The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The art of taxation > Comments

The art of taxation : Comments

By John Tomlinson, published 1/4/2005

John Tomlinson argues there is no difference between evading tax and fraudulently claiming social security.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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.
Posted by geof, Friday, 1 April 2005 2:37:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Penekiko, Friday, 1 April 2005 7:35:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 2 April 2005 9:09:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Spog, Saturday, 2 April 2005 10:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 4 April 2005 9:40:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 4 April 2005 10:19:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What everybody has overlooked is the fact that all taxation entails the use of force by the government to steal personal property.
Posted by RobertG, Monday, 4 April 2005 2:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
REAL tax reform simply requires the implementation of a basic Australian principle:

NO taxation WITH or WITHOUT representation, with any deficiency being made up by the sale of politicians assets.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 5 April 2005 9:17:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Always bear in mind Christopher Fildes description of what happens when you give a government money.

"It's not a mystery what they will do with it, just a question of which wall they will choose"
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 5 April 2005 4:12:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't much care if Australia is low taxed relative to the OECD. It is still taxed too highly. It is also overtaxed relative to any point in our history (recent or otherwise). This is true if we look at tax relative to GDP and certainly true if we look at per capita tax revenue in real dollar terms.

If the Howard government returned overall real dollar tax revenue to the level it was at in 1996 then they could afford to abolish income tax entirely.

The reason why many focus on Income Tax is not because its high relative to other OECD nations. Its because income tax is the most unjust and invasive of taxes.

However in the post above RobertG really said all that needed to be said on this topic
Posted by Terje, Wednesday, 6 April 2005 6:14:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have to also look at serious reform in the Public Service.Even those who work in it think it is a joke.How do we stop the growth of Govt Depts? Bureaucrats can empire build thus increase their salaries almost with impunity.How do we make our Govts more accountable?There needs to be a mutual obligation of Govt taking and spending more responsibly.We've never had so much tax and our infrastructure is stuffed.More on this latter.Work time.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 6 April 2005 7:02:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Putting productivity into our tax dollar.
The greatest waste of public money is through our public bureacrarcies.How do we break the mentality of "The Process being more important than the out comes"?
Well before "Yes Minister" people have lamented and laughed at this wasteful,stupid and illogical system.Bureaucrats get rewarded for being wasteful by creating guidelines and rules that protect their own self interest.Why not create a system that rewards them for efficiency and producing real outcomes?They have produced some much red tape in protecting their cosy system that they have tied themselves in knots,and are now doing likewise to private enterprise.
The legal system has them so scared of litigation,they are almost comatose with fear,hence new rules and regulation for all society that will eventually strangle our economy.
The struggle to get common sense and balance into our society is going to be very difficult,since many politicians are lawyers.

The wealth and efficiency created by science and technology is wasted by the self interest of do-gooders who are constantly selling us our rights.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 10:58:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Process being more important than the out comes" could be rejected in favour of "The ends justifies the means".

However I doubt that it would lead to a better world. I seem to recall a certain socialist empire in which outcomes were used to rationalise all sorts of cruelties and injustices
Posted by Terje, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 11:04:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being paid for merely existing. Now, that is novel!

All those people paying more than 30% in overall income tax would probably agree. Not because it makes overall sense, but because it would be an improvement. Sad really. For both sides of the argument.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 12 April 2005 11:23:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This senate submission is hard hitting, concise and relevant to the current discussion and John Tomlinsons article and backed up by substantial research. I would be interested to see what everyone thinks about it. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/tax_effects/submissions/sub089.doc
Posted by geof, Wednesday, 13 April 2005 9:03:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Tomlinson is a genius and its time we all started listening to what he has to say!
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 15 April 2005 3:15:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Seeker - I too used to be young and healthy, a 30 year tax paying working life behind me and now 3 children in their 30's all paying taxes as they always have. . . but now I get paid $272 per week merely to exist. gosh it's fun. wracked from shoulder to shoes with pain. and after rent, catfood and utilities I have so much left over for entertainment travel drycleaning and holidays, I'm laughing.
Posted by Brownie, Friday, 15 April 2005 9:59:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brownie,

It seems odd that the federal government has a policy of paying you anything. Your first port of call if you need assistance should surely be your three children. It would seem that they have the capacity to do exactly that. And with a tax cut they would certainly have more capacity.

In my view welfare should be provided:-

1. Firstly by the individuals themselves.

2. Secondly by the family.

3. Thirdly by the community (ie helpful neighbours, friends etc).

4. Fourthly by private charities.

5. Fifthly by local government.

6. Lastly by central government.

Taxation can only be extracted through the threat of violence. It is a coerced payment. I think that like all violence it should be the last resort rather than always being the first resort.

Regards,
Terje
Posted by Terje, Sunday, 17 April 2005 12:40:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So using Terje's fuzzy logic,NASSA should produce spaceships that don't fly.I suppose on the other hand that is true to Labor form with the production of the 'Collins Class Subs'.Just another bottom of the harbour scheme?
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 21 April 2005 6:13:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy