# data[].attributes.headline
I believe that there should be more intervention of the government in the market as presently there is a large gap between the higher earning and lower earning classes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This has caused an increase in the abuse of market power and economic instability. The progressive tax system and subsidies such as Job Seeker and Job Keeper are very helpful as the economy starts to recover from the recession however I believe that there should be some reallocation of resource in order to help lower-earning classes to regain a comfortable and stable lifestyle for example by increasing welfare funds. Moreover a reallocation of resources could help rectify some of the negative externalities from certain industries that have been abusing market power and taking advantage of consumers e.g. age care industry. Due to the lack of resources and proper training regulations areas such as the age-care system in which some our most vulnerable members of society stay, is experiencing shortage in staff and an increase in abuse and violation claims. The government should also become more involved in environmental welfare although presently due to the covid and the recession it will be difficult I believe that in the future there should be stricter regulation about fossil fuels, natural resources and overall pollution. Although there will be a decrease in innovation and shortage of supply, in the long-term by using more renewable and environment-friendly materials we will be increasing the utility and lifestyle of consumers.

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe that there should be more intervention of the government in the market as presently there is a large gap between the higher earning and lower earning classes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. This has caused an increase in the abuse of market power and economic instability. The progressive tax system and subsidies such as Job Seeker and Job Keeper are very helpful as the economy starts to recover from the recession however I believe that there should be some reallocation of resource in order to help lower-earning classes to regain a comfortable and stable lifestyle for example by increasing welfare funds. Moreover a reallocation of resources could help rectify some of the negative externalities from certain industries that have been abusing market power and taking advantage of consumers e.g. age care industry. Due to the lack of resources and proper training regulations areas such as the age-care system in which some our most vulnerable members of society stay, is experiencing shortage in staff and an increase in abuse and violation claims. The government should also become more involved in environmental welfare although presently due to the covid and the recession it will be difficult I believe that in the future there should be stricter regulation about fossil fuels, natural resources and overall pollution. Although there will be a decrease in innovation and shortage of supply, in the long-term by using more renewable and environment-friendly materials we will be increasing the utility and lifestyle of consumers.

# data[].attributes.body
- Anna

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe there is a huge gap between the wealthy and poor and as a result of the Pandemic the gap widens. Currently the covid pandemic highlighted the shortage of staffs in a lot of public sector hospitals. And there is also an immediate need for action towards climate change. These three factors can not be tackled by the private sectors who will always have a profit motive and reduce the expenses. However, through government intervention, 1) by increasing the welfare benefits for the poor the gap can be reduced, however, this will opposed by the wealthy who want to keep want they earned. 2) By increasing the funds for hospitals, they can hire more staffs and increase the number of people who can be treated at a time, this wont be done by the private sector who want to reduce costs and 3) action for climate change by imposing carbon tax or restrictions on the usage of non renewable fuels. This will affect the industries involved with non renewable energy, however, governments can help pay their losses and help in transition. However, this intervention shouldnt lead to a lack of choices available to consumers and this should still allow market forces to determine what should be made and how much

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe there is a huge gap between the wealthy and poor and as a result of the Pandemic the gap widens. Currently the covid pandemic highlighted the shortage of staffs in a lot of public sector hospitals. And there is also an immediate need for action towards climate change. These three factors can not be tackled by the private sectors who will always have a profit motive and reduce the expenses. However, through government intervention, 1) by increasing the welfare benefits for the poor the gap can be reduced, however, this will opposed by the wealthy who want to keep want they earned. 2) By increasing the funds for hospitals, they can hire more staffs and increase the number of people who can be treated at a time, this wont be done by the private sector who want to reduce costs and 3) action for climate change by imposing carbon tax or restrictions on the usage of non renewable fuels. This will affect the industries involved with non renewable energy, however, governments can help pay their losses and help in transition. However, this intervention shouldnt lead to a lack of choices available to consumers and this should still allow market forces to determine what should be made and how much

# data[].attributes.body
(thirisha)

# data[].attributes.headline
I believe that the government should intervene more to reduce social and economic inequalities that exist in our economic market. A current market failure is the gap between the social classes in relation to income. Existing policies such as the progressive taxation system help low income earners, but more policies need to be implemented into the market. In the society's current state, policies such as the jobkeeper and job-seeker should continue to support low income earners. Additionally the financial support that is given to those on JobKeeper and JobSeeker should be increased to help them cope with the aftermath of the corona virus pandemic. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I believe that the government should intervene more to reduce social and economic inequalities that exist in our economic market. A current market failure is the gap between the social classes in relation to income. Existing policies such as the progressive taxation system help low income earners, but more policies need to be implemented into the market. In the society's current state, policies such as the jobkeeper and job-seeker should continue to support low income earners. Additionally the financial support that is given to those on JobKeeper and JobSeeker should be increased to help them cope with the aftermath of the corona virus pandemic. 

