Policies of Income Distribution? (1 Viewer)

[CraZiEeE]

Just wanna clarify if i got it right
-Progressive tax system (people on higher income gets taxed more ..etc etc)
-welfare payments to the needy

i've been reading and it said that
"income distribution is given up for the pursuit for other economic policies"
(thats from hte top of my head...not the book)
so..point is, is that enough for gove policies...or would ne1 like to help out

thanks

 

[meh]

yeah thats right

the point is that the govt is kinda taking a back seat on this issue

there is fiscal policy things like you said, such as the two auto stabilisers but there are also policies that PREVENT more equitable distribution, you must mention that rather than what the govt IS doing, it is what it ISNT doing that's important.

For instance, they have deregulation and decentralised the labour market and abandoned the accord - major disadvantage.
They also pursued protection reductions which rise short term unemployment causing inequality
Taxation reform has slightly hindered more equitable ditribution as well because of the regressive nature of the GST
The interest rate rise will also inevitable contribute to rise in inequality because most low income earners are borrowers and are greatly affected by changes in interest rate levels.

But yeah, essentialy what you have said is correct - the govt is adopting a more user-pays approach which causes a more unequal distribution of income because of the incentive to work harder it creates.

 

[timmii]

In terms of income distribution i would add something like the availability of subsidised/govt housing, free healthcare, free education - because those also reduce income inequalities, since they aim to ensure that there isn't anyone who is without the basics necessities...and since being healthy and being educated also allow for the disparities to be reduced - everyone should be in a position to be able to earn and work...

Mmmh maybe also things like seniors cards/students cards? Since the poor and the young students are often among the poorest in society - this reduces the discrepancy by reducing their relative outlays?

 

[saves.the.day]

Another point is that the government could:

+Reduce costs of services for some groups (e.g. senior discounts as over 65's are the second lowest income eaerners)

 

[goldenphoenix1]

Another point is that the government could:

+Reduce costs of services for some groups (e.g. senior discounts as over 65's are the second lowest income eaerners)

Attacking of the wage system may also lessen income inequality.
Since wages represent the majority of income for many Australian's, tackling (Origin fever) discrepancies in the labour market may also help. The Government's "Work Choices" now Workplace Regulation or some crap like that, is a policy that aims to bridge the gap between the middle class and the higher strata of income earners.
(Worker's get to bargain their skills for higher wages, so therefore those who are underpayed [the lower strata?middle classes] or underemployed are able to get higher incomes and "bridge the gap". Problems arise when members of the lower incomes bargain, as a majority are unskilled and may suffer unemployment.)

An extreme policy that i found hilarious, yet logical was if the economy's income was distributed unequally, to the point of high gini coefficients and a nation's disallusionment, then to fix the problem instantly would be to turn the economy into a planned economy.

take out the forces of supply and demand and allow for the distribution of income to theoretically be even. Of course, it is an extreme measure

 

[blakegman]

- Progressive Tax System

-Transfer payments (welfare)

-compulsory superannuation

-Govt. spending on essential services to remove absolute poverty ( health,education)

- work for the dole, welfare to work schemes

just a couple that are policies to reduce inequality

 

[Demandred]

Keep in mind that income redistribution isn't ways a one way road from the rich to the poor, in many ways, it's also the other way around.

 

[sk8ie_boi]

Oh this topic. I want to know the opinions of people.

Is a gap in the distribution of income really a bad idea?

Arguments for a gap in the distribution of income:
- Promotes competition in society (E.g. taking up University and therefore getting a better job)
- Encourages people to work harder

Arguments against:
- Not everyone have a choice in employment (do they really?)
- Social instability ==> Social cost

 

[ilovecommunism]

回复: Policies of Income Distribution?

Oh this topic. I want to know the opinions of people.

Is a gap in the distribution of income really a bad idea?

social class antagonisms......
lol......
followed by our proletarian revolutions...xD

hmmm......deregulation in the labour market may deteriorate inequality as protection on labour is removed......
those with higher level of education might gain higher level of income because they have greater barganing power, whereas those who have lower level of education or skills might have less barganing power over wage growth......

 

[blakegman]

Inequality enourages increased productivity and competitiveness through education and training. you only have to look at communism during world wars etc to know that supposed equality probably makes a country worse off as a whole.
but in saying that a target of equality needs to be established, or else u have a situation like that do in russia now. super rich and super poor

 

[williamc]

I personally believe that income inequality is a good thing. Being one who believes in pure economics (as in Environmental mgt) were the government should devise policies which are going to encourage higher levels of economic growth NOW! The setting of wages through demand and supply will ensure wage increases only occur due to producivity increases (NAIRU i think) which will encourage a higher level of producivity thus having a positive economic impacts. Income inequality is a natural process and shouldn't be looked upon as such a bad thing. Even if the gap between the rich and poor is widening id rather be poor now than 50 years ago. This is becuase living conditions have improved due to sustained high levels of economic growth, with increasing REAL average income levels.