Currently there is an unavoidable levy imposed on some folk and all business!

It's called tax compliance costs!

And it rips an average whopping 7% (perhaps the entire profit margin) from the averaged bottom line!?

All that makes it necessary is the mind numbing complexity of our current and avoidable tax system!

The total tax take from all sources is just 4% of the GNP?

And if the GNP is an accurate measure of our combined total expenditure?

Then an expenditure tax of just 5%, will not only raise more tax but eliminate the cost of compliance and reconciliation, which would be no longer necessary!

And argued against most ferociously for that reason, by the unproductive parasitic tax industry?

We had no problem, when abandoning the footwear and textile industries, for alleged sound economic reasons; and therefore, using the same rational, neither should we protect any other, but particularly when they present as a very real handbrake on economic growth?

With their ultra complex paradigm?

A very wise man once said, at some point complexity always become fraud, and this, I believe, ably assisted fraud is currently costing the budget bottom line around an estimated 60 billion plus per!

And as fast as we close one loophole, thanks to the very complexity of our system!

The tax lawyers open another?

Time to end all that rubbish, with a system that is unavoidable!

By adopting an entirely unavoidable system; even if the big corporations and tax avoiding entities/sham religions hate it, because they can't avoid it!

The reason for all the risible rubbish and obfuscation this idea is endlessly subjected to!?

Wait for it, we will be no doubt informed that the GDP is different than the GNP, and when measured against the former the proposed tax is higher?

Surprise surprise, when you measure a percentile against a smaller number, you always get a higher result!

I should know given I needed just that sort of maths, hundreds of times a day, to make sense out of some of the analysis results that once earned me a living!
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, why do you keep posting the ludicrous claim that "The total tax take from all sources is just 4% of the GNP"?

I've pointed out your error before. How many times do I have to keep doing so before you take any notice?

Aidan, I bow to the superior wisdom of The ATO, who reportedly were the source of the number as a percentile of the GNP?

Now that you've been found out trying to substitute the GDP for the GNP, the number apparently used by the ATO?

All you have left is the resort of scoundrels, a personal attack?

Given your repeated attacks, can we take it you earn some or all your income inside the patently redundant tax industry, with plenty to lose if we were just sensible enough to adopt a stand alone, unavoidable system!?

I dare you to say it isn't so, for you, your spouse or member of your immediate family?

In which case, what are your real reasons for objecting to fairer simpler tax, not open the the usual avoidance by the usual avoiders?

I mean to say, even the Mafia, made sure they kept impeccable books given they didn't want to face prison, for simply cooking the books!

I simply refuse to stop continuing making a valid case for real tax reform, just because the ATO may have pulled the site with the confirming numbers?

Fortunately I am not the only one to have seen the published numbers!?

And others who memory is more reliable than yours seems to be, can bear witness to my own memory, which I assure is usually ultra reliable!

I might be inclined to listen to some of your abusive raving, if you could present a better simpler fairer system, and then tolerate the ravings of imbeciles who just don't want it to be so?

New ideas is not what you are all about is it?

Seriously, there are better places for those with number crunching skills than something as unproductive as handing back tax that is just over collected by a fundamentally flawed tax collection system!

Which I take given your endless robust objections, you want to keep?
Rhrosty

Rhosty,

GDP and GNP aren't very different in Australia. GNP (aka GNI) was $378376 million in the second quarter of 2015, while GDP for the quarter was $402310 million

Sources: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/gross-national-product and http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/1345.0?opendocument?opendocument#from-banner=LN

So despite the personal attacks you made (FWIW I don't make a living from tax accounting, and nor does anyone in my family AFAIK) it seems pretty clear to me that you misunderstood the long lost document you remember.

As well as being an unjustified intrusion into our freedom, a drag on business and a wrecking ball through the economy that would force our financial services industry offshore and create a huge black market in foreign currency transactions, your repugnant tax plan wouldn't even bring in much revenue.

What more do you need to convince you to drop it?

I remember when you claimed, that an expenditure tax, would just be a turnover tax by another name?

And you think the ubiquitous GST isn't?

I remember that before it was rammed down our collective throat and posing as genuine tax reform the GST was resisted by 87% of those polled, who dumbly believed that their will would count for something!

I remember John Howard his the first telcom address after the imposition of his GST, and when asked, why he prefered the GST?

Replied,"well it was either the GST or a transaction tax. And the transaction tax was thought to be regressive".

The first consequence of the GST's implementation was a huge downturn, that required a first home buyer grants to get the economy moving again.

This economic illerate claimed that pensioners would be compensated for the estimated $900.00 they would lose each year; but only handed back $450.00.

I remember when one well know economist, claimed that a one third of one percent taken as a transaction tax, would enable PAYE to be entirely jettisoned!

Which went down well with the unwashed masses; given it would also effectively end the government's ability to build a budget via bracket creep!

I also remember other economists, who reckoned 2% taken as a transaction tax, would replace all current tax measures.

And resisted to a virtual man by the ATO and tax practitioners, who are owed a living as virtual unproductive parasites? Right?

Which would collect more tax, a 2% transaction tax or a 5% expenditure tax, given both were made unavoidable and without exception for any reason?

I help you a little bit. A 2% transactions tax collected via the banking fraternity will raise around the same money as a 4% expenditure tax, given the latter is only taken as money exists accounts; whereas in the former both in and out!

Sexy isn't it? I don't care which one we adopt, just that an expenditure tax encourages savings and can replace interest rate adjustments; as a better more immediate/effective means to control inflation or stagnation, via microscopic adjustment!?
Rhrosty.

I also remember how John Howard justified the imposition of his Ubiquitous and cascading GST, by claiming, it was needed to replace lost returns, that were once paid by the corporate sector, 95% of which had offshored their operations taking their tax liabilities with them.

And shrewdly guaranteed its implementation by making it exclusive state revenue!

I entirely reject your assertions/straw man arguments relative to the economy, which instead would surely blossom as never before, by the accompanying jettisoning of all other tax measures and tax compliance costs, which by the way average around 7% of the averaged bottom line!

I'm not talking about imposing a new additional tax, just reform that will end the multinationals and others ability to avoid their liability!

If the 95% who according to John Howard, offshored their operations just to avoid a fairshare of a common tax burden; were suddenly no longer able to do so, how much additional revenue could we collect?

And here I'm not talking about the 60 billions per avoided by too smart by half avoidance, by firms still operating from here!?

If I've unfairly accused you of a vested interest in the status quo, with it's convoluted complexity and a virtual loophole on every page, I apologize.

But never ever for wanting real reform, or a fairer simpler means to collect all our tax!

We need to avoid the destiny of demography; and seriously, the only way to accomplish that is by unsaddling the individual taxpayer as opposed to more weight in the saddle bag!

And just placing the entire burden on the broader economy.

Which as the first consequence will hugely improve discretionary spending and the economic growth that alone supports;rather than your doomsday scenario!
Rhrosty.