[LINK] Building the Australian National Health Network

Marghanita da Cruz marghanita at ramin.com.au
Thu Mar 11 13:40:54 EST 2010


Jan Whitaker wrote:
<snip>
> I think that's a misunderstanding of federalism. It's not a top-down 
> approach through all systems. There is a separation of areas of 
> responsibility rather than a pure hierarchy.
> 
> The problem in Australia is the lack of the ability of states to levi 
> certain kinds of taxes. So the money for social services has to come 
> from Canberra. As they say, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
> 

The GST was a move from State Taxes (stamp duty was abolished
and I think payroll tax was also to go) to National Taxes.

The GST was to be allocated to the states or whoever is
providing the services.

Under federalism every state has equal representation.
This is great for "smaller states" ie not NSW. This means
that in 500,000 Tasmanians are respresented by 12 senators
and   6,000,000 NSW people are represented by 12 senators.

The 300,000 ACTites and how ever many NTites there are, with
just two senators each may feel dudded.

There are a number of equations worth contemplating
1. GST revenue from NSW
2. GST revenue from Tas

The medicare levy is based on income and here too, NSW is
probably contributing more than its fair share.

By the way, the latest salvo in the US healthcare debate:
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/10/cracking-down-waste-and-fraud>

Marghanita
---
Marghanita da Cruz
http://ramin.com.au
Tel: 0414-869202





More information about the Link mailing list