The article is not adequately specific. What are the percentages based on, total population, working age people, or taxpayers or what?

The top 1% of the adults includes CEOs, medical specialists and probably even accountants who think that they are worth $280+ per hour for fiddling the tax returns of the wealthy.

The bottom 20% of the population includes those who form the 14% (plus) of the working age population who are either without a job or have low paying or part time jobs. For an ancient senior I do very well but the tax system works very much in my favour and this year I paid tax for the first time for years.

To protect the young form the pariahs, each investment property should be treated as a separate entity and only allowed deductions up to the level of the rent income received.

Those on the right love capital value inflation and income form such sources is taxed after on year at 50% of the rate applicable to "hard earned" income.

Great start to Richard Holden's essay. All options on the table. But the introduction of 'obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans' into his article failed to deliver the promise of a new dawn. The spin doctors use the term 'progressive' tax for something which is anything but progressive. To tax employment at increasingly higher rates as income levels increase ignores a powerful human drive called 'motivation'. What about our tax reviewers/reformers examine a 'what-if' situation. What if the government was deprived of the tool with which it has manipulated voters over the years in order to buy power. Our 'progressive' tax system has become so complex, few voters can comprehend anything but the siren call of Vote 1 for me and I will tax those dreaded rich people and give you your share of the loot. The financial year constraints on buying and selling would disappear. There could be an ASX agency beside every TAB in every pub in the country. People could back a company as easily as backing a horse. The horse race is over when rhe horses pass the Finish Post. The company race is over when you sell your shares.
A 2% Spending tax is the only way to ensure economic activity is fairly taxed. Multinationals would pay the same rate of tax as locals. It eliminates the futile exercise of measuring and taxing the elusive profit.
With acknowledgement to Baroness Emma Orczy
The Taxman's Lament
We seek it here we seek it there, that damned elusive profit
But profit can be anywhere, both on-shore and off it.

A simple, fair, consistent method of funding government has been exhaustively modeled. A 2% Spending tax, where the buyer pays the seller 2% extra for each exchange of ownership of goods, services, property and labour could replace the 9 major taxes on profit and employment. The proposal was submitted to the Hawke 1985 Tax Summit and ignored. A new analysis of the 2014 Federal and State budgets shows that a 2% Spending tax would still more than adequately fund government and stimulate the motivation to produce and exchange wealth.

It seems that this article is mainly about how governments try to raise revenue.

The first system is through taxation and it is highly doubtful that anyone in the top tax bracket is actually paying 46% of their income in taxation.

Many high income earners have the ability to channel income into trusts and or companies, thereby minimising the amount of taxation that they pay.

The second system is through gambling, gambling gives the low income earner the seductive promise of being able to raise their standard of living through a lucky win. Whilst governments scoop a percentage of dollars gambled.

In the end gambling is another form of taxation on the poor.

I think a reality check is in order.
The simple unavoidable fact is, governments get elected by promising to lower taxes.
Governments get unelected by threatening to raise taxes.
And “wealth redistribution” is an ugly term.
Changing the tax system is nothing more than a bandaid solution. The problems are much deeper than that.
Instead of looking for ways to get money back from the obscenely rich, we should be looking at ways to stop them purloining an unfair share of OUR money in the first place. Industrial democracy, as practised by such institutions as the Mondragon co-operative in Spain are very effective in reducing the gulf between those at the top and those at the bottom.
We have allowed institutions (corporations, local governments, governments...) to get too big. The taller the pyramid the greater the abyss between those at the apex and those at the base, who then become little more than cannon fodder.
A serious ACCC with the ability to stop all anti competitive behaviour -such as mergers and takeovers, and companies buying other companies in general- would do a great deal to stop the egregious inequality.
And following the example of Singapore, for instance, will be inevitable if we wish governments to continue to supply services. If -realistically- taxes must continue to fall, governments must be permitted to become shareholders in profitable companies. Singapore has very low personal tax rates simply because the Singapore gov. has a finger in almost every corporate pie.
The idea that governments can't usefully invest in companies or even run companies is demonstrably rubbish. Our second largest Telco is 100% government owned, -just not by our government. This means everyone in Australia with an Optus account is subsidising the tax payers of Singapore.
Keating's idea of compulsory superannuation wasn't a bad one; insisting that it should be run by private companies was a terrible one. It is now mandatory for every taxpayer to give a percentage of their income to a bunch of suits, so they can play silly buggers with other people's money.
And tough luck if they screw up.

The Top 10% paying 46% Tax is a Paper Myth. In order to reduce their 46% because it's too high, these people channel their income into all sorts of Tax Reduction schemes & end up pay SBA. Those of us at the bottom end of the scale end up paying more than the Top 10% on average.

Therefore, I propose a 10% Tax on Gross Earnings for everyone. No deductions for anything for any reason.

Well, perhaps the header should read, how to raise more revenue, without destroying lucrative tax practices, or making the ATO redundant!?
Because that's what real tax reform would achieve; and requires, and save an average 7%, currently clawed from the averaged bottom line by TAX compliance costs!
Simply put, a stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax of around 18%, would end the need for any compliance costs, making the effective rate just 11% in real terms.
Arguably, he lowest real tax rate in the developed world.
And arguably the only way to end all of the current rorts; like having the same bundle of money chase its tail through several subsidiaries, in order to create the illusion of cash flow, or costs.
One to fool the bankers to lend more money, to a company that might be trading insolvent; or the ATO, into believing these same companies, are running at a significant loss!?
Depending whether the cost or profit ledgers (clever accounting) are tended or emphasized?
And only possible, given both the banking fraternity and the ATO, treat each company, as an entirely separate entity! (and part of the problem.)
Then we have the practice of creating an offshore entity, that then provides a "service" for which exorbitant rates are charged against the parent company profits!
Parent company lending is anther way to BURY profits!
Another is setting aside money for future capital expenditure, which then disappears as so called service costs/commercial interest on borrowings etc/etc!
And then we wonder, why as much as 40% of foreign based companies allegedly pay no or very little company tax to anyone.
When it comes to free enterprise, we live in a world without borders, except when it comes to very professional tax avoidance.
We can add complication after complication, (loophole after loophole) and lift the service business and robber baron brokers incomes quite massively, all while compounding the destiny of demography!
Or we can get real, grow a great big new set of cohones, and just jettison all the convoluted complexity in favor of a stand alone unavoidable expenditure tax.
Rhrosty. Continued.