Is an Equal Society a Realistic Aspiration?

[Julia]

There have recently been a number of references to the growing inequality of wealth in Australia. I don't think anyone disputes this.

Most of us, however, like to think of Australia as a land (amongst many) with great equality of opportunity: eg if you're prepared to think something through and have a go, anyone can have an equal chance of success.

But for ever, people have never all been equal.
(I'm trying to here not be too politically incorrect and still make my meaning clear.)
We are all born with genetic differences and these will be enhanced or diminished via our upbringing and our life experiences.

So do we all actually have equality of opportunity in reality?
I don't think so.

Is there genuinely any way we can change this? Should we want to?

When I listen to some talk back radio, e.g., I'm just astonished at the views some people form, god knows from what.

We have some people lauding senator-elect Ricky Muir of the recent excruciating interview, saying "he's just an ordinary Australian so he'll be a worthwhile member of the Senate".

Do you think that's a valid view? Alternatively, do you think that someone being paid almost $200K and there for six years, who has had about six months to prepare, should be able to answer a couple of simple questions about his forthcoming role? If any of such people are going to be participating in the balance of power and whether or not legislation passes, shouldn't they have a few clues?

I don't mean to make this thread political and am just using Mr Muir as one example.

Public confidence is apparently down since the Budget and I wonder why this is, i.e. is it because most people surveyed have determined if it goes ahead then they will be personally adversely affected?
Or is it that the electorate simply cannot warm to Mr Abbott, and would mark him and his party down regardless of what was in the Budget?

We live in a country which is peaceful, essentially well run, with various welfare programs for those who need it, free healthcare of a high standard, and most of the other conditions one would consider necessary for a good life.

Yet there is incessant whining and discontent. It's rare to hear or read a sentiment expressing gratitude for how fortunate we are. Why is this? Have we become so accustomed to being bribed by politicians with ever more freebies that when some of them are proposed to be withdrawn, we stamp our collective feet and rage about how unfair it all is?

I see people out in cafes packed to the footpaths, and walking round eating take away food. Yet apparently we are not prepared to pay $7 to have our health looked after. What on earth is the value system here?

I'd be interested in any views about what I'm feeling frustrated and puzzled about.

 

[Smurf1976]

Public confidence is apparently down since the Budget and I wonder why this is, i.e. is it because most people surveyed have determined if it goes ahead then they will be personally adversely affected?
Or is it that the electorate simply cannot warm to Mr Abbott, and would mark him and his party down regardless of what was in the Budget?

I think it's simply because the key budget message is "doom and gloom, more pain to come". That's essentially the underlying message, here's some pain now and there will be more, and people will tend to respond to a message like that regardless of the actual implications for them personally.

Human brains seem to be wired to think like that in all sorts of areas. Eg it rains so someone turns the heater on, regardless of whether or not it's actually cold. Or they hear that petrol prices are going up and thus decide to fill the tank, saving themselves all of 25 cents by doing so. But it's psychological and similar to how marketing works - if humans thought rationally then most advertising etc wouldn't exist.

 

[SirRumpole]

In relation to Julia's comments about the Medicare co-payment. Hockey and Abbott have made statements about Medicare becoming unsustainable, yet the majority of this co payment is NOT being returned to the health system, but will go into a slush fund, none of which will be distributed for another 6 years, and by the time any advances in health care treatments are found, will not benefit the major contributors to the fund, ie older people who visit the doctor more often and use more medicines.

Is this fair ?

The health care research fund is reputed to provide one $billion per year for medical research. The US spends $30 billion pa on medical research. I find it presumptuous that Hockey thinks Australia will step in and save the world with our little fund.


If the government wants a medical research fund, fine, but fund it fairly by upping the Medicare levy so that all who will benefit from the outcomes pay for it, not just the elderly who pay but probably won't benefit, and get the money to the researchers NOW, not in six years.

If they want a co payment, then it should go straight back into public hospitals to fund health care services for all.

So the co-payment is just one way this government is contributing to inequality in this society as well as not touching the upper middle class ripoffs we have been discussing ad nauseam, ie family trusts, negative gearing, superannuation tax rates etc.

Abbott/Hockey's views on what is fair, is very cockeyed imo.

I'm afraid I couldn't watch Mr Muir's interview after the first 30 seconds, it was awful. Why didn't the media put some pressure on him BEFORE the election ? If they did he probably wouldn't be in the position of sponging on our taxes.

