Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

John Pratt: "Paul, what if we really embraced the ideas of globalisation and there were no tax havens? If international tax laws were brought in so that the rich could not hide their money in Swiss bank accounts or avoid tax by basing themselves in Cayman Islands?"

Nobody should and of course won't drop their standards because others won't or can't pick theirs up. There's nothing wrong with other nations poaching Australia's best and brightest (Australia does the same), and there's nothing wrong with legitimately poaching future funds. One should take the best deal on offer.

If Australia is too weak to hold on to what it has, it doesn't deserve it.

We need a change in attitude - greed is out. Most people would be happy with $100,000 tax free.

And the recent elected governments got elected promising tax rises? Not for their needed voters they didn't. And freebies aren't of course greed. And neither is the lust for power. Or is it?

The Swiss, by the way, enjoy a much higher standard of living than most. They're certainly not looking for change, and they'll never be forced to change. Too many friends in high places, probably more than a few a part of socialist governments.

We should look on tax as a good thing.

We should look at tax for what it is. Theft. Any other entity claiming money that wasn't earned would face the wrath of the law. It's not possible for one to steal one's own money. Therefore there isn't anything morally wrong with evading tax. Lawfully (a human concept) there may well be, only though, if one is found guilty.

If we were paying high tax that means we are really giving to our country.

People should have right to direct "their" money to where they see fit. Tax should be treated for what it is - charity.

It's funny, isn't it? We think it is alright for a young soldier to give up his life for his country but never ask a rich many to give up some of his money for anything.

The top ten per cent of earners carry the burden of all western nations. Around fifty per cent of people aren't net taxpayers. We get out of life what we put into life. If your system is falling apart, perhaps it's time to ask a few more to pony up. A tax on consumption and less taxes on production would be the most sensible option. A flat income tax similar to the Czech Republic would also be a good option.

Until such a day, expect funds to continue to dry up. Yes, be poached away. Welcome to the world of competition.

John Pratt: "Paul, I don't know if you a religious person or not but even the head of the Anglican church is calling for change."

I'm not calling for a change, I'm telling you where society (in all western nations) is headed. There's been millions of words written on the subject over the last thirty years. Probably billions. The state was never able to supply a stay at the Waldorf on a YMCA budget. To believe that this will suddenly become possible is a form of society agreed self delusion.

The post WWII generation is the first generation of the state moving toward retirement. All previous generations clearly understood they would have "lifestyle" responsibility placed upon the individual when this occurred. A brutal truth in many instances, a truth all the same. So yes, perhaps many of the post WWII generation were conned. I don't really know.

I do know that future generations won't be concerning their entire lives with getting those people out of trouble, and doing all possible to grant them the life they may believe they should be accustomed. In the end, John Pratt, we wear our own mistakes.

I still believe that we can afford to look after our sick and elderly. I believe that we can abolish tax below $100,000 and tax incomes above $100,000 at 90 percent if we choose to do so. The majority would be better off, don't you think?

If you supply only disincentives, that's exactly what you get. You would be hard pressed finding anyone (and I mean anyone) stupid enough to pay such an amount. The amount you speak of is ridiculous. People would either not bother earning such an amount or they would go elsewhere.

The Nordic nations, once the pin-ups of socialism, are now facing such reality. Savings is the forgoing of something in the present for something in the future. The reverse of this also applies. The money has been spent, and the credit card is maxed out. There's no last chance saloon.

A guy in Asia is at the moment working a seventy hour week. He's earning half what the most well educated person, spending his every idle day in a Swedish park (State funded) is earning. This situation won't remain the same forever: the Asian guy will win, and if he doesn't, his children will.

Paul, neo-liberalism is over. It has failed to deliver. We are now looking for alternatives.

Seeminglym anyone with a calculator is tarred with the "neo-liberal" tag nowadays. Probably the neo part is used to hint of Nazism or something. I don't know and I don't care. It's always been and it'll always be about freedom versus socialism. People can use whatever tags they want.

I do know that free market philosophy isn't over. It'll back at a later date, just as strong as its always been. Any changes made today can and surely will be reversed tomorrow. That's also the cycle. 

