008)

Couldn't it also be that the increasing cost of ever more specialised medical procedures is fuelling the rises in PHI premiums?  The cost of some procedures was published recently and several were around the $300,000 mark.

You're not taking account of my reason for needing private cover, i.e. the abysmal state of the public health system.  I don't enjoy paying premiums, I get annoyed like everyone else when they rise so often, but - given the state of local hospitals - being able to choose my doctor and hospital is absolutely essential.
Probably a different matter if you live in a large city where there are good teaching hospitals.


----------



## treefrog (4 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Couldn't it also be that the increasing cost of ever more specialised medical procedures is fuelling the rises in PHI premiums?  The cost of some procedures was published recently and several were around the $300,000 mark.
> 
> You're not taking account of my reason for needing private cover, i.e. the abysmal state of the public health system.  I don't enjoy paying premiums, I get annoyed like everyone else when they rise so often, but - given the state of local hospitals - being able to choose my doctor and hospital is absolutely essential.
> Probably a different matter if you live in a large city where there are good teaching hospitals.




Jules
try negotiating for services paying cash - you'll find the service better (prompter and smilier) than private health and cheaper - haven't had private health insurance for 40 years and at 60 ame way way in front - raised a family in the process so the cynics don't come back with yeah, maybe if you are single or don't have kids........


----------



## Sprinter79 (4 January 2008)

I have PHI purely because of my level of sporting activity, my general health and my clumsiness : I need glasses and orthotics every few years, so it pays for itself. I recently had surgery, and still had a gap of $2000 dollars to pay though, so sometimes you wonder... But i'd still be waiting to have my tonsils out if i didn't have PHI.

I still think there needs to be a 'means test' of some sort for health cover, and those than can afford PHI, should be 'encouraged' to take it out, thus leaving more resources in the public system for those who really can't afford it.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> I have PHI purely because of my level of sporting activity, my general health and my clumsiness : I need glasses and orthotics every few years, so it pays for itself. I recently had surgery, and still had a gap of $2000 dollars to pay though, so sometimes you wonder... But i'd still be waiting to have my tonsils out if i didn't have PHI.
> 
> I still think there needs to be a 'means test' of some sort for health cover, and those than can afford PHI, should be 'encouraged' to take it out, thus leaving more resources in the public system for those who really can't afford it.



Agree on both counts.  A friend of mine who didn't have private cover had to wait five years for a knee replacement.  By that time, he also needed a hip replacement purely because he had been walking unevenly during that long waiting period.

The other consideration is that people using private health resources are not absorbing public health resources, so are leaving more room in the public system for those who can't afford private cover.

None of the above, however, excuses the current state of Qld Health.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2008)

treefrog said:


> Jules
> try negotiating for services paying cash - you'll find the service better (prompter and smilier) than private health and cheaper - haven't had private health insurance for 40 years and at 60 ame way way in front - raised a family in the process so the cynics don't come back with yeah, maybe if you are single or don't have kids........




Treefrog, yep, have considered this, but concluded I'd rather pay the premiums than possibly be faced with a $300,000 outlay for some procedures should that ever be necessary.

One thing that does irritate me with any private policy I've ever looked at is that they don't cover treatment by specialists which is not part of an in hospital stay.  e.g. although I have cover for physio, optical, podiatry, etc, I found when I went to orthopaedic surgeon with my broken wrist that Medibank Private offered nothing.

Has anyone found to the contrary with another company?


----------



## Rafa (4 January 2008)

Julia said:


> You're not taking account of my reason for needing private cover, i.e. the abysmal state of the public health system.




I am not against private health cover, i am against the private health insurance rebate...

the govt should focus its efforts on one system, that is my point.

2.6 billion a year is more than whats needed to provide a top notch public health system for all... 

(i guess what i am looking for here is ways of slashing the budget)...


----------



## lakemac (4 January 2008)

Back to the original thread...

Two questions posed:
1. The role of government?
2. Which areas should spending be cut from?

Answer to Q1:
The only role is the enforcement of contract. All others should be done by private enterprise.

Answer to Q2:
Firstly guys - do your homework. Get a copy of the government accounts (all levels of government accounts are available). Sheesh - call yourselves investors; Not! Fundamental research for any company - check their financials. Apply 80/20 rule. Where does 80% of government spending go? Easy answer looking at the accounts: WELFARE.
So simple answer to Q2: get rid of ALL welfare. Make people responsible. Make the family worthwhile again. All these handouts only break families apart. No government is "family" friendly. Add to that the removal of child support and spousal maintenance. Cuts down the divorce rate drastically. You want to have kids girls - weigh up the consequences first. No support from the government and none from the father unless you have a proper contract (prenup/Binding Financial Agreement) in place (see answer to Q1) and for goodness sakes women get financially educated and financially independent. And before the bleeding hearts go on about the poor old ladies - go back and consider why their families are not supporting them. Again make the family responsible - not the state. I don't want my income supporting your old granny. Look after your own. And the poor... Do some historical research before you whine about them. Government usurped the role of looking after the truly poor about 80 years ago. Killed an entire industry.

Bottom line get the government out of your life. Vote for "NONE OF THE ABOVE".

Unfortunately we live in a society full of bleeding hearts and meddlers who just love to tell us how we should live our lives. Government is a direct expression of those meddlers and special interest groups.


----------



## Sprinter79 (4 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> Back to the original thread...
> 
> Two questions posed:
> 1. The role of government?
> ...




Simply not going to happen.


----------



## Superfly (4 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> Back to the original thread...
> 
> Two questions posed:
> 1. The role of government?
> ...




Interesting points... agree but not to this extent...

People who use the first home buyers, shouldnt be allowed to then buy an investment property 12 months later, say 5 years later ok... like some guys have that I know, these same guys who have recently got PR and havent even paid taxes in Australia for a long period of time... although Im a property investor so this would hurt me somewhat, I still think its an unfair use of the Australian tax payers money and goodwill...

Agree in part with those last two sentences, except I would say it is the " Rudd Government that is a direct expression of those meddlers and special interest groups "....


----------



## lakemac (4 January 2008)

more is the pity that government interference tends to grow (exponentially). Whilst my utopia seems impossible the starting point is to pressure your local memeber to repeal legislation - not create yet more.

On the welfare state issue I would be interested in what you don't agree with Superfly. We could open an interesting discussion on the issue.

Might I say at first reading the scrapping of ALL welfare, child support and spousal maintenance appears drastic (I say we give people 12 months to get their affairs in order) what it does do is return to most personal tax payers 80% of the amount taken out as tax. Yes you have to support the oldies if they can't do it themselves but your family and not the government get to decide how to do it. Anything less is Fascism ie. the government forcing you (at the point of a loaded gun none the less) to do what they decide is right.

The government thinks that they (through fundamentally flawed) socalist central planning know better. They can't and don't. Billions are wasted on this kind of communist thinking.

If you also doubt my allegory to a loaded gun, just try not paying your taxes, then defy the court when they eventually get you, then defy the sherrif trying to sequester your assets, then defy the police order to let the sherriff in, then look down the barrel of a Glock semi-automatic hand gun as the police state arrests you AT THE POINT OF A GUN. Do not underestimate it. EVERY government law is enforced by FORCE. Pure and simple.


----------



## Sprinter79 (4 January 2008)

The problem is, is that people will not look after their relatives, take responsibility for children that they have seeded etc. 

How are you going to force people to do that? With a gun?


