John Smith wrote on Aug 23
rd, 2017 at 7:39pm:
Auggie wrote on Aug 23
rd, 2017 at 7:23pm:
John Smith wrote on Aug 22
nd, 2017 at 6:35pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Aug 22
nd, 2017 at 6:07pm:
They are ghastly and while I believe we need them,
why? we'd be much better served abolishing the states, and having only a regional and federal govt.
We need states to be able to offer gov devices. Councils won't have enough money to provide those services.
whats wrong with tranfering those devices to federal or regional govts, and providing the relevant funding ?
Too many regions is bad; 6 States is an ideal number. There needs to be a degree of centralization, and the 6 states provide that.
Under the proposal, the states would develop their own welfare policies, education, industrial relations, taxation, etc. Of course, the Feds would play a role in ensuring equalization in funding, but it would have to be done in a certain way to prevent abuse. Also, the Feds may in some cases make laws for standardization; i.e. there could be a national minimum wage of $10 p/h, which no State can undercut, but then each State can then make laws to add another dollar amount on top of the $10. So, NSW might decide to add $8 ($18 p/h) in total, whilst Tasmania might only add $3 p/h. This would reflect the individual State's economic conditions. This could also happen for human services: the Feds would stipulate a national rate for unemployment, but the States can add on top, but cannot undercut.
Where the Feds would have to get involved fully is healthcare, because the only way in which you can have an effective healthcare system is if you force everyone nationally to pay insurance; although this could be achievable on a State level, maybe.
Forum
Pages: 
American Supreme Court is better .... (Read 17671 times)
