Skip to main content

Dismantling the Welfare State: Aussie Style

Over at Thoughts on Freedom, the Australian Libertarian Society Blog, there is a current post on school vouchers that starts by rethinking whether or not they should be means tested. I almost did not click the read more button, but then....

But then it took a turn I wasn't expecting; here's the segment where everything changed:

I have traditionally argued that everybody should get an equal voucher, and that the voucher should not be means-tested. I now believe that it would be appropriate to means-test vouchers.

My primary argument against a means-test was that by reducing the amount of the voucher for high-income earners this would increase the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) faced by a person as they earn more income, and therefore contributes to the “poverty trap”. I still think this is true, but I now think it is outweighed by another issue.

Everybody in Australia is on welfare. There is no such thing as a “self-reliant” Australian and each of us is both taking from and giving to the nanny state. The government gives money to rich people to pay for their health, pay for their education and pay for their childcare costs… while also charging these same people excessively high income taxes as well as a range of other taxes, fees and charges. This has to change.

It is my opinion that we must create a path for people to get away from government support and once again become self-reliant. This is best achieved by offering tax cuts, which are paid for by removing government subsidisies to high-income families.


This should be a reform that gets appeal from across the political spectrum. Free-market advocates get tax cuts and lower government spending. Economists should celebrate lower levels of churning and bureaucratic waste. Social democrats will be happy to note that it involves no cut in support for low-income people.

The real benefit of this idea from my perspective is the long-term dynamic. In the current political environment it seems very unlikely that any politician will simply dismantle the welfare state. And if we continue with the current policies of universal tax and universal welfare (built by Whitlam & Howard) then it doesn’t seem likely that we will ever escape the welfare state.

But by targetting welfare only at low-income people we create a viable mechanism to shrink the welfare state over time.
With continued economic growth, the number of low-income people (in an absolute sense) will decrease and more people will move steadily towards self-reliance. This may not please the hard-left who are committed to big government… but for social democrats who truely care about helping people this will be seen as a good thing.


Almost as interesting as the post itself are the 54 comments that follow.

Check it out.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...