----------



## Wysiwyg (4 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> Back to the original thread...
> 
> So simple answer to Q2: get rid of ALL welfare. *Make people responsible*. Make the family worthwhile again. All these handouts only break families apart. No government is "family" friendly. Add to that the removal of child support and spousal maintenance. Cuts down the divorce rate drastically. You want to have kids girls - weigh up the consequences first.




It`s all about money isn`t it.Everyone "gets" money however they can.If it`s offered free then people will take it.Differentiating between the free-loaders and the ones in *genuine `need*` should see greater government focus.More restrictions on the free-loaders to wean them off the group support teat.

and from my infinite viewpoint .... everything is as it should be.


----------



## wildkactus (4 January 2008)

Lakemac,
       could not agree more.
Social welfare has turned australia into the lazy country not the lucy country (unless your on welfare that is).

Australia should go towards a user pays system. and let the government spend their time and money on the big picture stuff. (defence, infursturcture etc).

Also we could possibly get rid of one tier of governmet.


----------



## lakemac (4 January 2008)

First point (sprinter79): families not supporting their relatives. If you had made that statement 80-90 years ago you would have been shot (figuratively speaking). Supporting family was the norm before the government started to take away your hard earned cash. Yes there were those that ended up without any support but the thing is they survived:
1. because they were responsible for themselves - there was no social security.
2. there was an entire industry as I mentioned dedicated to helping them.

You don't need to point a gun or have any legislation in this instance. You just totally withdraw the welfare. Those who value family will look after their own. Some won't - that is their karma. Thing is though you are not being forced to support their family. If you choose by want of your beliefs to be philantropic and give to agencies such as the Salvation Army then you have that choice back in (80% tax free) spades. In fact those agencies then vie for your support. They might have to show how efficient they get your donation to the people they support. Get them off government handouts too - much too easy to get slack living off the grants. It will sort out some of the less efficient aid agencies. So no gun, no legislation, just you keeping 80% of your tax and you deciding what you do with it.

Second point (Wysiwyg): money is always "it" as far as the free market goes. The great leveler, the great builder and the great corruptor. The thing is those in "genuine need" can't be defined by central planning and government regulation. Remove the welfare state entirely then let those directly involved with the "genuinely needy" to help them - what ever their circumstance. Rules and regulations just don't cut it - you ALWAYS end up disadvantaging someone. The human condition is a continuous spectrum not some cut and dried rule. Central planning ie. government regulation just doesn't work. Think globally, act locally as the saying goes. Let the free (local) market decide. Those truly in need will get support, those that don't well they have a choice don't they: to be responsible or to languish in a life of their own making. Don't think it will work - it used to 80-90 years ago.

As to more restrictions - that just adds more government red tape. You have to think less. Remove the legislation and the need for restrictions goes away instantaneously. No need to administer a restriction that just doesn't exist. This applies right across the spectrum of daily life. Have any of you actually surfed any of the legislative web sites our government puts out as to how many laws they pass in any given year.

We need less laws not more. Half of our court system is tied up in "victimless" crime. Again I doubt many of you have ever gone down to your local court and sat in the public area to listen to the blunt end of law making. (Required training for any aspiring lawyer I can tell you - very informative).

Fellow investors, turn your data feeds off for a couple of days and experience the world as it is becoming - it is not as cosy as you think.
Oh and when was the last time you had open a trading account - want to know why the government thinks you are a terrorist? Sheesh almost have to leave my left manly bit there as surety I will not be naughty. Sorry master.
(btw: RIP Sanford - they got sold to Commsec  now I have to look for a new broker - might try NAB as they still have the IWL software in place, hence my rant about opening new trading accounts - it can't be that hard? can it?).


----------



## Sprinter79 (4 January 2008)

If you totally withdraw the welfare system in order to get families to look after their own, you will have a massive increase in crime... and that will bring all the associated consequences.

Unfortunately, you can't look to the past for this kind of thing, we may well have had an industry based on this in the past, but we ain't got one now. So who is going to look after those with no family assistance? Charities are already crying poor as it is, and do you reckon people are going to be more inclined to give to charity if they have more money? Like ****.

To most people, karma is non-existant. There is no reincarnation for this karma to act on. Unless you follow the Buddist teachings, the whole karma thing is bollocks.


----------



## lakemac (4 January 2008)

wildkactus said:


> Lakemac,
> Australia should go towards a user pays system. and let the government spend their time and money on the big picture stuff. (defence, infursturcture etc).
> 
> Also we could possibly get rid of one tier of governmet.



Why stop with one...

Also what big picture stuff? You mention defence, infrastructure etc. Lets take a look at those in turn.
1. defence - ok so why are we paying for defence? Consider this: most, if not all major wars are started by governments or rulers (despotic or otherwise). Rarely are wars started by people per se. Remove the ability of the government to wage war and you get rid of the offensive side for a start. (I am open to anyone who can refute this claim. Currently my research on this topic has not reached anywhere near as deep as it needs to be to give precise information on the topic). But then you say what about "protection"?

Ah yes - different topic. For example - fishing boats from other countries working our waters. Yes we need protection - but not by the government - let private firms (also known as mercinaries) do that job. So if you are a fishing co-op that wants to protect your fish stock from predators then you hire private protection. Yes the cost of that seafood is higher but is it. Take out the cost of government taxes for "defence" and lets see how much the price of seafood changes. When was the last time you needed an F-18 to protect your fish? Again central planning vs local need. We just don't need government. FULL STOP. So lets say you are Poland and have nasty neighbours. What then? Surely you need a defence force. Well no actually because those neighbours are probably being driven by their government and or despotic ruler. What you really need is a private assasin (yes I know that is the pointy end of a gun...) to go and remove the threat. Have you ever considered why our government has never put forward that idea? Of course they wouldn't - Howard or Rudd would become targets. The cease to be targets if they cease to be a government.

2. Infrastructure - ah yes I remember it well - the Sydney Cross City Tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel, the cash back scandal for the M4/M5. Yes lets let the government stuff up infrastructure too. They can't do that efficiently either. If you take away the kickbacks and political crap, the figures for things like the Cross City Tunnel just don't add up - they would never be built. On the other hand the M7 ring road is a beacon of success. Why because there was less not more government meddling in the project. Look at any government infrastructure project and it has cost overruns. That is not to say private ones don't, it is just the money "it" in my previous rant will level them very very quickly - and not from my pocket either (unless I invested in them of course - but that is another discussion about learning how to invest wisely). When private enterprise gets it wrong someone else will come in with better ideas or better management and build a better project. And most importantly not at my expense. When government gets it wrong the first thing we get is a royal commission (more waste) then more money poured into a poorly planned project - using my tax money. No thanks. Give me private enterprise all the time. But what about roads, hospitals, police? When was the last time you had to deal with a public hospital? Central planning again - stuffed up beyond belief. Let private run the health system. Go back to private health insurance. Remove the con that is Medicare. Make people responsible again. But what if I am injured. Better hope you have a hospital that has a philantrophic set of doctors... Or get responsible for your own life. Need the police - don't try ringing 000 - they just can't make it (SMH article about a guy bashed at a beach party - six calls and no police). Private security and private detectives are better. Now the only limited role of the government is to enforce the law of contract. You have the right to your own protection and well being. Someone breaks that contract - you get to lock them up. Private goals. You have to love it.


----------



## lakemac (4 January 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> If you totally withdraw the welfare system in order to get families to look after their own, you will have a massive increase in crime... and that will bring all the associated consequences.
> 
> Unfortunately, you can't look to the past for this kind of thing, we may well have had an industry based on this in the past, but we ain't got one now. So who is going to look after those with no family assistance? Charities are already crying poor as it is, and do you reckon people are going to be more inclined to give to charity if they have more money? Like ****.
> 
> To most people, karma is non-existant. There is no reincarnation for this karma to act on. Unless you follow the Buddist teachings, the whole karma thing is bollocks.