# data[].attributes.body
Cheers guys cheers

Pawlos

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the Federal Government should intervene more in the market to prevent market failure which can occur through income inequality, abuse of market power and negative externalities.
To combat wage inequality the government should continue using progressive tax methods to tax the higher income earners. This tax money could go towards supporting lower income earners and those struggling financially through government welfare programs such as JobKeeper and JobSeeker. These subsidies would help to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, especially through times like the Covid pandemic.
Another way the government could intervene to prevent market failure is through increasing taxes in the fuel industry, such as the carbon tax. This would deter businesses in this industry from producing their current levels of carbon emission. Subsidies could also be implemented to reward those who produce and use renewable forms of energy, which would make alternative energy a more attractive option. This would heavily benefit the environment as it would reduce negative externalities such as climate change and pollution.
- Gerald

# data[].attributes.body
Government Intervention attempts to reduce market failure such as externalities, monopolies and inequalities. Due to the recent recession due to the pandemic the Federal Government should intervene more in the market. The two government initiates Job Seeker and Job Keeper help struggling Australians in an attempt to reduce the inequality between the wealthy and poor (market failure). Although these government subsides do assist people, the large wealth distribution was evident. Maintaining these programs significantly helps lower income workers who were typically most effected usually falling into unemployment. Low income worker spend a high amount of their income which keeps the economy going rather than saving money (which is a leakage). Therefore, government needs to either have reallocate resources (which will have opportunities costs) or increase taxes slightly in the top brackets of the progressive tax system. This would decrease the inequality of wealth distribution. With more government intervention in general it provide people with more equal opportunities regardless of socio-economic status. A few examples: aged care, education and health care. However, with more government intervention, as with every decision, there is an opportunity cost. For example, there would upset among people people who earn more for paying higher rates in taxes.
-MF

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the governments current level of intervention is good in an economic sense, yet it doesn't fully correct inequalities between rich and poor resulting in a reduction of potential economic growth. The introduction of a progressive taxation system (that is tax proportional to income) and subsidies such as Job Seeker and Job Keeper are very good ideas that have kept Australia afloat through the pandemic. I think there just needs to be a reallocation of resources into different financial sectors which will target specific areas of inequality. This way there will be efficient reduction in wealth and wage inequalities. When it comes to socialistic aspects of the market I believe the Australian governance, like many around the world, are not doing nearly enough. They are too focused on market based benefits such as economic growth and are disregarding the negative externalities production is having on the environment. There is little done by governments to intervene and address environmental and welfare issues. You can look at Hungary, a country so fixated on having an elite GDP that it disregards well-being of its inhabitants. Hungary's air is considered moderately unsafe, as a result of pollution caused by overproduction. As well as this, in 2019 Hungary had a poverty rate of around 19% in 2019. Not only is this disregard for the environment and welfare not environmentally beneficial, it is also not economically beneficial. This is because government spenditure will have to be reallocated in sectors such as health, legal, defence, rehabilitation and subsidies

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the government should intervene as it is absolutely necessary to ensure that market failures are addressed and fixed. The government needs to do more to reduce the gap between the wealthy and poor. The government uses a progressive tax system to combat this which is a step in the right direction. Taxing the higher earners more would over time shrink this gap. However the willingness to work would decrease because most of their money will be stripped from them which would see a decline in the economy. I believe fixing the gap has to start with the less wealthy people. Increasing subsidies for education to stimulate lower income earners to gain qualifications that will help them earn more. Cutting off job seeker and job keeper makes sense as many jobs are going unfinished especially within the agricultural industry because of the lack of foreign workers. The Government should intervene and set these people up with agricultural jobs giving them a source of income.
Tom

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the government should intervene more than it currently is. They should do more to shrink the wealth gap between the poor and the rich. With current economic growth the Australian government has done well with subsidies such as job seeker and job keeper. These subsidies aimed to keep lower income earners afloat. In the short term these subsidies will be good but in the long term these subsidies will help keep the wage gap quite large. to shrink the wage gap a thought about progressive tax could be introduced. Taxing higher income earners more than lower income earners will over time shrink the gap. This would be even more important considering an increase in the gap with certain people benefiting from the pandemic and other people not. I still believe that not too much intervention occurs so there is competition, as in there is a will to work longer and harder with differing incomes. Boosting the economy, which is important
Gilbert

# data[].attributes.body
The Federal Government should intervene more to prevent monopolies and duopolies abusing market power and misusing consumers, prevent inequality and prevent negative externalities from climate change and pollution.