The full implications of the current global financial crisis are hard to assess at the present juncture, whether in relation to our economies or with regard to wider political dynamics. However, three striking developments are already discernible. First, the crisis demonstrates the stark reality of global interdependence in the 21st century. The suggestion that global economic growth – particularly among emerging markets – had somehow been “decoupled” from the health of the American economy has been proven hollow. Instead, barely any nation has remained untouched by the crisis in the inadequately regulated global financial system.

Second, the crisis has exposed the fragility of globalisation. As sources of financing dry up, we are witnessing a dramatic fall in world trade, with drastic effects on big exporting nations such as China, Germany and Japan. No longer willing to accept large emerging market risk exposures, banks are pulling in their horns to domestic markets. Rescue packages aimed at European and US industries threaten to reverse decades of hard-won multilateral trade liberalisation. All over the world there is a perceptible increase in anti-immigrant feeling. Indeed, several observers are already talking about evidence of de-globalisation.

Third, the neo-liberal faith in laissez-faire as the dominant guiding principle for the organisation of markets has been shattered. The crisis has glaringly exposed the limits of excessive market liberalisation: left to their own devices, markets cannot be guaranteed to serve the public interest. In a similar fashion to the radical ideological shifts which took place at the end of the 1970s,we are currently witnessing the demolition of the political foundations of neo-liberalism and the irrefutable ending of its intellectual hegemony in the western hemisphere.

Paul, neo-liberalism is over. It has failed to deliver. We are now looking for alternatives.

The free market will never look after the environment or the weakest in our society. It is up to the state to stand up for the planet and for the weakest amongst us.

I realise that a lot of what I write is idealism, but I feel unless we aim high we are sure to fall short.

I still believe that we can afford to look after our sick and elderly. I believe that we can abolish tax below $100,000 and tax incomes above $100,000 at 90 percent if we choose to do so. The majority would be better off, don't you think?

You say business would go offshore. Paul, unless you have missed the last thirty years or so that is just what they are doing anyway.

Paul, I don't know if you a religious person or not but even the head of the Anglican church is calling for change.

"The present financial crisis has dealt a heavy blow to the idea that human fulfilment can be thought about just in terms of material growth and possession," he told the congregation at Canterbury Cathedral.

"Accepting voluntary limitation to your acquisitiveness, your sexual appetite, your freedom of choice doesn't look so absurd after all as a path to some sort of stability and mutual care. We should be challenging ourselves and our church to a new willingness to help this witness to flourish and develop."

John Pratt: "Paul, you're right - fully taxpayer funded education and health are not free."

Only nothing is free.

We should look on them as investments.

If you wish to treat something as an investment, you'll need to be a little analytical. Simply wanting something to be so doesn't necessarily make it so.

A better educated society should be a more productive society. 

No doubt. 

Which particular society should be the point of contention. For example, the "free" education policies of Europe throughout the sixties and seventies were America's greatest post WWII policy.

The European outlook was simple. One would receive a quality education without cost, and then emigrate to America to find fame and fortune (mostly just low tax rates). Taxes (yes, even for Europeans) of course only become a problem when one needs to pay them.

I don't know if a study has ever been conducted on the particular subject. I personally would think that the looting of future European GDP, throughout that time, would make Iraq look a cut price picnic. American policy makers would be well served reviewing that time period. Looking about I now see a number of Asian nations positively bringing back the flares (taxation rates are positively entralling and getting better). Only now America is the one having the job done upon it.

A more productive society would pay more tax and we would all benefit.

Sometimes to take less is to take more. A lesson very few ever really learn.

We live in a competitive world, and it's getting more so. It's a market place out there (it's a big wide world), and in any market, one's biggest mistake, is pricing one's self out of it. Europe did long ago, and that's why Asia will soon take its place.

Australia has throughout its time (my reading) had incredible luck bestowed upon it. It comes down to being in the right place at the right time. How well Australia now pushes that luck is down to Australia. Great opportunities, I might add, don't come around often.

John Pratt: "Most Americans would vote for a universal health system."

And most would vote for a free car and paid trip to Rome. The chances of getting those things are about the same as getting quality universal medical services.

To be socialist, one needs a total disconnect with the laws of mathematics. Given the universal truth of mathematics, that's no mean feat.

With respect to John, he seems to be of the belief that Australia should have the world's best medical services available to everybody. Saying (simply voting) that something should be so is seemingly enough.

