THE Treasurer Joe Hockey talks a lot about “inter-generational theft”, arguing it’s immoral to leave our children to pay debts incurred for spending today.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
This, at best, is a strange line of argument.
To begin with, Mr Hockey is inconsistent about its application.
Apparently it’s selfish to leave children to pay debt but it is OK to trash the environment and for them to deal with the consequences.
Surely it is “inter-generational theft” to rob our children of educational opportunities which would benefit both them and society as a whole for the next couple of generations, while burdening university graduates with life-long debt.
Mr Hockey wants to force young unemployed people off the dole.
If even a small percentage take to crime as a consequence, this will not only blight their lives but burden future generations with extra money spent on crime prevention and the criminal system.
Talk of robbing Peter to pay Paul — we’re robbing our young people now to supposedly save them from paying extra in the future.
If children are benefiting from an improved education system, working in decent buildings with good teachers, and then further benefit from a taxpayer-subsidised university education, what’s the problem in expecting them to make a contribution towards this?
I don’t see a problem with “inter-generational theft”.
I do see big benefits in “inter-generational investment”.
Surely it is only fair that the generations to come should have no problems in paying for benefits put in place for them by today’s taxpayers.
— ZUVELE LESCHEN,
Buffalo River