Regulations and taxes on large companies allow consumers to determine price and demand through purchasing habits, this prevents larger companies from becoming major monopolies.

Inequality causes poverty and social class division. These social costs lead to people with lower incomes to spend a high proportion of their income, but high-income earners will spend less because they have a higher disposable income. Inequality has economic benefits such as maximisation of utilisation and allowing for an increase in capital goods by saving money. Labour forces are able to train and educate more and workers will work for more hours more efficiently, creating a higher output.

The Government can also intervene more to prevent the negative externalities from climate change. The social costs of climate change are increased health problems from hot weather, less needs and wants to be satisfied by the depleting resources, environmental refugees, loss of houses and community facilities and an increase in unemployment. These negative externalities cause a decline in economic growth from reduced spending and .With Government intervention through education and training, taxing companies that don’t use renewable energy, giving incentives for renewable energy and setting fines for pollution, these negative externalities can be avoided. Though the economy will decline in the short  term, in the long term the economy can grow with the preservation of resources and the prevention of climate change.

The Government needs to intervene to prevent negative externalities from large companies abusing market power, inequality, depletion in resources and climate change.

-       Shirin

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the government shouldn't intervene any less then they are already. The way in which the government is intervening at the moment in regards to "red-tape" helps to keep consumers safe and prevent them from being exploited by producers. I do think in some areas such as the healthcare sector the government should be involved more to make sure that everyone has access to medical care that suits their needs. This would include looking at the aged care sector to better care for the elderly and make sure that they are being properly looked after and also intervening to ensure that all public hospitals have the resources that they require. This would need extra funding to work and thus the government may have to consider increasing taxes or implement a higher medicare levee.
Charlie

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the government should intervene more in the market to reduce the income wealth that is present between the lower income earners and the higher income earners. By implementing the progressive income tax, the government could fix this market failure. The tax on lower income earners would be minimised whilst the income on higher income earners would increase. Further bringing the final income of both classes closer together. At the current rate, lower income earners contribute to the economy less than higher income earners, due to being tighter and careful with their money. If the government was to subsidise these lower income earners. This would allow them to spend more freely and contribute to the economy. This change wouldn't change the wealth gap, but it would however get everyone contributing with small governmental interference. -Sam

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the government should intervene more in the economy. This will work to remedy the market failures present in our economy.
- One market failure present in our society is the gap between the rich and poor. Implementing policies such as the progressive income tax is a good step forward, but more change needs to happen to make smaller the gap between the two, especially following the impacts of the corona virus pandemic. JobKeeper and JobSeeker are examples of government programs which aim to support lower income bracket consumers who were affected by the pandemic. Maintaining or increasing these programs will help to continue to support these people.
- Another example of a market failure is climate change, which is a negative externality of industrialisation. Our consumption of fossil fuels is leading to global warming, which will lead to more natural disasters (specifically bushfires that occured in Australia in 2019-2020) and damage to ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef and parts of central Australia responsible for agricultural products. The government needs to offer subsidies for renewable resources, such as solar and wind power, which will incentivise businesses and individuals to use them over non-renewables, like coal and oil.
-meg

# data[].attributes.body
Government intervention should be more prevalent in the market, for it can address market failures such as the present inequalities in income distribution.  I believe that the government should intervene more greatly in the education sector (public vs private), so all members of society can have the same opportunities, regardless of their social capital. The difference in funding between public and independent schools is vast, with independent schools receiving 75% of federal funding, on top of large compulsory fees that are paid by students’ families. The substantial difference in funding between public and independent schools often has detrimental impacts on students in the public sector. They have a shortage of educational materials, teaching staff, and infrastructure which negatively impacts student learning and reflects in lower levels of academic performance. This means that students in this education system have limited opportunities to become successful once they have left school. The current level of government intervention means that independent schools promote inequality and social stratification, with one’s socioeconomic status impacting their educational outcomes. Affluent families can send their children to independent schools, who, due to a greater standard of education, achieve well in life and hence produce another wealthy generation. Consequently, society becomes stratified. This becomes generational, where families become fixed in the lower class, henceforth not establishing high social capital for their children and fixing them with a low socioeconomic too. Therefore, the government should intervene by substantially increasing public school funding or providing more scholarships, to reduce the present inequalities between the public and private education system.
A downside to this is that the quality of private education may not be any better than public, making parents unwilling to send their children to private schools.
Annabel

