Making people pay for things

they have been getting without paying for them is going to be easy?
I think not.
The Downunder government is going to demand that Google and Facebook pay for "content they use". Maybe they can but it is much more likely that we, the users, will end up paying. My own view is that, had mainstream journalists not been so arrogant, this might never have reached this state of affairs and now we will all be the poorer for it. (I know it is the opposition of the intention behind the move - but think about it, we wanted something for nothing.)
At the present time the government is also saying they won't bail out the Downunder operations of Virgin Airways. Given that the company has at least 81% foreign ownership that sounds like a good thing.  But, if the company survives, you can be sure it is the passengers who will end up paying to ensure that those who do own it can still line their pockets with cloth of gold. Why did we ever allow this sort of ownership to occur? Did we want something for nothing?
This morning there is a report in the paper of a businessman who has taken the state government to court over the removal of a small portion of railway line in the Barossa Valley - something which has put an end to any hope of reopening the rail network through the region. He has to pay for taking the government to court over the issue. They argued that a roundabout at a busy intersection was more important. I can only assume it was a cheaper short term option for them than putting in traffic lights. They have won a court case without paying for it - but at what final cost to the taxpayer?
For  years the union movement has argued that they need "better wages and conditions" - far beyond anything the first unionists were seeking. We have ended up paying for that too.
I don't know if we can recover or not. Yesterday, as I was passing, a former union representative was arguing with a former railway employee and his wife, with whom I trained as a teacher. The union representative was "really worried that everything we have fought for will be lost". The railway employee's wife looked at me in despair and then said to the union representative,
   "But we have to be able to pay for these things."
He just could not see this. "The government" must pay and continue to pay was his view. 
I am not sure where he thought the money was coming from. I am also uncertain who or what he thinks "the government" is. I thought it was us through our representatives. We have to pay for what we get. It doesn't come for nothing.
Yes, I am worried about how we will pay for the current heavy expenditure. I know why it is necessary. It is not the GFC all over again. We will pay for the demands on Google and Facebook and a lot of other things besides. If we want two major airlines then we will need to pay for those too.
It doesn't mean that we should meekly hand over billions of dollars to already wealthy people who have been lining their pockets with cloth of gold for years. They have to pay too.
When this present crisis is "over" in the sense that we can return to meeting family and friends and salvage whatever is left in the way of employment then we need to recognise we all have to pay for it. 
I don't think some wealthy business people or union representatives are going to like that.