I dont think our elected representatives have the wherewithall to see the insidious social impact our current tax system has had upon us. Our tax/welfare provisions and the persecution of those welfare 'cheats' and 'bludgers' (terms many of us use) stinks with the same indecency as the incarceration of children. We have evolved within this unfair system and dehumanised by it, the same one that allows the rich to evade tax at the expense of the poor. Not only does our taxation system embody stupendous waste, inefficiency and manpower cost, as John Tomlinson implies - it wastes us as well.

Here, here john.

Your proposed system will also do away with public housing because rent assistance would be part of the minimum wage, sorta, which means no more mac fields. This idea is so good it rocks all of our faces.

Yes Geof ,the ATO employs some 20,000 people.The tax act is thousand of pages long and not even the experts understand it.Well isn't this a cauldren for the rich to evade tax.With some much confusion,it becomes a lawyers paradise.
I think we need a turnover tax for all business,with no imput tax credits.This will bring a lot of mult- nationals into the EQUATION WHO PAY ALMOST NO TAX.Next step,make the public service more accountable.No more jobs for life and if you don't perform,find a new job.
When we have fewer lawyers and people selling us our rights and their intelligence used to productive enterprise that facilitates "The Common Good",our society will live in much more happiness and harmony.

A problem with this type of scheme is it provides a government funded payment to people regardless of their income. Recall the abolition of universal family payments and the continued attacks on the dependent spouse rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part B - there is a constituency out there who can't get their brains around universal payments. They will white-ant this kind of proposal.

Parts of the idea are great - similar concepts in Robert Heinlein's "For Us the Living" but in his novel the funding was from the money created to allow for economic expansion etc. I have never put the effort in to really try and understand the economic realities behind where new money (the concept not the printed paper) comes from so am unable to judge how viable that approach is.

It does seem likely that the proposal could reduce economic incentives for some to remain on welfare. For some others the choice is a lifestyle one, a choice made between lifestyle issues and income. For others there is little choice, some have disablities which make any kind of paid employment very difficuly. The last group should be supported by a caring society and are not the subject of the following.

The 'ridiculous suggestion that if a government gives people without income enough to live on, they are obliged “to give something back”' should be put into context with the reality that those who earn an income generally do so by sacrificing their time and are required to "give something back" by way of taxes. Is demanding that I give up some of my income to support someone who chooses not to support themselves any less unreasonable than suggesting that they give up some of their time to support society (I have more money, they have more time).

The continued taxation of those who choose to work to support those who choose not to is an approach I don't like.
- Does this proposal respect my use of time working to earn an income as much as it respects the choice of others not to do so?
- Does it allow us the same level of opportunity to experience the respective benefits and consequences of those choices?
- Is membership of this society justification alone for having basic needs met regardless of a willingness or otherwise to contribute to the tasks required to keep that society going?

The NSW Govt has doubled it's expenditure in 10yrs from $20 billion to $40 billion,a 100% increase.Now the real economy has been increasing between 3% and 3.5% per annum.Compounded over 10yrs this represents 41% increase in the real economy.Now the Govt take from that economy is more than double that of the real growth of the economy.They have had more than ever, but still don't have enough.Everyone is still asking,"Where has all the money gone?"
Michael Coster is making noises about making senior Public Servants more accountable.It is a bit too late.Why weren't they watching the growth of the PS on a yearly basis?They have already admitted to having 20% too many.Why wasn't a lid put on not only the growth of individual depts,but also the growth in the number of Depts?
It is now totally out of control and no one knows how to fix it.