Scotty; the difference between the future public pension liability covered by the Future Fund is that it is known and can be estimated in its size. Whilst in principle a national disaster fund sounds great (and I thought so too until further thought on the matter), the issue is that natural disasters are not predictable events, and even if you can guess when, say, the next flood might hit, then predictions for the economic impact are nearly impossible to get right, let alone in the right order of magnitude.
Regarding the levy, I will say it again: I believe it is a great piece of progressive taxation (ignoring, for a second, whether you think it is right or wrong). It kicks in at a minimal amount for only every dollar over $50k, then for every dollar over $100k it kicks up again (but only for those dollars over $100k), so in actuality it is not "means tested" at all. The vibe I am getting is that you think it's unfair that the highly paid pay more. With a good piece of progressive taxation, the amount they pay more scales fairly, so I fail to see the argument. I would not consider the medicare levy, for example, a good piece of progressive taxation, rather it is what you said the levy is - that is, means tested.
Additionally, whilst raiding the Future Fund, which is covering a known and predictable future liability, can be seen and proven to be bad (based on the known future shortfall), raiding a fund which is providing for an unknown liability for an event that may or may not ever happen is much more politically bearable. Every four years I would place a bet that both parties would be raiding the natural disaster fund to pay for election promises.
I never spoke out in support of a bank tax, and I don't think I would. The difference between mining and other tax revenue is that mining is a "temporary" (or finite) industry, and when it disappears in the future you see how badly it has distorted the economy (eg Dutch disease, which we have already seen in Australia). Let's face it, Australia's exports are propped up by the mining industry, we were saved by digging up dirt and China's increased speculative liquidity flowing into our commodity prices. It's sad to see our economy lampooned as digging up dirt and selling houses. It's hardly a sustainable future. I support the MRRT, but it needs to be invested in two things: 1) supporting industries distorted by the mining industry (and this is VERY hard), and 2) establish a fund to promote other industries (eg manufacturing, science and technology, agriculture, and so ) to replace the space / slack in the economy once the mining is gone. This is very hard, as: 1) mining is very capital intensive, 2) it employs a low number of people for the capital it requires, and 3) those people it employs are specialists and will need retraining. Our workforce, as it stands, is already very inflexible.
TBH; really, a government can aim to merely balance the books and be content that inflation and economic growth will decrease the debt in nominal terms over time, such that its real monetary value in the future is decreased. This is how countries like the US think that they can pay their debt going forward. Good luck to them, because they are screwed. But yeah, based on how the current inflation targeting works from the central bank, running a large surplus is not required; just balancing the books or even a deficit less than inflation and growth works.
Elfster; I think we are slowly heading towards end game with the GFC. Thanks to Bernanke (that is, QE) and China, we are seeing hot money flow into commodities and equities, and as a result we are seeing inflation around the world start to spike. We are not at the deflation v inflation end game yet, but the shit those guys are causing the world is starting to manifold itself. For example, increasing food costs are a combination of climate change and the aforementioned hot money leaking into world food prices, and as a result we see increased political unrest in Tunisia, Egypt, and so on. Thanks to the US, I think we now are looking at a potential world hyper inflationary event instead of a deflationary one. You can bet that the Fed won't have the balls to jack those rates once further inflation flows into the US, so the one thing I can see stopping them now is congress vetoing a QE3.
