From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush is a mother fucker
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:27:52 GMT
 <1992Sep24.134747.13873@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <Bv8C7B.CAo@quake.sylmar.ca.us> 
 <1992Sep28.155144.769@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Sep28.223533.11410@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>

mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Matt Wette) writes:


>In article <1992Sep28.155144.769@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,
>lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

>|> If the taxes were used to provide comprehensive health care, improved
>|> education, workfare and job training, family intervention, subsidized
>|> day care,...., it would be worth it.

>Carrying on an intellectual discussion is one thing, but how about an
>example of (i.e., a country where) these programs actuall work?  When
>I see statements like the above I think of Sweden, where everyone gets
>guaranteed housing and health care.  Nice, isn't it? By the way,
>Sweden has an income tax rate of 85% and a >50% unemployment rate.
>Socialism is a loser.   Is this what you want for the US?

OK buster, here is some information you didn't want to hear.
Australia is the second or third lowest taxed country in the
western world. We have a national health care system which
costs us 2% of GDP annually, we have almost free education
to university level (this is a mistake because when it was
free, our participation rate went up in terms of # of women`
and number of disadvantaged groups - this is important
because if we want to be truly competative, we need to be
able to train the best able from our WHOLE population). A
visit to the doctor here costs $A17-31 (that's $12-$22US)
of which $17 is refunded to the patient, hospitals are free.
We are currently running about 11% unemployed due to the
world wide recession (the economic systems are rebalancing
after the debt binge for useless aquisition of the
supposedly rational 80s) but usually run about 6%.
We have one of the highest standards of living in the world,
and the average tax rate is about 30%. We have a total
social security safety net for those people who do not have
a job. This has allowed us to greatly restructure our
workforce over the last few years to become more effecient.
Instead of throwing the people on the scrapheap they have
some chance to retrain and reenter the workforce. We have
one of the best education systems in the world with a
litteracy rate in the 90s. We also have one of the best
health care systems in the world with total per patient cost
1/3 - 1/4 what it is in the states.


The reason is simple. It is cheaper it insure everyone than
only a few. The oncosts of NOT providing unemployment
benifits, e.g. higher crime, crack, social upheaval, riots
etc is much more than that of doing so. A decent social
security net protects your long term investment in
buildings, property, peace, and most importantly people
which are not only our most valuable and unique resourse,
but the very reason why the economy exists anyway.
A decent social security net also gives a country
the flexability to implement social and economic
change without a huge fallout.


Become an economic fundamentalist, realise that the
fundemental reason for having an economy is for the
people (everyone).

>And just think ...

>The entitlement camps have been kept out for a 12 years and they're
>drooling at the mouth waiting for Clinton to take over.  Do you think
>Clinton will be able to stop at $200 Billion in new spending?  Not me.

Well, if you stopped spending all that money on defence
(and remember the iraq war was a result of weapons sales)
and on useless litigation (which among other things has
increased the price of and reduced access to medicine.)
then you'd be ok.

E.g. the theory is that sueing doctors for malpractice will
make them more responsible. In fact, all it has done is
increased their insurance fees and hence yours and now
will not perform only-chance surgery for fear of being sued.
That is where before the doc would say, this op only has a
10% chance of working but you will die anyway, she now says
"why risk it?" and so doesn't offer. Hence your cost of
living has gone up and your quality of life down.
This is a perfect example of how concentrating on the
individual does not always (and in fact is unlikely to)
result in the greatest gain on average for every individual.

You could also stop with your export enhancement program
and direct that money to the whole community instead of
just one portion of it. Ever thought of the flow on effect
of paying unemployment benifits? All that money goes
straight back into the economy because those people or
living hand to mouth and the effect is enormous.
This combined with reskilling and multiskilling your
labour force would have a huge effect, imagine how much more
you could do if they could read.
But I suppose you will keep targeting influential
people like farmers, because in this age of increasing
specialisation it seems so much more moral to pay someone
for not doing something in particular than to not do
anything in general.

Michael

--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
Software Engineering Group		Fax: +61 8 259 5980
Information Technology Division		Telex: AA82799
DSTO Australia				michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au
Xref: sparky alt.politics.democrats.d:180 alt.politics.bush:8321 talk.politics.misc:50457 alt.politics.clinton:9291 alt.rush-limbaugh:6932 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6521