 

[SirRumpole]

Public confidence is apparently down since the Budget and I wonder why this is, i.e. is it because most people surveyed have determined if it goes ahead then they will be personally adversely affected?

I think the "what's in it for me" factor will always be evident, but there are two factors in this budget, what they want to do, and how they want to do it.

Cutting down on welfare is well and good, but I don't think it's fair to take current payments from people for which they have budgeted. If the govt said "we will reduce the rate of family payments for children born after June 30 2016", that does not affect anyone yet and gives people time to plan whether they can afford their next child.

They could also announce a waiting time for new migrants to receive family benefits, which they can now receive as soon as they arrive. That may discourage some people who come here for the welfare.

 

[DocK]

I think that humanity/society is a zero-sum game - in order for some to flourish there must be some who are not. Whether it's a palatable fact or not, for an entrepreneur to be profitable he/she requires workers who are willing to earn less than their boss. It's simply a fact of life that for every CEO on a big salary there are many workers at minimum wage. We are not all born with the same intellectual capability, educational opportunity or benefit from equal parenting in our formative years. I see only one of those factors that could be changed to any great extent. Our personalities differ from the driven overachiever to the apathetic sloth. Society is made up of a great diversity of people and I think it would be unrealistic to aspire to true equality, and such an aspiration would probably be to the detriment of our society in general. I guess all we can do is strive to improve the lot of the less "successful" in our society without removing the incentive for those that are willing/able to improve their lot through their own efforts. To begin you'd need to define what true equality is, as it will mean different things to different groups of people depending upon culture, sex, age, priorities etc.

As to the general public confidence or discontent around the budget - I think a lot of this is to do with the belief that it is unnecessarily harsh on our youth, when compared to the affect on the vast majority of the boomer generation. This belief seems to be held by a surprisingly large % of coalition voters as well as diehard labor supporters, as many of us care as much or more about the future welfare of our children and grandchildren as we do about any effect to our own bottom line.

 

[Knobby22]

We have some people lauding senator-elect Ricky Muir of the recent excruciating interview, saying "he's just an ordinary Australian so he'll be a worthwhile member of the Senate".

Do you think that's a valid view? Alternatively, do you think that someone being paid almost $200K and there for six years, who has had about six months to prepare, should be able to answer a couple of simple questions about his forthcoming role? If any of such people are going to be participating in the balance of power and whether or not legislation passes, shouldn't they have a few clues?

I don't mean to make this thread political and am just using Mr Muir as one example.

Most of our politicians these days have had little work experience. Tony Abbott, Chris Pyne and Joe Hockey have had very limited short careers of 2 to 3 years and usually it was working for the Liberals in any case. Bill Shorten only ever worked as a solicitor for Maurice Blackburn for a period of 18 months.

My belief is that the political class has lost touch with the ordinary people and don't understand that we want to be an aspirational society where hard work and brains can get you places. People yearn for the politicians of old who had real life experience but they are getting to be very few. It has become a game of power and ego instead.

The new University rules proposed will ensure that only the very committed will go to Melbourne or Sydney Universities as a family from a poor background will be very loathe to build up huge debts ($150K-400K) to complete a degree that will take many years to pay back. To me it looks like class warfare. They are in shock as to the public reaction to the budget. They shouldn't be, it just shows they have lost touch with the public in their ivory towers.

On the Labor side, they seem to have no real idea what the Australian Public wants and just flounder from one crackpot scheme to another. They also live in a strange world where they just talk to each other and Unions and CEOs.

I know some politicians personally and believe me they are just ordinary people like you and me, but with viewpoints that you would find strange due to their closeted lifestyle.

 

[McLovin]

Most of our politicians these days have had little work experience. Tony Abbott, Chris Pyne and Joe Hockey have had very limited short careers of 2 to 3 years and usually it was working for the Liberals in any case. Bill Shorten only ever worked as a solicitor for Maurice Blackburn for a period of 18 months.

I reckon that's a biggie. Sometimes I wander over to Sky News when they have their current affairs shows and I shake my head and think "who the f#*k cares"? It's like they operate in a little bubble, where winning the debate is more important than the outcomes it produces.

I don't have an issue with inequality; capitalism can't exist without it. However, I would like a society where two individuals of the same ability have the same opportunity regardless of the circumstance in which they grew up. Surely in a competitive world that's what we should strive for to ensure Australia maintains its spot at the top?

In relation to Julia's comments about the Medicare co-payment. Hockey and Abbott have made statements about Medicare becoming unsustainable, yet the majority of this co payment is NOT being returned to the health system, but will go into a slush fund, none of which will be distributed for another 6 years, and by the time any advances in health care treatments are found, will not benefit the major contributors to the fund, ie older people who visit the doctor more often and use more medicines.