John also wants a ban the mining industry (easily Australia's biggest export), payment of a wage to everybody not working, in excess of what 80% of the world's individuals earn, as well as supply for all their life needs (top drawer of course). He also wants to clamp huge tax increases on business (already leaving), and those silly enough to still be employed (probably mentally ill), and pay doctors and nurses really big dollars (nothing wrong with that) because they're better than insurance people.

John would also like to tax people earning over 100k at 90% (which must include those now big earning doctors and nurses). A rate I might add that would cause the worst Mafia don to blush (thank you masta for allowing me ten percent of MY money). Australia can (according to John) achieve all this because it's "rich". Seemingly John concedes his ideological forefathers didn't kick the place off.

A pity for the Aboriginals really; they came, they saw, and they conquered. And then they all went home. They were liquidated owing back taxes.

John Pratt: "A universal health system would be more efficent than one funded by private insurance."

Possibly. It would take a lot of money to make so. Something that not one country has been able to find up to date. People may want the best "free" universal healthcare in the world, they're not willing to pay for though. Putting one's neighbor on the "net payment roll" doesn't count.

Fifty per cent of western citizens aren't net taxpayers, and the number grows ever onward. For example: forty thousand people pay for New York City. The numbers are astounding, and I believe the "born as a right" western lifestyle is a ticking bomb. People may believe in universal free health. That belief, though, often comes with "universal" meaning somebody else paying. Politicians of course will pander to this, until there isn't any other option but to face the truth. A truth that may come a lot quicker than people think.

I think "basic" (as opposed to quality) unversial healthcare, eduction ... will become the optimal word soon. That's about as good as it's going to get.

I think the insurance companies are parasitic and only add unnecessary cost to the health care system.  As I have said before, their only function is to ration who gets what care insuring the rich always get better access.

Insurance companies are in the business of making money, the same as any other business. The business of being in business is offering a service. Medical insurance would involve "access" for their clients - "rich" or not.

Actually, you'll probably find the wealthiest Australians don't have medical insurance. Insurance is just that, insurance. If one already easily has the funding, one doesn't need to be insured. The wealthiest Australians (happens in many nations) would have access to premium world-wide medical care (in whatever specialist field), it's only a matter of payment. Insurance companies in Australia probably don't offer coverage for American etc services at any rate.

This is a very cynical piece on a Liberal Party website:

“The recent Productivity Commissioner research paper – Trends in Aged Care Services – predicts a significant rise in demand for aged care services over the coming 40 years.

“In case the Minister for Ageing missed it, the research paper states:

Today, those aged 65 years and older comprise around one in seven Australians. By 2050, about one in four will be aged 65 years or older.

(Productivity Commission, Sept 2008, pxv)

“What does the Minister intend to do about it? In every interview and in every media release she issues, she faithfully reads from her talking notes:

“Over the next four years, we will invest more than $40 billion into aged and community care.”

“It’s high time the Minister faced up to facts and did more than just stating the obvious. The aged care industry is heading towards a train wreck. Our most vulnerable Australians have never had their care so seriously compromised.

“Here are the facts:

- The aged care industry is falling apart;

- Aged care providers are leaving the industry in droves;

- There is an alarming under-subscription of beds;

- Licences are being returned;

- Those aged over 85 will increase from about 400,000 to 1.6 million in 2047;

“The aged care industry is not – and cannot into the future – operate in a sustainable way under these conditions.

“NOW is the time to turn words into action, before we have a national aged care crisis on our hands.

Although I agree with the sentiments expressed, this is from a party that neglected aged care while it was in power. How could we trust them to behave any differently if they were to regain power?

We are indeed facing a crisis, and political posturing is no way to fix the problem. Thoughtlessly throwing money at the problem is no answer either.

As a society we need to work out the best way to care for our mothers and fathers. What we are doing currently is failing to meet their needs. The only way to solve the problems we are all facing is to work together and give aged care the priority that is deserves.

Most Americans would vote for a universal health system.

A majority of Americans would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll – though many worry that the nation’s economy will suffer if the government were to offer universal health care.

The poll also finds that health care is a major domestic concern for Americans, second only to the economy.

Fifty-seven percent of those polled say they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to provide all Americans with health care coverage. While seventy three percent of Democrats favor a tax increase to fund coverage, only twenty-nine percent of Republicans back such a move.

