Yes Tim, Henry Ergas made a very strong case which completely out guns the limited basis upon which this main article is based. The claims above that Clive Palmer should "cap" his income is so naive. It is his spending rather than his income which defines his "share" of the nation's resources, not his income. His income is thus effectively capped by the inability of one person to spend more than a very small proportion of the money he earns.

In the process of earning his money, he has had to go out on a limb of risk which the very timid Treasurer, Wayne Swann, safely closeted in the unions all his working, pre-parliamentary life, would not even contemplate. If it were not for Clive Palmer or his equivalent, Australia would have been deprived of all of "his" apparent wealth, which is now bedded down in banks, in the taxes paid by his employees and those who made money from the spending by those employees.

To focus on Palmer's income is the sort of limited vision that Swann is able to focus on at any one time. (AS someone remarked, the truly amazing thing to be seen in all this is that Wayne Swann could actually write an essay!)

Remember, an employee pays 25% (say) of his income, all of which came from Palmer's foresight. He spends 50% of his income and banks 25%. The business which benefits from his spending (after deducting costs) pays 10% of it to the tax office, and spends 50% of it to some other business.....and so on. So eventually 99% of Palmer's turn over goes into the revenue of the country simply because it moves through the economy and is taxed each time it moves.

Any money that does not move is available through the banking sector for home loans and loans to other businesses which generate more wealth. Palmer's own money, all of which he cannot spend as he hardly has time to do so being a fairly busy business man, is in the bank to be loaned to others..

Swann's contribution to the country has been through channelling our money to:

1. The pink batts scandal
2. The BER of which least said the better
3. The already obsolete NBN when most future communications will undoubtedly be by wireless to the home while the major trunks only will be by fibre funded by private enterprise, as many 25% of our communicatioins is now. (People do not realise that fibre trunks already run from Brisbane to Perth built 10 years ago by private money!!)

So, let Wayne rant and roar, but also let the people of Australia decide whether they wish to listen to him or to Clive Palmer and form an independent view point based on their arguments. That would be true democracy. John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com

Jim,

You may not have been reading the reports on the standards of income which have changed in the last 12 or so years in which the relative incomes of the poorer paid workers have increased much more than those in the brackets defined as rich. While re-distribution of income is obviously most desirable, the rality is that this has been taking place even though the difference between rich and poor in absolute terms does not change.

What is certain, as the Russian and Eastern Europe experiemtns in communism showed, your concept of 100% or even 50% death duties would swiftly cripple the country, businesses would die as they did here many years ago even with much lower levels of probate than this. e.g. Joe owns a factory which he runs very efficiently, has trained his son who will take over the business and maintain something that helps to support the Australian economy and provide a good service to customers.. But unfortunately Joe dies and the government wants 100% of his estate! The family has to sell at the best value they can get because the government has over valued Joe's business and all of the money he has in the bank is forfeit anyway. The family sells the business, not as a going concern, but by parcels of stoick and individual pieces of equipment and then the shed goes last of all. No morre `business. Joe's son is devastated and unable to find a job as he is over 46 years of age. So he applies for the dole and lives unhappily ever after. True story from the past - probably not within your memory, but the study of history is very important for all of us. John Nicol.

Dear Shirley,

Your language is so charming that I have already made a copy of your piece for future reference. Oligarchy and plutocracy are big meaningful words for someone who speaks so eloquntly.

I hadn't realised either that you have apparently been up in the mining areas to study the environmental damage which that wretch Palmer has done. Good on you for that. Australia needs people with the courage to go out in the bush and really mix it with the ruffians who are out there. It really is amazing how these people manage to keep this countries balance of payments in the black and allow the rest of us to live at a higher standard than we have ever known before. John Nicol

Why John I am deeply humbled at your kind words and me a “mining ruffian” who ‘speaks’ so ‘eloguntly’ (sic) too and whose “ruffian” family have been in the mining industry since 1897 – you know pioneers of the goldfields and all that tosh?

I daresay John your flattering remarks could inspire me to write a book perhaps titled:

“Dirty diggers, dirty money - the double-dealing demise of the Golden Mile?”

Now John have you perused the WA’s Miners’ Book of Remembrance that pays homage to more than a thousand workers that WA’s mining behemoth has managed to kill while BAU continues? Additionally, do you remember those who suffered a lingering death from asbestosis and silicosis while state governments and the mining industry applied the deny and delay tactic while dust levels were obscured from the public gaze? (Hmmm, I must resurrect the mines inspectors’ reports on that one).

Do you remember the name of the “big Australian” whose operations managed to kill 17 workers in 2004 while BAU continued?

Do you recall an employee cum whistleblower/scientist (who worked for the National Association of Testing Authorities) alleging last year that data on stack emissions are being fabricated and fraudulently provided to regulatory bodies?

You would know of WA’s 85,000 abandoned mine sites (Source: Dr Pietro Guj Professor in Mineral Economics, Curtin U) that have been bequeathed to the taxpayer to deal with, in perpetuity, by the hit and run mining industry?

Have you read WA’s Hansard (Tuesday, 4 May 2010) where “second-hand” information was tabled by the Hon Jon Ford (mining and pastoral region)?:

“Citic Pacific … has set up at Cape Preston in WA’s North near Karratha. I worked there last year for 10 months until we found Blue Asbestos on site … It was reported and was told they would look into it. Nothing was done at all, no barricaded, information sessions, wash down areas, mask areas, nothing. . The following day more was found. The only thing that was done was the two of us who were concerned were removed from site before others were made aware.

“I went to the WA Department of Mines who were very concerned at first, but they stopped all correspondence all together after short inquirers.

“One inspector said he couldn’t talk about it, but could call him on the weekend on his own phone when he could speak freely. We did this and he said this was a political time bomb with $5.2 Billion invested by — The company — … it couldn’t be stopped.” (Verbatim).

Do you remember Premier Colin Barnett and Clive Palmer exchanging hundreds of email messages and other correspondence, despite Barnett telling parliament there were none? And the $45 million environmental bond that was lifted for Palmer’s Balmoral South project in the Pilbara?

Of course I understand that your prime concerns are about the economy - the filthy lucre, so if your memory fails you on how the filthy lucre is extracted John, perhaps you should refrain from consuming those aperitifs in the boardroom of the Australian Climate Science Coalition?

Oh that’s right, they haven’t got a boardroom but the name sure sounds impressive for a Dads’ Army of eco-vandals, wouldn’t you agree?