Australia is a global success story. The structural reforms in the 1980s and ‘90s of liberalising trade, floating the dollar and reducing government involvement in the economy ignited an unprecedented period of growth…
Crucially, this happened without a massive spike in inequality. A 2024 report from the Productivity Commission affirmed that our tax and transfer system played a significant role in redistributing income.
And while the size of government ballooned in Europe, with government expenditure soaring to around 50% of GDP (gross domestic product) in the EU, it has remained comparatively lean in Australia, staying around 24%.
Yet, unlike the US, Australia did not gut its social safety net. We deliver top-tier health outcomes, provide robust support to low-income earners and maintain a high-quality public education system.
How did we pull off this exceptional outcome? It’s largely because of something the current government seems to want to do less and less: means testing. We can see this in action with policies such as student debt cuts and electric vehicle tax concessions.
The shift towards universal policies may seem fair, but it’s creating a system that gives to the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
I don’t see this as a rich getting more than what they need but rather a system that has allowed private enterprise a free rein to charge what they want.
All the examples that have been given are issues that successive governments have either failed to fix or have enabled the flow of wealth to disappear and not be seen again.
A lot of these benefits are what our taxes are for. However I think we need to start to think about bringing these concessions back as publicly run options rather than an allotment of cash that can be spent to private providers or businesses.
By avoiding means testing,the government is giving handouts to the richFixed the headline
yup. the one I hate the most is people on the full age pension living in multi million dollar mansions while others are homeless, and then they pass that untaxed wealth on to their children when they die. A fair system would require they downsize to something more reasonable and live off the proceeds if they genuinely don’t have any other source of income in retirement.
It’s not grandmas fault the house sh;es lived in since 1970 suddenly exploded in price. I’m really no fucking ok with this shit, it’s devoid of humanity. You want to strip her community, her home, everything for…tiny little incremental gains?
The biggest beast is the fact that people are allowed to cash out their super. They cash it out, piss it up the wall and then turn around and go “PENSION PLS” and that is the biggest fucking drain. Cut that shit off at the knees.
A fair system would require they downsize to something more reasonable and live off the proceeds if they genuinely don’t have any other source of income in retirement
Agreed and I think ironically you would then need to give concessions to people over 65, they have no reason to downsize at the moment
If you own a million dollar 3 bedroom house, after you’ve done it up, put it on the market, paid all the stamp duty and fee’s and then bought a 1 or 2 bedroom house, you have effectively gained nothing and lost a bedroom
Hence why they’d rather hole up in their million dollar mansions because there’s no incentive for them to sell it
There would need to be maybe a waiving of stamp duty or something or downsizer incentive to give people a reason to do it
Hell even if they kept all the fee’s etc but said downsizing to a smaller house once you’re over 65 gives a 20% boost to your pension payment or something like this, even that would be a credible incentive as there are many pensioners living in million dollar houses that are asset rich (house) but cash poor (living off the pension)
Could those that disagree, and there seems to be a few of you, give your reasons so that we can have a discussion?
I wouldn’t say I disagree per se, but I do have some issues with the argument.
EV tax concessions and student debt reductions may benefit the well off more, but they also encourage greater uptake in education and help address climate change. Everyone is fucked if we don’t address climate change quickly enough, and so speed is paramount.
On education, I would consider it a failure of society if only people from well-off families are attending university. We need a highly educated populace to counter the rampant misinformation and disinformation that permeates the world today, and to participate in a society and economy that is becoming increasingly complex. I’d prefer a move back to free university to be honest, but by the authors argument, this would be even more unfair.
And on universal vs means testing, a separate argument against it is that these systems become very punitive. Our welfare system is decent on balance, but people who access it can end up being treated like a criminal and have to jump through excessive hoops because of the enforcement mechanisms to deal with purported abuse.
That all being said, I do think governments should try to address inequality as much as possible, so if policies can thread the needle of means testing that is restrained and not punitive while keeping costs reasonable, I’m all for it.
That all being said, I do think governments should try to address inequality as much as possible, so if policies can thread the needle of means testing that is restrained and not punitive while keeping costs reasonable, I’m all for it.
And I’m with you!