Universal health care is cheaper.

The United States spends at least 40% more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country with universal health care

John Pratt: "We need free education and free health".

I think you mean fully taxpayer funded. Nothing of course comes for nothing. Somebody, somewhere, always pays something.

Rudd can find billions to stimulate the economy in the blink of an eye.

The Government didn't luck on to some money under a tree. It borrowed the funds. The funds will need to be paid back with interest.

Insurance is just a way of rationing the medical system. The rich can always afford insurance and will always get first place in the health system under the current system.

Insurance is a way many people can cover debts they wouldn't otherwise have funds available for. The point I make is that if you want the best of something, you'll need to pay the cost. That's how things work in the world. Insurance for many individuals is protection when such times arrive.

It is just a decision - we could tax all income above $100,000 at 90 per cent if we need to.

A nation can of course decide to take this step. Personally, I wouldn't advise it. The downside will be much, much, greater than any upside.

I'm sorry John, but all the willpower in the world isn't going to make the Australian health service any better. People will at one point need to make the tough decisions (if top quality is aimed for). Somebody, somewhere, unfortunately is going to miss out. That's also the unfortunate way of the world.

John Pratt: "Why do we let our politicians get away with this? One day it might be you in the emergency waiting room, and the one who dies may be your spouse or child."

That every person doesn't enjoy the treatment, as if in an episode of House, is far from surprising. And it's one of those rare things that politicians cannot be blamed for. Health and education consistently outpace inflation, and that's not going to change any time soon.

Both areas have a limit to the quality available. Doctors and nurses cannot be found out of thin air. Health is a profession, and like all professions, it takes time turning out professionals. Supply is simply not keeping track with demand, and with expected mass demand, this isn't going to improve in any western nation.

As treatment improves so does life expectancy, and so does the competition for for finite quality. I note, John, you are one who is negative about even minimal birth rates. I'd be interested in knowing, who then, is to treat this aged population?

Secondly it's about money (yes, yes, I know, not that again). With fifty per cent of people (round figure in western nations), not net tax payers (this number is continuing to rise), where are the ever increasing numbers to be found? The unpalatable fact is that the numbers aren't going to be found. Basic (free) service won't slide (not in the short-term), it just won't progress. Which morphs into a silde.

The key answer lay in a strong private health industry. People willingly pay excess for any number of products. There isn't any reason why health shouldn't be the number one on the list of products. Good health is the most important thing a person has. How could any individual not expect to pay for the best service? It's that way in every other area of life. 

I just can't understand people who refuse to take up medical insurance. "Most" can afford it (be it many making cuts in less necessary areas). People unfortunately choose to roll the dice. Medical insurance is the type of thing you never want to get your money back on (hopefully its not needed). I can only assume, people decide to live for the day, and accept whatever tomorrow brings.

Ps I didn't write the above as some kind of support for insurance companies. That in itself is a separate issue.

A conversation about the social, economic and political implications of a rapidly ageing population in Australia, which will inevitably include an increasing population of people living with dementia.

It is easy to say there is too much clinging to life. My experience having worked in aged care for seven years is that most of us do not act until it is too late and we are no longer of sound mind.

Aged care facilities are filling with dementia patients, our hospitals are filling up with the overflow, and young kids are dying as a result.

We need to act now: we either build more aged care facilities or we begin culling at age 75 or so. You make the choice.

I always thought that Claude was probably channeling Bulgakov's wonderful creation Behemoth and I suspect that Malcolm has been missing the beast.  Who wouldn't?

Agreed, too much clinging on to life.  I first thought that the Buddhists might have something going on while simultaneously reading the Tibetan Book of the Dead and working in an aged care unit.  The Tibetans traditionally use an astrologer to determine the time of death as they say that the body, being a disciplined entity, carries on after death has occurred.  Western medicine has developed numerous ways to keep the body going on and cruelly on well after all real signs of life have disappeared.  We even have a saying for it which is that "the lights are on but nobody is home". 

Blissful death, to be feared by those who have not lived well enough and warmly welcomed by those who are at peace with their ambitions and conscience.

According to every reliable statistic I have ever seen, 100% of people die permanently. Why stave off the inevitable? Live with it.