It isn't up to everyone to decide, everyone doesn't get to decide where their money is spent, politicians and their agents decide, that is the whole point!
Basic contract law is that criminal contracts are unenforceable, such as person A making a contract with person B to rob person C. Your so called social contract is an attempt to legitimise crime against third parties. I won't be a dupe to the politics of obedience or pretend the emperor is wearing a fine outfit. What we have are rules for some rules for others. A private person prints money it is called counterfeiting, the government does it, it is called monetary policy. A private person robs another it is called theft, he government does it, it is called taxation. A private person buys and sells stolen goods it is called fencing stolen property, the government does it, it's called redistribution. You might not like harsh reality, but it's there for all to see. Pretending theft isn't theft doesn't change what's really going on.
Those people are not dying because aid is decreasing they are dying because of the horrible conditions they have to live in. By all means donate all you wish and encourage others, choose the organisation you think is doing the best job of it, but don't think yourself virtuous because you'd rob someone with the intentions of helping others. Government aid programs won't solve destitution and war, and it is very questionable how effective they are.
Semantics, the tax cut won't have the desired effect, i.e. tax revenue will drop! Perhaps we should increase the tax rate by 1.5%? Surely tax revenue will increase, a great result for Australia (whatever that's supposed to mean?). Then perhaps in a few years time, surely another small increase will be another boon! Then perhaps again in a few more years? Let's forget about the Australian business' shall we? Perhaps NSW should tax those nasty foreign Victorian companies!
So again, it is obvious that you are using tax revenue as your basis of determining the goodness of budget policy, which goes back to the question of where is money best spent, private individuals or politicians and their army of bureaucrats? Answering this question requires an understanding of the nature of man and economic law. You seem to think that arbitrary judgement trumps economic theory. To quote Murray Rothbard,
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialised discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance."