Point 1: do you have some research that backs up your claim of increased crime? I know rampant grannies can be a traffic hazard but... Where are the facts? Funnily enough welfare tends to increase crime (see ACOSS website - some research they did a few years ago pointed to a direct correlation between welfare rates and crime areas). But maybe you have some more detailed facts that can back up your hypothesis?

Point 2: Using the past as a guide. Have a read of Henry Hazlitt's book "The man verses the state". Written 150 years ago (1850 approx) it sounds like it was written just yesterday. The past is what (some) of us learn from. It shows the astute what did and didn't work well. Where should I put my efforts. You say that there is no industry now. You give private enterprise too little credit. Remove all welfare and without hesitation you would have an industry within a week. My wife used to work in a not-for-profit organisation and yes they always cry poor - that is because it is learned behaviour - please sir (mr government) can I have some more. If they don't have the ability to raise funds by their own efforts they should not be in existence. I point again to the Salvos. They existed well before government handouts - why because they are efficient. Take away the centrally planned handouts of your tax money and those that can generate donations efficiently will survive. Those that don't (usually the ones who spend 50% or more on their own foibles rather than getting it out to those in need) will cease to exist. Why should I pay for inefficent aid? Does not make sense.

Point 3: Karma and philantrophic intent: Ok pop quiz: who gives more money to charity, the rich guy or the guy struggling to pay the rent? When you have hard facts to answer the question then lets discuss that some more. I am not implying karma will strike them down or anything, I am just pointing out that what goes around comes around. Those that have a loving family will get back what they give. Those that don't get what they get.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> So simple answer to Q2: get rid of ALL welfare. Make people responsible. Make the family worthwhile again. All these handouts only break families apart. No government is "family" friendly. Add to that the removal of child support and spousal maintenance. Cuts down the divorce rate drastically.




As someone who has lived with serious mental illness for most of my life, I find what you are saying incredibly offensive.

Without "welfare" I wouldn't have been able to get an education, to start my own business, to begin to look after myself. I wouldn't be alive without it.

It's not my fault I was born, or grew up in a ****house family, but as someone that has battled functionality and unemployability throughout my adult life, it is seriously hurtful to read such mean spirited rubbish.

After all, if you don't want welfare, it's only fair you get a life long disability that you have to live with without a safety net. It's only fair if you want to take away people's right to life, that you have yours taken away.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2008)

Lakemac, Chops has just beaten me to saying how offensive I find your comments.  You speak as someone who has never faced chronic illness, whether physical or mental, adversity in any form, or unexpected setbacks.

The notion of a society where we refuse to care for people who need help is one I hope never to see.  Certainly, there is middle class welfare which should be means tested but to suggest all welfare should be abolished is simply heartless and completely unreasonable.

Under your "utopia" what would happen to people who had no family?
How would people with severe mental illness look after themselves without support?
I doubt from your comments whether you have ever encountered people who are genuinely disadvantaged and in absolute need of support from those of us who can cope.  If you did, I imagine from your disparaging comments that you would simply term them "losers" and ignore their plight.

Just to clarify, I have no personal stake in needing welfare.  I've been fortunate enough to be able to provide for myself.  Not everyone can do this.
But for many years I have worked with e.g. people with mental illness, victims of domestic violence etc, and understand that there is a whole other sector of society out there which we simply need to support.  I gather you would just cast them on the scrap heap.


----------



## wildkactus (5 January 2008)

lakemac,
       maybe i didnot go deep enough for you,
what i mean about letting government look after the big picture stuff is we need a central entity to look after it, if we left it to private enterprises to build major roads/ highways, water projects (like snowy) they would never get done, not enough return straight away in them. the only entities that could do these project without flinching are governments as they don't have shareholders to please, i know you'll say they have us the public, but they would have our support if they put the money and time to look at and manage these projects. and they would not need to just go out and vote buy, as they do now wasting money on projects that have no real imput into the future of the counrty(some do some don't).

As with the make up of the government we would need to pay more so they could attract the top people in the country to apply for these jobs (department heads), the candidates would need experience in their choosen role not just be elected. at the moment all we get is political hacks that are breed to be pollies.
the federal government needs to be looked at as the largest company in this country not just a slush fund for people to spunge off.

As with the defense of the country i would like to know it is there all the time not just on a contract basis and not been run for a profit, but for the benefit of the country, plus it should only operate within our borders, we don't need to be running around the world policing other peoples backyards when ours still need looking after first.

The major problem now is for all this to happen we would need to skip a generation of people to totally clean out current thinking and change the way we think about politics and government. and that's not going to happen! as so many people now count on this current system for their way of life.


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> As someone who has lived with serious mental illness for most of my life, I find what you are saying incredibly offensive.
> 
> Without "welfare" I wouldn't have been able to get an education, to start my own business, to begin to look after myself. I wouldn't be alive without it.
> 
> ...




Comrade chops, what Lakemac is alluding to is if taking away welfare completely, you then find out those who really just starve on the street, whom will then receive welfare, and not the parasites that feed of the tax payer now. 
When studying many moons ago I was a p/t guard in a major city hospital keeping watch on the physc patients that had just been admitted...saw a lot and learned a lot listening to the doctors ,nurses, the drugs...yes yes most of those I saw will never be 100% and in such a case then I believe in welfare, but only in such cases.. as for single mothers, Lakemac is so correct, but again girls will always get into trouble with that and its a hard one. Unfortunately there are so many in Australia that would be affected if such measures where taken that it would be political suicide to attempt such vast reforms. Look at how Rudd got in, he really had nothing to go on except to create the perception that the Howard government was not thinking about the future, ie not signing Koyto.. by not signing they are not thinking of the future etc etc... now that we have signed, whats really happened...only really that the US are alone in trying to make China & India curb their huge output of gases..Australia's bargining power to make that happen is greatly reduced... yes a million agruements on that one which I have not the time to go there... 
I do not argee with Lakemac on the defence side of things, yes we do not need an F-18 to protect our fish stocks, but we have a crack Airforce capable to putting bombs in windows as far north as Thailand, the most powerful Airforce in the region and that keeps our huge northern neighbours heads down and our voice in regional matters loud. You do not put the power in the hands of private armies who listen to the highest price. 
I agree with 90% of what Lackmac is saying so far... wish I had more time to spend on this I do not just now....


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> Comrade chops, what Lakemac is alluding to is if taking away welfare completely, you then find out those who really just starve on the street, whom will then receive welfare, and not the parasites that feed of the tax payer now.
> When studying many moons ago I was a p/t guard in a major city hospital keeping watch on the physc patients that had just been admitted...saw a lot and learned a lot listening to the doctors ,nurses, the drugs...yes yes most of those I saw will never be 100% and in such a case then I believe in welfare, but only in such cases..



Well, as it reads, those people would not be given help.

And there are many people on the streets, going hungry as it is, even with welfare. But you can't let people starve to see who needs welfare. You'd get charged with animal cruelty if you treated a dog in that way.

I don't think people realise, but you can't live on welfare, and it's not designed that way. People who have been lucky enough not to have had exceptional circumstances in their lives, who have grown up in well off, or relatively well off families, would have absolutely no idea what it is like.


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> Why stop with one...
> 
> Also what big picture stuff? You mention defence, infrastructure etc. Lets take a look at those in turn.
> 1. defence - ok so why are we paying for defence? Consider this: most, if not all major wars are started by governments or rulers (despotic or otherwise). Rarely are wars started by people per se. Remove the ability of the government to wage war and you get rid of the offensive side for a start. (I am open to anyone who can refute this claim. Currently my research on this topic has not reached anywhere near as deep as it needs to be to give precise information on the topic). But then you say what about "protection"?
> ...




Although am 90% on the welfare, disgree with defence entirely, disagree with taking away so much government, but agree that Medicare needs to be looked at. Sure maybe reduce state governments and concentrated direct control from Canberra would hopefully produce better results in hospitals and other state issues. We need a strong judicial system, police force and military...and a lot less anti-Americanism...


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> And there are many people on the streets, going hungry as it is, even with welfare.




When in that hospital, the doctors there told me that there were around 800 people sleeping on the streets of that city. Most were males, mental health problems and all had enough welfare payments to stay in a dorm, but all choose to sleep on the streets / parks, so they could spend all there welfare money on booze. Another trick they do is make a scene outside the hospital so they get admitted to hosptial over night or over the weekend is their favorite, coz they know that on a friday night they have a good chance of not being fully evaluated by a psyc doctor until Monday morning, there by getting food, drink, shower etc for days... shame the tax payer has to pay for it, and filling up hospital beds and making more work for the nurses.. but this was sometime ago, work / live o/s now and have not been near an Australian hospital for years..I accept that things may have changed.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> When in that hospital, the doctors there told me that there were around 800 people sleeping on the streets of that city. Most were males, mental health problems and all had enough welfare payments to stay in a dorm, but all choose to sleep on the streets / parks, so they could spend all there welfare money on booze. Another trick they do is make a scene outside the hospital so they get admitted to hosptial over night or over the weekend is their favorite, coz they know that on a friday night they have a good chance of not being fully evaluated by a psyc doctor until Monday morning, there by getting food, drink, shower etc for days... shame the tax payer has to pay for it, and filling up hospital beds and making more work for the nurses.. but this was sometime ago, work / live o/s now and have not been near an Australian hospital for years..I accept that things may have changed.




Another crock.

The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an _immediate_ threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.

Sad but true.


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Another crock.
> 
> The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an _immediate_ threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.
> 
> Sad but true.




Comrade chops, stop watching M Moore and put your "how to be a good communist" book down.... 

They create a scene was what I posted...all they have to do start walking in front of cars on the main road outside the hospital ( traffic lights so the cars are just starting off ) and the police have to take them in to emergency ward of the public hospital to be evaluated, before they are released or transfered ( by ambulance at more tax payer expense ) to a mental ward or hospital... its not hard, and the police can not just pull them off the street and let them go, coz if something really happens to them or to a person driving an on coming car... then the police maybe in a world of trouble....

Now back to your " only worry and protest about wars if America is involed" book...


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> Comrade chops, stop watching M Moore and put your "how to be a good communist" book down....
> 
> They create a scene was what I posted...all they have to do start walking in front of cars on the main road outside the hospital ( traffic lights so the cars are just starting off ) and the police have to take them in to emergency ward of the public hospital to be evaluated, before they are released or transfered ( by ambulance at more tax payer expense ) to a mental ward or hospital... its not hard, and the police can not just pull them off the street and let them go, coz if something really happens to them or to a person driving an on coming car... then the police maybe in a world of trouble....




Ummm.... I'm speaking from experience here... And the experience of a lot of people I've met in the same situation. You'd only have to ask my brother.

People just have no idea.


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Ummm.... I'm speaking from experience here... And the experience of a lot of people I've met in the same situation.
> People just have no idea.




So am I speaking from first hand experience... saw this day after day...you even get your regulars...they know how to play the system. Yes there are also many that have just been normal for years, then thinking that they do not need their drugs anymore, stop taking them and then soon after have a massive psychotic episode ending in the emergency ward of the public hospital. As a guard back then, be it part time and having to watch them for 12 hours climb walls and carry on.. I'am speaking from experience....


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> So am I speaking from first hand experience... saw this day after day...you even get your regulars...they know how to play the system. Yes there are also many that have just been normal for years, then thinking that they do not need their drugs anymore, stop taking them and then soon after have a massive psychotic episode ending in the emergency ward of the public hospital. As a guard back then, be it part time and having to watch them for 12 hours climb walls and carry on.. I'am speaking from experience....



Then why are you blaming the patients?

If the system was good enough, you wouldn't have to behave like that. You wouldn't have to deliberately put other people in danger to actually get treatment.

Giving the doc lip was actually a strategy that has been told to me by several private doctors. "If you are at a public hospital, and they aren't doing anything for you, not taking you seriously, and you know you need help, give them some lip." And it works a treat. I've never been refused treatment since then.

To give some sort of perspective, I walked from Perth city, to my house, which is effectively the same distance as to Freo (20-25 k's or something), barefoot. I had no skin left anywhere on me feet etc etc. But were the folks at Freo hospital going to do anything? Noooooooooo....


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Then why are you blaming the patients?
> 
> If the system was good enough, you wouldn't have to behave like that. You wouldn't have to deliberately put other people in danger to actually get treatment.




Please put down your "only worry & protest about a war if it involes America" book....

These people are not seeking treatment, they are seeking a warm bed and food by abusing the hospital system. They are on the street coz they choose to spend all the welfare payment on booze and not stay in a dorm. Get it!!


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> To give some sort of perspective, I walked from Perth city, to my house, which is effectively the same distance as to Freo (20-25 k's or something), barefoot. I had no skin left anywhere on me feet etc etc. But were the folks at Freo hospital going to do anything? Noooooooooo....




Comrade chops... 

Barefoot... some of us wear shoes, or where you reading something on "Mao's cultural revolution" and got caught up in the whole communist thing...

Next time may I suggest you take of your "All doctors are fascist pigs" t-shirt and your Che Guvara cap before you enter the hospital...

Hmmmm


----------



## chops_a_must (5 January 2008)

Superfly said:


> Comrade chops...
> 
> Barefoot... some of us wear shoes, or where you reading something on "Mao's cultural revolution" and got caught up in the whole communist thing...
> 
> ...



Obviously I was dissociating fairly horrificly...

Doctors aren't fascist pigs. Most professionals in the mental health industry are amongst the most compassionate and caring individuals I have ever met.

However, doctors in the public mental health arena are not there for you, very reluctant to help, work against you, and don't really give a toss if their patients live or die. Which is a bad indictment on them.


----------



## Sprinter79 (5 January 2008)

Jesus tap dancing christ!!!!


Superfly, you'd think that with a bit of experience, you'd have got a bit more compassion, but obviously not... Try living with a person with significant mental illnesses 24 hours a day and it might change your perspective.

This is getting much much too personal, and I would suggest that a mod get involved.

Welfare payments are below the poverty level, there is countless evidence to show that the highest crime rates are in lower socio-economic areas, and to take away any payments that they might receive means that they'll have to turn to crime to live.

Also, there is plenty of evidence to show that those people on middle to low incomes contribute disproportiately more than the higher income earners to charity. 

Superfly, i find your comments grossly offensive, particularly to women, and those who are less well off than you. For your sake, I hope that you never have to rely on the system that you are so heavily against.


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

Sprinter79 said:


> Jesus tap dancing christ!!!!
> 
> Superfly, you'd think that with a bit of experience, you'd have got a bit more compassion, but obviously not... Try living with a person with significant mental illnesses 24 hours a day and it might change your perspective.
> 
> ...




