Comparing Aus to Sth Korea & the USA is interesting -

Sth Korea is a much smaller country geographically with twice the population. The USA is similar to, or even worse than, Australia in terms of having multiple states with multiple levels of govt (hardly any small govt in either place, despite the libertarians desire for such while lauding the USA).

Blame-shifting to Labor & the Greens is disingenuous, as is talking about a 'tax "burden"' and some nebulous "politics of envy."

The notion that modest increases in taxation to address the Primary issue of lower govt revenue, such as modest income tax increases, would cause "huge damage" is also spurious.

Especially when the Howard and Rudd (Mk 1) govts reduced taxation: many people were commenting on media sites & comment-pages such as Online Opinion they would rather the govt didn't provide tax cut and put the money to infrastructure and services (such as education and health).

Employing more ATO staff is hardly a big issue, if one at all.

The issue of "a Commonwealth tax on mining encroaching on the States' tax base" is best dealt with by doing away with the States level-of-govt

My point about the Howard-Costello tax cuts are highlighted by these articles -

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/federal-budget-2013-howard-era-tax-cuts-keeping-budget-in-red-independent-modelling-shows/story-fn84fgcm-1226641523508

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/grudnoff---budget/4691932

The effects of the Bush-era tax cuts are highlighted by these articles -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/bush-era-tax-cuts-revenue-expire_n_1828657.html

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/are-tax-cuts-good-or-bad-for-the-economy--161158700.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/revisiting-the-cost-of-the-bush-tax-cuts/2011/05/09/AFxTFtbG_blog.html

Nonsense about Australia being high taxed. It is low taxed; second lowest of 22 OECD countries, at about 28% of GDP.
http://www.tai.org.au/?q=node/277

To increase tax take, Government should first do away with the unfair middle class and corporate welfare given by the Howard Govt:
- Negative gearing on established homes
- taxing only half of profits made from speculation - shares and property

This would deliver over $6 billion

- Reduce the amount per year that high income people can put away in superannuation at 15% rather than their marginal tax rate. It should be a few thousand voluntary contributions not 50,000 - that would deliver several billion more in tax.

The above points are recommended by the Murray Inquiry

- Index and increase fuel tax. Coalition has my support in bringing back indexation. This 'user pays' tax would also mitigate traffic congestion

- Introduce a modest but increasing- revenue neutral carbon tax on electricity generation and vehicle fuel, starting at about $12/ tonne CO2e; this works well and is popular in the Canadian state of British Columbia.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2014/07/british-columbias-carbon-tax

Carbon trading schemes are unstable and open to rorts - a tax is far more efficient and gives more certainty to investors

The above two taxes are avoidable i.e. can be more than offset by being more energy efficient. They are the fairest and most effective type of tax because they are 'user pays', pro-rata.

Levying a GST on groceries and necessities thus mostly effecting the least well-off is the worst way to get more tax.

Right on Roses!
Rhrosty.

"Nonsense about Australia being high taxed. It is low taxed; second lowest of 22 OECD countries, at about 28% of GDP. "

Roses1
We have already established the dishonesty and stupidity of that argument.

According to your theory, if the tax rate was 100% - i.e. total slavery - then a country with a tax rate of 99% would "not be highly taxed".

Why did you repeat that argument, when you know it is wrong? Why don't you care that what you're saying is untrue. Plus you've done this in other threads, knowing that something is untrue, and still saying it. Admit that what you're saying is stupid and dishonest, and you knew it was when you said it.

Jardine, though a 100% tax rate would mean total lack of economic opportunity, it wouldn't equate to total slavery, as it would not destroy our right to choose what we do or don't do. And as OECD membership has been strongly associated with economic success, comparison with its other members is entirely aporopriate.