The grand flaw in all discussion of "reforming the tax base" is that it starts from a states'-eye point of view, and assumes that the problem is how to keep increasing the funds that are taken from the productive class, and channelled into the hands of the political class without limit to spend however they want.

As the political class grants itself an immunity, in their official capacity, from the laws against misleading and deceptive conduct, it means that all discussion is conducted with a licence of fraudulent misrepresentation.

At no stage is there any consideration of the proper starting point, namely, what governments should be doing or not doing in the first place. What would stop them from taking money they don't need, and wasting it? In other words, the concept of limitations on government power is missing from the whole discussion. They expect their claims of "Gimme gimme gimme" to be taken presumptively as being about the public interest.

Politicians are so used to talking in their echo chamber of blatant dishonesty, that when they wander out into the community doing the same, they don't realise what an exhibition of fools and charlatans they are making of themselves.

As a member of Peter Hendy's electorate, I can affirm that he is a disingenuous slimeball typical of politicians, won't answer a question, won't respond to constituents, and when he does, it's with a form letter giving a standard spiel ignoring everything that was said, and reiterating his view that government is the master and the people's role is just to shut up and keep paying for it.

Peter, the other glaringly obvious option for tax reform is to simply present the electors at each election with a list of government departments and sections and personnel, together with how much they cost, and a tick-a-box asking which offices should be abolished.

That would enable you to verify or falsify your assumption that you represent the electorate, wouldn't it?

The best solution is to replace the GST with another option that the Hawke government considered but eventually ruled out for political reasons: a broad based land tax. As this would have to be phased in slowly, a temporary rise in income tax would be needed to cover the gap.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine, your problem is that you wrongly perceive there to be a separate productive class and political class; the real objective should be to enable everyone to become more productive.

Keeping governments starved of funds doesn't make them more efficient, it makes them pursue false economies. Sometimes these even result in the loss of the capability to operate efficiently.

Yep the main requirement is an injection of guts into Tony & the crew to allow them to make the decision to cut, cut, cut.

We need to get rid of all the booby traps in additional spending Gillard & Co. locked into forward planning. The NDIS, Gonski, the NBN, the libs know it is garbage spending, & we can't afford it, but they have lost the gumption to do what is necessary.

Hell even Newman in Queensland got rid of more useless Labor added public bureaucrats then the feds.

They may be starting with the announce of defunding a host of useless NGOs, but we will have to see a lot more to make the difference necessary.

New taxes, garbage, we have too many now. Pry some useless mouths off the taxpayer teat, that is what is needed.

It's assumed that indirect tax is the GST! Why? And by who?

Those who want it to be so perhaps?

The ATO or equally unproductive Tax Practitioners perhaps, terrified at the end of the endless and growing gravy train of entirely unearned income, our overly complex system invariably creates!

Or could that claim be being made by state politicians, aware that we just don't need a middle tier of official administration, and could far better use the 70 odds billions per, we'd save with their passing, and without sacrificing so much as a single service!

As for the claim, but minister, we can't jettison state governments!
What prevents that beside state bureaucrats or their serving ministers?

We the people can do what we the people dam well like!

Little wonder there's so much resistance to a bill of irrevocable rights, which would automatically have to include a citizens initiated referendum!

And try telling the passing parade going through ICAC, that we the people, wouldn't be far better served, winding up our extremely costly, and obviously broken state parliamentary system.

With just one notable exception, we are the most over-governed nation on earth!
Even so, the conservatives endlessly waffle on about small government!

When perhaps what they really mean is outsourced government; particularly where that provides financial benefits for the ruling class/mates/cronies!?

I have spoken at length about tax reform, and the inherent advantages of a single stand alone expenditure tax system, not the least of which would be ending tax all avoidance and the destiny of demography, forever!

Oh and given the endless prevarication/lack of any real action, we don't seem to like any of that either? Hmm?

A very wise man once said, at some point complexity becomes fraud!

Makes you wonder why so many senior politicians seem to have so much trouble introducing real reform or the very transparency that would declare it, actual real tax reform!? Eh?
Rhrosty.

The biggest mouths clamped permanently on the taxpayer's teat Has, are entirely non essential tax practitioners and the ATO!

If we had a single stand alone indirect taxation system, the first two groups that would be made entirely redundant are these extremely costly two!

Nobody is entitled to a free lunch, let alone a guaranteed living, and by doing entirely (dig a hole fill a hole/one for you one for me) unproductive work!
Tens of billions far better spent at the coal face, as a far better defense budget i.e!
Rhrosty

Aidan, your problem is that you think North Korea is the ideal form of government. We have already established that your drivel about governmental efficiency, and its supposed superiority at economising, has no rational basis, and conceives no rational limit on government power.