Only about the people who abuse the hospital system, not ones in genuine need, I have never said otherwise. 

Do not know where you get the offensive to women from...may I suggest you re-read the thread again. Single mothers cost the welfare system a lot, it's a hard situation"...whats so offensive about that.... anyway..lets keep on the thread issue..which is where government spending can be cut from...surely single mothers can be given a mention...hmmmmm


----------



## Sprinter79 (5 January 2008)

My apologies regarding the women comments, that should be directed to lake mac.


----------



## lakemac (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> As someone who has lived with serious mental illness for most of my life, I find what you are saying incredibly offensive.
> 
> Without "welfare" I wouldn't have been able to get an education, to start my own business, to begin to look after myself. I wouldn't be alive without it.
> 
> ...



First up chops_a_must I am empathetic to your situation. My wife has a mentally disabled sister, my brother-in-law has an adopted sister who has schizophrenia and a friend in a similar situation to yourself. I all to well know the issues involved. I do detect some touchiness about the subject which may be induced from your past. This discussion is not a direct attack on personal situations, it is about why would you want the government to help you rather than either family (impossible in your case) or private assistance (the alternative if no government help existed).

So lets discuss your situation. I am sure you have had numerous battles with government departments (as my friend has done) just to prove you need assistance. This is central planning - you either fit the rules or you don't. What if you were borderline (as my friend early on was)? You may have been able to jump through the right hoops. Trouble is with government rules if you don't fit the hoop - tough luck. Want proof just listen to the TV current affairs programs, read the newspapers. Always someone fighting the rules to get assistance.

Could you be cared for without the government? Of course. It is the system doesn't make it viable. In fact given the current government mandated mental health system is in a shambles. There are shortages everywhere. That is a sure sign of government planning and involvement.


----------



## lakemac (5 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Lakemac, Chops has just beaten me to saying how offensive I find your comments.  You speak as someone who has never faced chronic illness, whether physical or mental, adversity in any form, or unexpected setbacks.
> 
> The notion of a society where we refuse to care for people who need help is one I hope never to see.  Certainly, there is middle class welfare which should be means tested but to suggest all welfare should be abolished is simply heartless and completely unreasonable.
> 
> ...



I am glad that I have sparked some debate about this issue. What I wish people would do is to lift their thought process above their emotions and discuss the issue not the feelings.

Now onto Julia's comments: You assume I have never faced adversity. Without going into details your assumption is very wrong. I speak in fact coming from experiencing that adversity and having direct experience of the adversity of others at the very bottom of society. The difference is how you respond to that adversity. Do you expect to sponge of the government or help yourself? The choice is a personal one.

Also you are getting confused with the source of the assistance rather than its existence. I am not advocating a society in which we refuse to help anyone. I am advocating a society in which the government does not perform that role. Having government look after welfare is inefficient. If you really want to assist the needy then go private enterprise (in a very loose sense I use the term - we commonly refer to these organisations as charities) they are far more efficient at it. I hold up the Salvos as an example. In your approach LESS assistance is getting to the needy not more. How does that help them. It doesn't.

In your senario of the government handling welfare, you are pointing that gun at my head saying "pay up or else" - that is coercion. It is no different if I was to do the same thing in reverse and say "Owing shares is now illegal". You are being coerced to do something against your will. (This happened in a slightly different way in the US when the government made it illegal for their citizens to own gold - Executive Order 6102 April 5 1933 - funnily enough it was partially related to what was then their anti-terrorist acts... hmmm... lesson there for those asute enough to see it). Back on topic - people don't respond well to force yet that is what you advocate.

As to those who don't have support from family, re-read my comments about the privately run charities that existed prior to government intervention. I am not sure how much historical research or background reading you have done in this topic but I would be interested in some more references myself. If you can prove to me that having a government run welfare is more efficient and results in more assistance (dollars as well as support) getting to those in need then we have something to discuss. Otherwise a privately run system will always outperform a centrally planned government one.


----------



## lakemac (5 January 2008)

wildkactus said:


> lakemac,
> maybe i didnot go deep enough for you,
> what i mean about letting government look after the big picture stuff is we need a central entity to look after it, if we left it to private enterprises to build major roads/ highways, water projects (like snowy) they would never get done, not enough return straight away in them. the only entities that could do these project without flinching are governments as they don't have shareholders to please, i know you'll say they have us the public, but they would have our support if they put the money and time to look at and manage these projects. and they would not need to just go out and vote buy, as they do now wasting money on projects that have no real imput into the future of the counrty(some do some don't).
> 
> ...



You mention the snowy as and example - why wouldn't it have been done privately? The return on energy sources is a good one. It may not have been built at the time but if it made economic sense it would have been built. Other countries don't have government run electricity grids. We are only just starting to privatise ours now. Far too late imho. Major roads - why again government? Paying too much for too little. People complain about tolls yet if the government got out of building roads the tax you get back would more than cover the cost of roads. Again you are lulled into current soft thinking - roads were constructed well before any government took on that role. It is just you think only a government can do it. Again (not sure if you are familiar with Sydney) but the M7 is an example of a private road - which i use btw).

Paying more for government or political masters does not solve the fundamental problem and that is central planning just does not work. You can't know everything. What people don't get is that there is no feedback mechanism in central planning (your vote every 3 years is hardly feedback). Bring money into the equation and you get instant feedback (just watch the stock market on any day). You act (even on a big scale) and get the feedback "oh yes that worked people want my product" or "oh no that was a waste of money - won't do that again". Ruthless market efficiency (I know this will upset the bleeding hearts again...)

You want to have that security all the time. That is a choice you make - what is called your "preference" (using the terminology of the economist Ludwig von Mises). So you are prepared to pay some of your income in the form of "insurance". So do others - you move to an area that has such protection available. Others may not be as paranoid or have different preferences - they might prefer to live unprotected as it were. New Zealand is such a place. They shut down a lot of their defence force some years ago. The difference is you make that choice, you shouldn't by coercion force it on others.

As to implementing all this. No need to skip a generation - just get a leader who has the forsight to implement it. Yes it will be painful, change always is.


----------



## lakemac (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Another crock.
> 
> The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an _immediate_ threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.
> 
> Sad but true.



And the reason is this happens is that the government has decided not to allocate many resources to mental health. Who made that decision? Let the private sector take the role and you will get a better system.

BTW Chops_a_must maybe the market is giving you a good signal here. If there is a demand then there are ways to make it work. You just have to build a model that works. Not saying that is easy but it can be done if the government would let you.


----------



## lakemac (5 January 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Another crock.
> 
> The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an _immediate_ threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.
> 
> Sad but true.



Another thought chops_a_must, I seem to remember (but don't quote me) that this problem on happened after the government changed the rules on mental health. If I recall the problem escalated after some central planner decided to turf mental health patients out of the institutions...

Whilst your comment probably reflects the current state of affairs, ask yourself was this always the case? You may care to do some research into the historical issues surrounding this particularly government decisions. I would also look back in history and see what the effects of government intervention have done. Google is your friend...

Always question your assumptions.
Double check and always cross reference your sources.
Think people. Think.


----------



## lakemac (5 January 2008)

So lets discuss the "grossly offensive to women" issue with respect to the role of government and spending.

What exactly is grossly offensive? The fact that I said women need to get better financial education or that they need to become finacially independent? I stand by both of those comments. And I direct the same to men as well. Is that not why we frequent this forum - to better educate ourselves and become financially independent?

Maybe the issue is to cut the support of "single mothers". And probably my suggestion to dismantle child support and spousal maintenance. Why is it offensive to suggest such things?

