Agreed. Ken Henry has done a fine job proposing many key reforms to the tax system - especially, as you mention, with respect to land and resource taxes.

Next challenge - getting governments to act.

"Next challenge - getting governments to act." writes Cam.

A monumental challenge considering all the forces acting against changes for the good. Firstly there will be lobbyists for all the vested interests who think they may lose something because of the change, swarming around parliament house demanding to be heard, leaving politicians little time to get much work done. The lobbyists know that they only have to convince/bribe/scare a few leaders in the governing party, and whatever they want can be theirs.

Then, because of the adversarial nature of our political system, another bunch of politicians collectively known as "the opposition" will oppose whatever the government proposes, hoping to destroy public confidence in the government and all its proposals in time for the next election. The opposition will go so far as to block government legislation in the senate where the opposition is in a majority, so that the government will find it nearly impossible to get major changes passed.

Meanwhile, the mass media had agendas of its own which rarely coincide with whatever is best for the majority of Australians. It will distract us with sex scandals, wars and sport whilst pushing its own ideas without helping with any major changes the government tries to introduce.

There are some wonderful ideas that could improve Australia, but we are unlikely to see many of them implemented until we first develop a better political system, capable of serving the Australian people instead of just governing them.

What the Henry review did not say was whether the proposed land tax changes would be controversial (i.e. would lose the Government votes) or courageous (i.e. would lose it the election.)

A very large number of people consider that they are much better at spending their own money than politicians are. They want reduced government spending, which will reduce the need for any new taxes. The first item to be considered when spending cuts are mooted must always be politicians' salaries and expenses.

Another progressive move in cutting spending would be legislation which provides that all government talk-fests, international conferences and similar political time-wasters MUST be held at the Woomera Detention centre.

"Another progressive move in cutting spending would be legislation which provides that all government talk-fests, international conferences and similar political time-wasters MUST be held at the Woomera Detention centre."

Now there's an idea!

New tax models call for new business models.New business models call for new lending models in banks. New reform requires new relationship models with other nations. So many new models require new physcological models.

All this has done is de-stabilise our economy and lower our credit rating. Alone it is rejected by so many. It may make nice text book reading but change has to embrace all affected, all stake holders. So any sort of rent resource reformist would be wise to learn from the monumental error Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd have made. Did they ask China what their reaction is? the banks on how it would affect financing? Moodys for credit rating advice? The mining sector? The voting public? Nobody. It will not work in isolation.