I do agree with the gist of Ross's position, however, disagree with his statement "got it into our heads that we shouldn’t pay for it".
Most of these services have been provided through a range of taxes collected from individuals; amongst others, income tax, medicare levy, GST, excise, council rates.
What has been missing has been the honest business case of why a tax payer should contribute more, in a scenario where there really is no marginal benefit (additional benefit) for the tax payer to do so.
Acknowledge, that you do get the odd 'sound bite', however, it always gets dissolved in the whole 'ALP did this/ALP did that/ALP at fault' routine; which, evidently, is hardly compelling for why a taxpayer would think or agree as to why they should contribute more.
Moreover, when you are presented with side-by-side examples; for example, asking an everyday driver to cop-a-hit and contribute more by way of a higher fuel excise, yet rebate miners almost $1b for no marginal benefit or trade-off would appear somewhat disingenuous.
The issue, in my opinion, is two fold; a) arguing a case for change, yet tangent off and spend the focus on politicising it and b) picking the wrong fights to be had. People have often criticised how little difference there is between LNP and ALP, yet for the purposes of the budget, both party's struggle to find common ground (and then people criticise the minors/independents).
I agree, that the health of the country should be above politics. The case for why has yet to be made.