Is this fair ?

Yes it's fair. The heaviest users of the Medicare system (the elderly) currently contribute almost nothing toward it (how many of them are taxpayers?). A $7 co payment capped at $70/year is not unreasonable, IMO. It's taxpayers who still will foot a bill many multiples of that $7 for each visit. I find it shocking that the average Australian visits the doctor 5x/year.

 

[SirRumpole]

Yes it's fair. The heaviest users of the Medicare system (the elderly) currently contribute almost nothing toward it (how many of them are taxpayers?). A $7 co payment capped at $70/year is not unreasonable, IMO. It's taxpayers who still will foot a bill many multiples of that $7 for each visit. I find it shocking that the average Australian visits the doctor 5x/year.

But you ignore the fact that that money is not going back into the Medicare system, it's going to be squirreled away for six years and not returned to the people that paid it. And the pensioners you are talking about have worked and paid their taxes during their lives, most of whom have not been the recipients of the Family tax benefit which was introduced by John Howard.

Getting old and requiring more health services is not the fault of individuals, it's the fault of genetics. I doubt if many people go to the doctor who don't require treatment, they would rather be playing bowls or doing macrame.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes it's fair. The heaviest users of the Medicare system (the elderly) currently contribute almost nothing toward it (how many of them are taxpayers?). A $7 co payment capped at $70/year is not unreasonable, IMO. It's taxpayers who still will foot a bill many multiples of that $7 for each visit. I find it shocking that the average Australian visits the doctor 5x/year.

I agree. And the fact that Labor are using this payment as the leading objection to the budget just shows how out of touch they are.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree. And the fact that Labor are using this payment as the leading objection to the budget just shows how out of touch they are.

So tell me, how are the taxpayers going to be reimbursed by this payment ?

 

[trainspotter]

We have some people lauding senator-elect Ricky Muir of the recent excruciating interview, saying "he's just an ordinary Australian so he'll be a worthwhile member of the Senate".

Do you think that's a valid view? Alternatively, do you think that someone being paid almost $200K and there for six years, who has had about six months to prepare, should be able to answer a couple of simple questions about his forthcoming role? If any of such people are going to be participating in the balance of power and whether or not legislation passes, shouldn't they have a few clues?

I especially liked the part where Willesee reckoned they had to delete a lot of the conversation that was recorded "It would have been far worse for Ricky if we'd run all of the things that he said."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...a-interview-20140609-39ry8.html#ixzz34OT1Og3y

Apparently WIllesee asked him what he hoped to achieve in parliament ... "To be able to customise my car" was the response ... Yep he is ready for the Senate ... Pfffffffffffttttttttttt !

 

[Knobby22]

So tell me, how are the taxpayers going to be reimbursed by this payment ?

The argument that there should be a small cost is valid imo. however I agree that putting it away for six years is unfair.

There is so very much that is wrong with the budget that Labor could attack and win the argument however they want to keep the message simple and rely on the hip pocket.

They undersell the intellect of the Australian people by following this spin doctor/round table study route.

 

[McLovin]

But you ignore the fact that that money is not going back into the Medicare system, it's going to be squirreled away for six years and not returned to the people that paid it.

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't see its relevance any more than when fuel excise revenue doesn't all go toward roads and infrastructure. Lots of things are paid for with my tax dollars that I get no benefit from. I didn't realise that was now the benchmark.

 

[Julia]

Thank you for some interesting responses. DocK, you've gone into exactly what I was trying to get at. I've been vaguely wondering if I'm the one out of touch when I hear all the cries for a truly equal society. It seems a naive and unrealistic aspiration to me.

Most of our politicians these days have had little work experience. Tony Abbott, Chris Pyne and Joe Hockey have had very limited short careers of 2 to 3 years and usually it was working for the Liberals in any case. Bill Shorten only ever worked as a solicitor for Maurice Blackburn for a period of 18 months.

My belief is that the political class has lost touch with the ordinary people and don't understand that we want to be an aspirational society where hard work and brains can get you places. People yearn for the politicians of old who had real life experience but they are getting to be very few. It has become a game of power and ego instead.

I'd not actually realised how few Coalition members had had such minimal real life experience until recently, so that's a very valid point. Most of Labor came up through the unions or the bureaucracy so are similarly bereft.

To me it looks like class warfare. They are in shock as to the public reaction to the budget. They shouldn't be, it just shows they have lost touch with the public in their ivory towers.