I find it offensive that I am forced (yes at the point of a gun) to pay taxes to support the choices that other people make. Specifically single mothers. I have two families that I support but because the way the welfare system works it make more economic sense for my ex not to work. Take away the spousal maintenance and welfare she would have to work. But what about looking after the child - private enterprise. How do you afford it - by making sure you have a good contract in place when you get married. There is a whole industry just waiting in the wings to properly set up binding financial agreements that cover these things. Contract law is all you need.

This comes back to one of my main criticisms of our education system.
There are four things that our current system does not teach - all of which affect us as adults in major ways.
They are:
1. The understanding of how the law works: contracts, precedent, the courts and how laws are made/repealed.
2. Relationships: Where is Alan Pease when you need him  - this should also include the legal issues that arise in marriage or any form of co-habitation (even flatmates).
3. The understanding of money: how money is created and destroyed, the real role of the banks and credit creation, how the free market works, other ways that an income can be created other than subsituting your time for money (ie. jobs vs business vs investing).
4. How business structures work: companies, trusts, partnerships, sole traders etc. Include in here how employess fit into these and how to read financial reports.

Oh and that brings me back on topic - private education - not public. Again more efficient and able to tailor your education to what suits you best. Why should your children be forced to study a ciriculum that has been centrally planned by the government. Any wonder we turn out unquestioning robots just ready to be tax payers when they start their working lives.

Finally another thought: consider the baby bonus - why would a government pay people to have babies? Australia probably can't support a much higher population than it already does without some much better land management. The reason - collect more taxes to pay for the retiring baby boomers. Consider this there has been a surge in births since the introduction of the bonus. The leading edge of the baby boomers are just hitting retirement. The bulk of that group will be in most need of government handouts just as those babies now start to pay taxes... Yup government welfare state - such a wonderful thing... not!


----------



## Superfly (5 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> Oh and that brings me back on topic - private education - not public. Again more efficient and able to tailor your education to what suits you best. Why should your children be forced to study a ciriculum that has been centrally planned by the government.



With a majority of teachers in Australia pushing their leftist views on the young ( only telling one side of the story etc etc), this is why the Howard government attempted to stop this. Like the school teachers who march the kids down the streets in an anti Iraq war rally... disgraceful ...I can remember myself arguing with a teacher about Veitnam after the teacher made some ridiculous comment about that war... besides that very much needs to be changed improved, for a start teachers should be on performanced based pay. My young niece back in Australia is at a private school and is studying German as a second language...when my sister told me this I was dumb founded..German !! why teach the kids German.. what good is that..Mandarin is what should be taught... the school answer to my sister is that if one day thet go backpacking it will be handy... oh my god !!! prime example of a lost opportunity and being let down by the education system. Private schools need attention as well in Australia. But agree 100% that private would be better with the government just keep it in check....

Is the Australian flag flying over all school yards now ?... it should be ... or would that offend some group....if so that's disgraceful....


----------



## Julia (5 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> I am glad that I have sparked some debate about this issue. What I wish people would do is to lift their thought process above their emotions and discuss the issue not the feelings.



Agreed.  Debate is always useful.  I've spent some time thinking about your suggestions, trying to be objective, and putting the emotional response aside.




> Now onto Julia's comments: You assume I have never faced adversity. Without going into details your assumption is very wrong. I speak in fact coming from experiencing that adversity and having direct experience of the adversity of others at the very bottom of society. The difference is how you respond to that adversity. Do you expect to sponge of the government or help yourself? The choice is a personal one.



I was simply offering my interpretation of your own situation gleaned from your comments which seemed to me to be those of someone who has never felt they simply didn't know how to cope.  If that's wrong, then I unreservedly offer my apology.

What I think I'm trying to get at is that some of us possess the innate capacity to cope with adversity,  and are able to make the choice not to allow abuse or any other of life's hurdles to mortally wound us.  We can pick ourselves up and work out how to start over.  I don't know where this comes from - perhaps it's genetic, perhaps it's a result of decent parenting?
But we are all different and some people just don't have those coping skills.
Perhaps they can be taught in some cases, but in others no they can't.
Look at it as you would a physical disability like epilepsy.  Just a feature of that person's personality.  So these are the people we need to look after.

That said, I agree entirely that there are a large number of people who are just lazy, unmotivated, and who are leeching off their fellow citizens.
Perhaps your notion of a privately run welfare system could afford the personnel required to do individual interviews of everyone and decide who is genuinely deserving and who just needs a good kick and a reality check.
But wouldn't such an organisation be answerable to its shareholders and therefore reluctant to employ more people than Centrelink does currently?





> Also you are getting confused with the source of the assistance rather than its existence. I am not advocating a society in which we refuse to help anyone. I am advocating a society in which the government does not perform that role. Having government look after welfare is inefficient. If you really want to assist the needy then go private enterprise (in a very loose sense I use the term - we commonly refer to these organisations as charities) they are far more efficient at it. I hold up the Salvos as an example. In your approach LESS assistance is getting to the needy not more. How does that help them. It doesn't.



Not sure what you mean in saying the needy are receiving less assistance.
Could you clarify this?

So, to use your example of the Salvos, would they be expected to fund their welfare scheme entirely from donations as they do at present?  Would there be any other source of funding?  e.g. tax dollars?

A further point on 'charities' looking after people, especially those with a religious base like the Salvos, St. Vinnies etc:  Their credo is to give every person the benefit of the doubt.  They are very non-judgmental in whom they assist.  If someone has blown their entire dole on the pokies or drugs, they will still come to their rescue in paying rent or electricity.  I don't think that's what you have in mind and I'd agree.




> In your senario of the government handling welfare, you are pointing that gun at my head saying "pay up or else" - that is coercion. It is no different if I was to do the same thing in reverse and say "Owing shares is now illegal". You are being coerced to do something against your will. (This happened in a slightly different way in the US when the government made it illegal for their citizens to own gold - Executive Order 6102 April 5 1933 - funnily enough it was partially related to what was then their anti-terrorist acts... hmmm... lesson there for those asute enough to see it). Back on topic - people don't respond well to force yet that is what you advocate.



This is reasonable to a point.  I guess it depends on your fundamental attitude about what sort of society you want to live in.  For myself, although I resent stuff like the baby bonus, and feel much of the welfare system is inequitable, I am happy for my tax dollars to support people who need help.
I'd much rather see politicians' overly generous superannuation arrangements chopped and other areas of waste removed, than refuse to help human beings who for whatever reason are simply inadequate.  The whole welfare system needs to be completely overhauled.





> As to those who don't have support from family, re-read my comments about the privately run charities that existed prior to government intervention. I am not sure how much historical research or background reading you have done in this topic but I would be interested in some more references myself. If you can prove to me that having a government run welfare is more efficient and results in more assistance (dollars as well as support) getting to those in need then we have something to discuss. Otherwise a privately run system will always outperform a centrally planned government one.



Not disputing that government administered welfare is inefficient.  Agree.
I'm just not sure that a private organisation which is primarily focused on making a profit, is going to have human interest at heart.

Earlier you suggested that the difficulty faced by people with mental illness in getting treatment these days dates back to the closing of most of the psych institutions.  Yes, I'd agree completely.  I remember (was in NZ at the time) when governments proudly said "it's time to regard people with mental illness as an integral part of our society.  So we will stop locking them up in big institutions, and instead care for them within the community". Well, great idea, except it just didn't work.  The 'care in the community' was miserably inadequate and as a consequence the ex-institutionalised people were pretty much left to look after themselves.  So they were not compliant with their medication, their behaviour therefore was unacceptable in the community in many instances, so they were even more stigmatised and shunned than before.

