Wrong argument. Stay away from wealth distribution and stick to the facts with a proper level of taxation on Australia’s finite resources for the future.

Mark. It’s a right argument: one of many. The now international Wall Street protests are going to grow. Sooner or later they’ll find a political voice and the economic troubles of Europe, unable be assuaged by further debt provisions, will encourage these changes.

It’s the right argument when preaching to the converted. The Greens will always remain a fringe party while its platform remains one of poorly chosen political soap boxes.

#1 Why should we keep away from focussing on wealth distribution as a political issue?  Is it because that the unpalatable truth is that the life chances of us all are affected by inequality, but that some of us would rather not look at this issue?  Perhaps it calls into question some deeply held values?

It seems that you are really saying that you are comfortable only with looking at ‘the facts’  associated with taxation but not ‘the facts’ associated with inequality.  I suspect the two might be linked and there is no logical reason to exclude the discussion of wealth distribution. It is timely and we are ready for it.

#1, I agree with #4. We can have whatever level of wealth distribution we like in our society, ranging from none at all up to 100%. The level you personally believe to be about right depends on your position on the left-right political axis. But there is no natural level that the system would settle upon if only we “stayed away” from the issue. We decide what the level should be, or rather we elect people to decide for us. For what it’s worth I happen to think the balance has been tipped too far one way for the last 30 years and something needs to be done about it.

They are two separate issues. The right level of taxation is determined by economists and Treasury. Politicians can then debate implementation. Giving an opponent a free hit on the “politics of envy” or “Watermelon Greens” is pretty dumb. The Greens do this too often across drugs, gay marriage and other politically difficult areas.

“Wealth redistribution” just scares the horses and feeds the Shock Jocks. Choose the targets (eg negative gearing or CGT) and debate the issues. Expenditure can then be debated once the money is in the bank.

If they wish to maintain the balance of power then they have to become much more politically astute. I am pointing to the politics and not what I do or do not believe.