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the governent shouldn't interfere more than it already does, but rather readress their priorities. Government interference to adress market failures is absolutely neccessary. What needs to be thought about is what areas specifically need the most intervention and possibly a reallocation of funding. By doing this we can allocate resources where they are needed most, which is kind of what the governement is doing with taxes and equitable distribution of wealth. While it would be easy to say to tax the rich more, if I had worked for my money i should be able to enjoy it, and it is incredibly hard to differntiate those who work hard and those who don't, so this may not be an equitable solution for generating more government funds. Billionares definitely should be taxed more, as they have enough money to satisfy all of their consumer wants (higher tax brackets necessary). Areas such as the millitary also get an overproportionate ammount of government funding, so rather than adding more government intervention, the focus could be on redistrubtuion of their funding, such as taking it out of the military and into other sectors. Three main issues I would focus on would be poverty, the gap between the rich and the poor and the environment. The money could be used to improve government services that aid these sectors. This would lead to better social outcome, with the government intervening the same ammount.
Jade

# data[].attributes.body
The Federal Government should intervene more in the market than it currently is. I believe the government's policies that are put in place specifically to decrease the gap between the rich and poor (social welfare payments and the progressive income tax policy) are effective, as they are decreasing the gap and the inequality that is left has benefits such as providing incentives for the labour market to increase their level of skills and education and to be more productive as they wish to earn a higher income. In my opinion, the government should look for ways to maximise environmental and social benefits in other areas. For example, the consumption of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming and the possibility of decline in utility (satisfaction) in future generations as less wants will be able to be satisfied. For these reasons, the government should aim to shift consumer spending towards renewable energy. They could do this by subsiding renewable energy where they could afford this through taxing fossil fuels. Moreover, the government could maximise social benefits in some areas such as aged care. They could do this through raising the requirements to work in the industry and raising the prices for course requirements such as TAFE courses to pay for better resources in the industry. (Macey)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the government should intervene more in the market, especially after COVID has affected it. Lower income earners were hit particularly hard after the virus, while some higher income earners benefitted off the pandemic. The JobKeeper and JobSeeker programs are good at first, but they do not fix the economic equality in our society, as they simply help society revert back to unequal normality. To balance the already large gap between the poor and the wealthy, the government should modify the existing progressive tax system to introduce higher brackets of income where the super wealthy will have to pay higher taxes. An alternative solution would be for anyone earning above 1 million dollars a year to donate a minimum of $5,000 to a charity of their choice, so they know exactly where their money is going and makes them feel more charitable instead of the government taking it from them.
- Max

# data[].attributes.body
Because government intervention ultimately helps address market failures (e.g. externalities) and has broader applications (e.g. can minimize income distribution disparity) there is a need for it. (Noting that with more intervention comes less room for government error). For example, in the labour market, there are provisions like the minimum wage (which represents government interference to prevent the exploitation of workers) but here, the government intervention has failed to eliminate market failure as it has resulted in business closures and the loss of jobs (as the cost of production increases). Overall, less government intervention could result in exploitation of workers (i.e. not enough income to maintain a proper standard of living etc), no training subsidy's (potentially less social mobility.) But more government intervention could have a negative affect on consumer sovereignty (as the government essentially decides what is produced) and the cost of production would go up. Therefore, I believe there should not necessarily be less government intervention, but rather, government intervention should be limited so as not to encroach too much into areas like consumer sovereignty.
-E

# data[].attributes.headline
It is believed that a limited amount of government intervention is necessary for the operation of an economy. Ultimately, the government intervenes to counteract the effects of market failure and the social costs it has on society. With more intervention comes macroeconomic considerations. For example, I believe that less intervention should be involved in the Aged Care sector, because in order to improve quality of care, the government requires funding which comes from tax payers and increasing the levels of taxes. This represents a leakage in the circular flow of income, as consumers have less disposable income. The government could spend more on this sector by cutting funding to another, but this also has consequences. It is clear how, in this case, less intervention would prevent involving multiple sectors and the economy as a whole. More intervention is necessary for protecting individuals and is focused on the quality of individuals’ lives rather than on the whole economy. For example, government intervention is needed to decrease inequality with factors such as progressive taxation. This is ultimately to improve living standards of those with lower income. (Lakshana)

