Comments on: Our topsy turvy, upside-down middle-class welfare

By: Brendan Halfweeg

Brendan Halfweeg — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:51:49 +0000

Howard bribed the battlers. Now it’s Rudd’s turn to bribe working families. This is the problem with the welfare state. Fiddling at the edges with super and family benefits reform is not the answer, reforming the tax/welfare system from the ground up is requried. Simpler tax, simple welfare, minimum opportunities for pork.

By: Peter Whiteford

Peter Whiteford — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 07:17:51 +0000

On a pedantic note, contrary to the article, Australia doesn’t have among the highest EMTRs in the world for low income earners. In fact, it has among the lowest for people moving from welfare to part-time work. The only places with lower EMTRs are countries where there is very little social assistance (Greece, Italy) or where assistance is a lot lower than in Australia (the US). This is because most other countries have 100% withdrawal rates on incom-tested benefits.

See the country files at http://www.oecd.org/document/0/0,3343,en_2649_34819_34053248_1_1_1_1,00.html

However, Australia does have higher than average EMTRs for people moving from part-time to full-time work and it does tend to have higher disincentives for second earner due to family income-testing.

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 04:59:27 +0000

I wouldn’t attempt to defend a lot of the muddle, especially the blatant bribes to early retirees. If you must bribe the better-off old you’d do it a lot more efficiently and cheaply with a universal age pension instead of these byzantine superannuation lurks. The case against FTB Part B is a bit more problematic, but I won’t go into that here.

But you can’t fix things uness you understand what’s driving them. These complexities ultimately derive from the fact that that economists think transparency and simplicity are virtues, but politicians think them vices. How can you cut deals when people can see what you’re doing? How can you get people to be grateful for the little gifts you give them if they can just see its their own money?

Maybe this is just an inevitable downside of democracy, the sort of thing ancient greek opponents of the concept like Plato used to point out. Except of course Churchill had it right - other forms of government are even worse.

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:22:02 +0000

Ken;

I realise that, but the sweep of history suggests that boring nerds like me plugging away at good policy can slowly and surely bring about change. I am cynical but I refuse to give up.

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:18:15 +0000

Except that they’d end up being replaced by another mob who would also promise the magic pudding because such a large proportion of the voting public can’t resist believing in it and voting for people who promise it.

It’s not unlike the global warming issue, which everyone is now deeply concerned about while simultaneously being equally deeply concerned about high petrol prices. Politicians and political aspirants are utility maximisers who are in most cases entirely happy to satisfy the market demand for irrationally irreconcilable policies, and then try to square the circle with bullshit rhetoric.

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:31:12 +0000

This is the sort of policy morass that inspired me to run for Parliament in the first place. As I see it, mainstream politicians are too smart and too well advised not to know how bad these policies are.

So here’s how it is. Either they are ignorant of the ill effects of poor policy, in which case they should be replaced. Or they are aware and don’t propose to reform it, in which case they should be replaced.