In a psych hospital, they were with people like themselves and supported as necessary.  What I'd like to see happen now is the establishment of hostel like places where those who can't cope entirely on their own have a measure of independence, but have the support of a live in nurse/mental health worker who would ensure they managed their money, took medication, ate properly etc.  Perhaps, Lakemac, even this is "nannying" them too much?

Re single mothers:  Pretty unfair to categorise all these together.  There is certainly a large element where it's just easier to keep having babies than do anything more constructive.  The baby bonus has encouraged this hugely.
Is it likely the progeny of these young women will grow up to be functional and independent taxpayers given the parenting and role modelling they have received?  I doubt it.  More likely they will just add another generation of idlers on welfare.

But then you have women escaping domestic violence or other adverse relationships.  We need to help them until they have re-established their ability to cope.  The previous government's introduction of the requirement for single mothers to seek work after the child is a certain age was a good thing and should have happened years ago.

Re your point about women needing more financial education:  yes, agree, but not just women.  Many men are financially hopeless.
Even so, there are still going to be those I've referred to above - people who simply don't have the skills or capacity to learn basic survival without assistance.


----------



## lakemac (6 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Agreed.  Debate is always useful.  I've spent some time thinking about your suggestions, trying to be objective, and putting the emotional response aside.



I commend your fortitute to take up the challenge of spirited debate .



> I was simply offering my interpretation of your own situation gleaned from your comments which seemed to me to be those of someone who has never felt they simply didn't know how to cope.  If that's wrong, then I unreservedly offer my apology.



None needed but apology accepted none the less. I find the hardest thing sometime to do is to admit when we are wrong about something. Humble pie is always a character building exercise.



> What I think I'm trying to get at is that some of us possess the innate capacity to cope with adversity,  and are able to make the choice not to allow abuse or any other of life's hurdles to mortally wound us.  We can pick ourselves up and work out how to start over.  I don't know where this comes from - perhaps it's genetic, perhaps it's a result of decent parenting?
> But we are all different and some people just don't have those coping skills.
> Perhaps they can be taught in some cases, but in others no they can't.
> Look at it as you would a physical disability like epilepsy.  Just a feature of that person's personality.  So these are the people we need to look after.



I fully agree. I don't have an answer to why some of us pick ourselves up and others languish in a morass of self pity or just plain bad luck. I have seen people with physical, mental and emotional impediments rise way above them to achieve fantasic goals where others able bodied gripe about their situation. Who knows. Personally I would like to see a better education system - not centrally planned that provides training for this kind of psychological support. But alas it ain't gonna happen 



> That said, I agree entirely that there are a large number of people who are just lazy, unmotivated, and who are leeching off their fellow citizens.
> Perhaps your notion of a privately run welfare system could afford the personnel required to do individual interviews of everyone and decide who is genuinely deserving and who just needs a good kick and a reality check.
> But wouldn't such an organisation be answerable to its shareholders and therefore reluctant to employ more people than Centrelink does currently?



You can do the job with LESS people than Centrelink has. Why? I am sure you, like most people, well know the moral standing of those you associate with. You can tell the laggards from the truly in need almost in an instant. Why? Personal contact. That is the difference between a "faceless" government department metering out some statist doctrine - the person in Centrelink through no fault of their own just can't form any personal relationship with the recipient of the welfare. Central planning just doesn't allow it. Charities - the really good ones that care form exceptional bonds with the people they deal with. I can attest to that from personal experience. On the other hand when in my dim dark past in a moment of weakness actually applied for welfare (yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus) I have no recollection of the government employee to whom I took my application to.



> Not sure what you mean in saying the needy are receiving less assistance.
> Could you clarify this?



What I mean is the amount the needy actually get as a percentage of the money put in in the first place. For example I believe the Salvo's achieve an efficiency of about 86%. In other words if I donate $100 to them $86 actually gets to the needy. $24 goes in overheads. I don't have any figures for other charites or Centrelink but I am sure it is no where near this efficient (which is why my donations go to the Salvos). By using less efficient means (government assistance for example) we are effectively reducing the amount they could be recieving relative the amount put in.



> So, to use your example of the Salvos, would they be expected to fund their welfare scheme entirely from donations as they do at present?  Would there be any other source of funding?  e.g. tax dollars?



Yes. I do believe (but don't quote me on this) that the Salvos do receive grants from government even so. By using tax dollars you are being coersive again. It also precludes people from making informed choices as to which cause/charity best suits their personal preferences and or ideals.



> A further point on 'charities' looking after people, especially those with a religious base like the Salvos, St. Vinnies etc:  Their credo is to give every person the benefit of the doubt.  They are very non-judgmental in whom they assist.  If someone has blown their entire dole on the pokies or drugs, they will still come to their rescue in paying rent or electricity.  I don't think that's what you have in mind and I'd agree.



Actually one reason I personally support the Salvos is they (mostly) are non-judgemental. But see my comments about personal contact above.




> This is reasonable to a point.  I guess it depends on your fundamental attitude about what sort of society you want to live in.  For myself, although I resent stuff like the baby bonus, and feel much of the welfare system is inequitable, I am happy for my tax dollars to support people who need help.
> I'd much rather see politicians' overly generous superannuation arrangements chopped and other areas of waste removed, than refuse to help human beings who for whatever reason are simply inadequate.  The whole welfare system needs to be completely overhauled.



I would prefer to live in a society that truly values family and one that does not force its population to hand over money for inefficent services, welfare or otherwise. I am sure from the above comments you would too 



> Not disputing that government administered welfare is inefficient.  Agree.
> I'm just not sure that a private organisation which is primarily focused on making a profit, is going to have human interest at heart.



Most are not for profit anyway. Philantrophy is a singularly human trait.



> Earlier you suggested that the difficulty faced by people with mental illness in getting treatment these days dates back to the closing of most of the psych institutions.  Yes, I'd agree completely.  I remember (was in NZ at the time) when governments proudly said "it's time to regard people with mental illness as an integral part of our society.  So we will stop locking them up in big institutions, and instead care for them within the community". Well, great idea, except it just didn't work.  The 'care in the community' was miserably inadequate and as a consequence the ex-institutionalised people were pretty much left to look after themselves.  So they were not compliant with their medication, their behaviour therefore was unacceptable in the community in many instances, so they were even more stigmatised and shunned than before.



It comes back again to the issue of personal contact doesn't it. A government can never give you that.



> In a psych hospital, they were with people like themselves and supported as necessary.  What I'd like to see happen now is the establishment of hostel like places where those who can't cope entirely on their own have a measure of independence, but have the support of a live in nurse/mental health worker who would ensure they managed their money, took medication, ate properly etc.  Perhaps, Lakemac, even this is "nannying" them too much?



No nothing wrong with love and support - we all need it at times. Even the strongest of us have our moments of weakness.



> Re single mothers:  Pretty unfair to categorise all these together.  There is certainly a large element where it's just easier to keep having babies than do anything more constructive.  The baby bonus has encouraged this hugely.
> Is it likely the progeny of these young women will grow up to be functional and independent taxpayers given the parenting and role modelling they have received?  I doubt it.  More likely they will just add another generation of idlers on welfare.
> 
> But then you have women escaping domestic violence or other adverse relationships.  We need to help them until they have re-established their ability to cope.  The previous government's introduction of the requirement for single mothers to seek work after the child is a certain age was a good thing and should have happened years ago.