# data[].attributes.subject
It is believed that a limited amount of government intervention is necessary for the operation of an economy. Ultimately, the government intervenes to counteract the effects of market failure and the social costs it has on society. With more intervention comes macroeconomic considerations. For example, I believe that less intervention should be involved in the Aged Care sector, because in order to improve quality of care, the government requires funding which comes from tax payers and increasing the levels of taxes. This represents a leakage in the circular flow of income, as consumers have less disposable income. The government could spend more on this sector by cutting funding to another, but this also has consequences. It is clear how, in this case, less intervention would prevent involving multiple sectors and the economy as a whole. More intervention is necessary for protecting individuals and is focused on the quality of individuals’ lives rather than on the whole economy. For example, government intervention is needed to decrease inequality with factors such as progressive taxation. This is ultimately to improve living standards of those with lower income. (Lakshana)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the government should intervene more in training and education. With more equality in the quality and quantity of education and training created through scholarships and increased funding into the public schooling sector. This allows for increased mobility between social classes and more opportunity, particularly to those of lower socio-economic background to lift their standard of living and have a greater contribution to the community. Improved and consistent training and education increases the nation's human capitol and evens out the playing field, so that hardworking and motivated people can be successful, not just those of a wealthy background.  Governments should also intervene to secure local supply chains in manufacturing, food and energy production. Subsidies allow businesses to establish themselves and become globally competitive in the market. This also creates jobs and supports the economy as a long term investment. It also provides economic security in times of crisis such as during the COVID-19 pandemic which prevented international imports and exports. Governments intervention is also necessary to preserve natural environments and prevent climate change. In the short term, environmental policies may result in a reduction of economic growth, increased prices and decreased supply. Governments need to incentivise businesses to adapt their procedures to minimise negative externalities and protect the environment which in the long term has better outcomes globally by subsidising for businesses to sustainably operate whilst improving environmental outcomes. It is important for the government to intervene and support hardworking citizens at a disadvantage due to their socio economic status without disincentivizing wealthy people who also work hard to earn their money and status. (Izzy)

# data[].attributes.body
I believe in more government intervention in the market than what there currently is. More government intervention provides for less of a gap between the rich and the poor, as far as education and training is concerned, and public goods. More government intervention also provides for reduced inequality, and thus reducing social costs of inequality (inequality of opportunity, tensions between social classes, higher levels of crime and social disorder, wage disputes between employers, etc etc). More government intervention would also provide for increased utility (increased satisfaction with value of income -higher income = higher savings). Government regulations also help to protect both workers and consumers, i.e. Fair Work Act 2009, Work Health & Safety Act 2011, Competition & Consumer Act 2010, etc, etc.
(Nick)

# data[].attributes.body
The government should not intervene any less that it currently does. Re-allocation of resources through methods such as progressive income tax, addressing market failures and abuse of market power are all positive ways that the government intervenes. Progressive income tax is where different levels income earners are taxed more and their money is re distributed into the economy (lower income - lower tax, higher income - higher tax). By doing so, lower income earners are presented with more opportunities through training/education and welfare programs, which overall stimulates the economy and improves it in the long run. Additionally, government policies also help to protect the environment (through taxes and subsidies, bans on production). For example, the government could intervene more by subsidising renewable energy providers and by placing more extreme taxes on non-renewable providers as they cause many negative externalities such as pollution. (Delanie)

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the Government should intervene in the market much more than it currently does. Currently there is gross income inequality between the rich and the poor amplified by the Covid-19 pandemic. Many Australian billionaires are billionaires purely based on luck or advantages they have received throughout their lives. I do not see how someone who earns greater than $500,000 a year has worked any harder than a cleaner earning $40,000 a year or a teacher earning $80,000 a year. To try and equalize the wages people receive government should tax the rich higher rates (e.g create 2 or 3 more tax brackets where people are taxed at higher rates) for the good of poorer and less advantaged people. The money the rich give up not only goes to less advantaged people but would help improve government provided services such as parks, public amenities, schools and hospitals etc. (James)

# data[].attributes.body
I don't think the government should intervene any less than it currently is, because it would put many people at a disadvantage and take away benefits that society currently enjoys. For example, the progressive tax system distributes wealth and income across the economy, and without it the gap between rich and poor is wider. If this was taken away, there would be far less support for people who are struggling and the wealthy would continue to expand their businesses and generate even more wealth, shifting more of the economy's wealth towards them and away from the poor. Whilst many people think there is too much government intervention, I think that the current level is good, but if they were to intervene more it should be for a good reason, e.g. managing the economy + regulations, externalities & government services (healthcare, education), in order to benefit society. (Thomas)