And they seem to be in denial about any notion of it being unfair. To me it's just unbelievable that there is almost unanimous derision - both amongst the party, the opposition, and the electorate - about Mr Abbott's PPL, yet he's being utterly recalcitrant about reconsidering it.

On the Labor side, they seem to have no real idea what the Australian Public wants and just flounder from one crackpot scheme to another. They also live in a strange world where they just talk to each other and Unions and CEOs.

I know some politicians personally and believe me they are just ordinary people like you and me, but with viewpoints that you would find strange due to their closeted lifestyle.

Don't they all do constant market research, run focus groups etc? It's bewildering to me that they cannot absorb what the strong feedback from the electorate is telling them. I suppose it's difficult to walk that fine line between insisting on policy that the country needs, ie by some means reducing spending, and understanding the justifiable resentment when the changes made so materially affect the less well off.

The argument against that, I guess, is that we need to start breeding into young people the culture of working for an income, that it's not OK to spend much of their lives on welfare. So, yes, young unemployed are going to find life more difficult, but is that actually going to spur them on to become a bit more diligent about looking for a job, taking a job they don't much like, or becoming a bit entrepreneurial about generating an income?

I'm in favour of giving the government's tough new rules for young unemployed a go? How do others feel on this in particular?

Re the $7 co-payment. Surely it would have gone down better if explained as necessary for the support of Medicare as a scheme, given the aging population, increased health costs due to more sophisticated treatments available etc. People can understand that. But they seem to have stuffed up by linking it to this research fund, causing a disconnect and reduced trust in the minds of the electorate.

I'm all for the co-payment. People on concessions will have it limited to $70 a year. That's probably a lot less than many spend at McDonalds et al.

 

[Calliope]

I don't have an issue with inequality; capitalism can't exist without it.

Brazil is a good example of this. It has one of the fastest growing economies in the world and no country has such a vast disparity between the very rich and the very poor. Brazil has the world's fifth largest number of billionaires and has 21% of the population living below the povery line. Its growth rate is higher than Australia's and its unemployment level is lower.

However, I would like a society where two individuals of the same ability have the same opportunity regardless of the circumstance in which they grew up. Surely in a competitive world that's what we should strive for to ensure Australia maintains its spot at the top?

Apparently not. I doubt if we even have the top spot for welfare dependency; although we try hard.

 

[Knobby22]

I'm in favour of giving the government's tough new rules for young unemployed a go? How do others feel on this in particular?

It's experimental. It could destroy some people but make others stronger.
I'm interested in what people think also.
If we end up having country people living on the street in the City then it would be a failure.

A friend has a business and he hired this perfectly ordinary early 20's guy who had done training courses and when at the interview he told him he got the (rather basic) job the guy broke down crying. He had been unemployed for a few years and had never worked and was absolutely desperate to start living life. He could read and write etc. and ended up being one of the most trusted hard working employees he had.

It's not that easy.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm not ignoring it, I just don't see its relevance any more than when fuel excise revenue doesn't all go toward roads and infrastructure. Lots of things are paid for with my tax dollars that I get no benefit from. I didn't realise that was now the benchmark.

The argument was that Medicare was becoming unsustainable, yet none of the co-payment is going back into Medicare. Surely that is relevant to the argument against the co payment, or at least how it's being spent.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm in favour of giving the government's tough new rules for young unemployed a go? How do others feel on this in particular?

I would agree if there was evidence that there were plenty of jobs around for youth and people were slacking around on the dole when there was opportunity for work, but your anecdote about 500 applicants for one job is just one example that this is not the case, and having no income for 6 months is just punishment not incentive.

What I might suggest as an alternative is cutting the minimum wage for people under 25 to provide business with an incentive to create more jobs.

 

[trainspotter]

Julia are you suggesting an Orwellian Animal Farm kind of Utopia ?

 

[cynic]

I would agree if there was evidence that there were plenty of jobs around for youth and people were slacking around on the dole when there was opportunity for work, but your anecdote about 500 applicants for one job is just one example that this is not the case, and having no income for 6 months is just punishment not incentive.

What I might suggest as an alternative is cutting the minimum wage for people under 25 to provide business with an incentive to create more jobs.

+1

Whilst there are plenty of able and willing people unable to find gainful employment I would recommend a nearly opposite approach. Allow those lacking in motivation to simply opt out of the workforce. Doing so would create opportunities for those more willing (and hence more worthy) to productively contribute to our society.