I recognise that there are diverse situations for mothers (and some fathers) with children. However this categorisation all together is exactly what government regulations and laws do. There are many inequities in such a centrally planned statist approach. Better to remove the government and let individuals make the choices. There will (and always has been) support for those that truly need it. Idlers on welfare - you sound just like Mr Hazlitt writing 150 years ago LOL. The more things change the more they stay the same. cf the Poor Tax back in 1850.



> Re your point about women needing more financial education:  yes, agree, but not just women.  Many men are financially hopeless.
> Even so, there are still going to be those I've referred to above - people who simply don't have the skills or capacity to learn basic survival without assistance.



I do believe I did make mention of men in my earlier repost.

Thanks for a well reasoned response. Cheers.


----------



## cashcow (6 January 2008)

G'day lakemac

I'll start by saying that, whilst I neither entirely agree nor disagree with your suggestions, I do find them thought provoking and, in some cases, compelling.

However, I have a question:  You state that a better education system would yield, to people,

<snip>
"The understanding of how the law works: contracts, precedent, the courts and how laws are made/repealed"
<snip>

I agree.  But then I hit several snags when I tried to imagine a privatised legislature, judiciary, and (for criminal law) police force.

Any comments?


----------



## lakemac (6 January 2008)

ok cashcow,

you mention legislature, judiciary and police.

1. you don't need a legislature - there are only two laws: contract and protection of self (you can actually roll this into contract law, so in reality you only have one law).

2. privatised judiciary - the USA used to have this, particularly when new settlements were popping up across the land. Even today there is a vestiage of it left - the election of their judges in most states of the USA. What is wrong with a privatised judiciary. You (not some stuffy official) get to choose who shall determine cases for and against you. Personally I would back this 100% when you see the likes of Judge Shaw and the missing blood sample, or former judge Marcus Einfeld impaling himself on perjury laws...

3. privatised police - we already have them. They are called security guards, bouncers and guard dogs. With only one law in operation it is simple to understand - you break the contract you get hauled in front of the judge I elected in my area to deal with you as he sees fit.

Ah but what about consistency of sentencing. Bollocks. Who cares. That is just a figment of central planning again. I elect a judge who I know will give decent sentences. If we as a local community decide to elect a tough judge who hands out long sentences then watch out if you break the contract against a person or their property. If I were considering a crime I would pick an area that has a slack judge... This also comes down the argument about defence. The whole thing revolves around security right?

Ok so I live on the coast and I want protection just in case the hordes of terrorists (yeah right) come to invade me. So I hire a private company that can defend my property. I would probably choose a company that had built up a good reputation in my local area and one that could show it has the necessary equipment and skill to protect my interests. So as a local community we are protected. You on the other hand decide hordes are ok you don't need that protection (same as insurance). If the hordes never come you are in front. If they do I am in front. Thing is it is your choice not statist coercion.

I actually come back to the point of not needing F-18's. Maybe we do as a threat. So a private company buys these F-18's and is prepared to fly them around displaying how good they are at scaring away invaders. Only the people near potential invaders have to pay for that service. If they choose to. Yes there will be those who don't pay and get to free load in the "protective shield" as it were - so what lucky them. But what if all of a sudden the people paying for F-18 protection decide to move elsewhere... Ah the free market you gotta love it


----------



## cashcow (6 January 2008)

lakemac said:


> ...
> 1. you don't need a legislature - there are only two laws: contract and protection of self (you can actually roll this into contract law, so in reality you only have one law).




Hang on ... you're trying to tell me laws don't need to evolve??



lakemac said:


> 2. privatised judiciary - the USA used to have this, particularly when new settlements were popping up across the land. Even today there is a vestiage of it left - the election of their judges in most states of the USA. What is wrong with a privatised judiciary. You (not some stuffy official) get to choose who shall determine cases for and against you. Personally I would back this 100% when you see the likes of Judge Shaw and the missing blood sample, or former judge Marcus Einfeld impaling himself on perjury laws...



Granted the judicial system isn't perfect because it is, when all is said and done, a human construct.  But I can't see how a private, popularly elected version would be run sans the same limitations we observe in the existing ones.  Am I missing something?



lakemac said:


> 3. privatised police - we already have them. They are called security guards, bouncers and guard dogs. With only one law in operation it is simple to understand - you break the contract you get hauled in front of the judge I elected in my area to deal with you as he sees fit.



Security guards are certainly an avenue available to those with the means, but what about those without?  Is it fair to discriminate like that, against people who might otherwise be perfectly worthwhile?  

In any event, I don't equate security guards with police - their (legally endorsed) scope is limited.  And if you're talking about a true privatised police force, thereby making money their raison d'etre, a whole new raft of issues arises.



lakemac said:


> Ah but what about consistency of sentencing. Bollocks. Who cares. That is just a figment of central planning again. I elect a judge who I know will give decent sentences. If we as a local community decide to elect a tough judge who hands out long sentences then watch out if you break the contract against a person or their property. If I were considering a crime I would pick an area that has a slack judge... This also comes down the argument about defence. The whole thing revolves around security right?
> 
> Ok so I live on the coast and I want protection just in case the hordes of terrorists (yeah right) come to invade me. So I hire a private company that can defend my property. I would probably choose a company that had built up a good reputation in my local area and one that could show it has the necessary equipment and skill to protect my interests. So as a local community we are protected. You on the other hand decide hordes are ok you don't need that protection (same as insurance). If the hordes never come you are in front. If they do I am in front. Thing is it is your choice not statist coercion.
> 
> I actually come back to the point of not needing F-18's. Maybe we do as a threat. So a private company buys these F-18's and is prepared to fly them around displaying how good they are at scaring away invaders. Only the people near potential invaders have to pay for that service. If they choose to. Yes there will be those who don't pay and get to free load in the "protective shield" as it were - so what lucky them. But what if all of a sudden the people paying for F-18 protection decide to move elsewhere... Ah the free market you gotta love it




You must be very privileged indeed, to be able to fund your own air force!


----------



## Rafa (7 January 2008)

This debate has certainly taken an interesting turn, and one that very welcome....

Thanks for your contribution lakemac, very interesting and thought provoking... i find it hard to disagree with the intent of your posts, tho wonder how well the theory will work in practice.

The irony of it all, is that when we look back in history, the way we classify a civilised society and people from general nomadic tribes, is the level and sophistication of government and the standard of public works

I get the feeling govt's are, here to stay which is why tax cuts when offered have to be accepted, otherwise it just gets blown up as big government.

As for the second part of the topic, cutting govt spending... the irony here is that it is the rudd labor govt looking to slash spending from a rather un-liberal (almost whitlamesq) howard govt... 

article in today’s Australian...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23015322-601,00.html



> *Rudd to axe Lib pledges*
> David Uren, Economics correspondent | January 07, 2008
> 
> BUREAUCRATS have been ordered to begin sifting through 225 individual spending commitments made by the Howard government since last May to identify those that can be axed.
> ...


----------



## awg (7 January 2008)

A question that has been on my mind since the day I heard the announcement.

I do not understand how it is sustainable that people over 60 can pay 0% tax,
from there super incomes.

I am sure much better actuaries than me must have worked out that it is better than paying Social Security pensions.

I was just reading the interesting article in the "US recession" thread, basically saying increased Social Security debts may make the USA technically bankrupt. 

Some financially astute people I have spoken to agree this is not sustainable.

Super concessions are a large budget expense already.

My estimation as to the time it will take to alter this concession, is when I turn 60!


----------

