Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Fears of the future should not be a burden on the present

By Ross Guest and Ian McDonald - posted Saturday, 15 June 2002


To realise that living standards will increase substantially rather changes one’s view about the future. There is no dark cloud. An increase in taxation of even 2.5 per cent of GDP does not look like a terrible impost on people who are to be so much better off than we are today. Indeed to deny someone today health expenditures on the basis that there will be an increase in taxation of 2.5 per cent of GDP in 40 years time is inequitable.

But where does this leave the PBS scheme? The answer is that this scheme should be managed today on considerations about today, not on some poorly based notion of what will happen in 40 years time. Even the current level of spending on the PBS, 0.6 per cent of GDP, is a considerable sum. The allocation of that amount of GDP should be done to ensure that people are getting value now. It may be that the efficient size of the PBS today is greater than 0.6 per cent of GDP. If so it should be expanded. And it maybe that increased co-payments for benefits under the PBS will increase the efficient allocation of the resources used. It is this argument, not a budget deficit in 40 years time, that is relevant.

Of course, health experts, economists and public servants have been working and will continue to work on ways to improve the efficient allocation of resources in the PBS and indeed in health in general.

Advertisement

In summary, a reasonable interpretation of the IGR is that the future ageing of the Australian population is shown to be not a problem. The idea that if we do not act now things must get worse and even out of control is not supported. Instead we should focus on the benefits people get today from government outlays, attempting by efficient allocation of resources to maximise these benefits. And we should not penalise people alive today in order to further increase the well-being of people alive in the future.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Dr Ross Guest is Associate Professor of Economics at Griffith University.

Professor Ian McDonald is National Australia Bank Professor of Economics at the University of Melbourne.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Ross Guest
All articles by Ian McDonald
Related Links
Griffith University
Ian McDonald's home page
Ross Guest's home page
University of Melbourne
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy