What I can't understand about the defenders of the current high-tax system in Australia is that they don't realise that the very rich here pay very little tax. If you have enough income to make it worthwhile a good tax lawyer can set up a legal structure that will quarantine your seven figure income and leave you legally entitled to collect the old age pension and all the other attached benefits. The only people who cannot escape the high tax net are PAYE employees on high incomes. Is there any special reason why this group should be singled out for disadvantage? If income tax were abolished and replaced by a higher rate of GST this would mean that the very rich would pay MORE tax, as GST is very hard to avoid. Personally, I have no objection to taxes, as long as I don't have to pay them. Taxes on poker machines, cigarettes etc are great because I don't consume them. The tax I hate is the GST. My main way of legally avoiding it is to eat at home, and do as many handyman jobs around the house as possible. The thought of saving the payment to the serviceman is pleasant enough; but the thought of legally depriving the government of money in a way that they cannot complain about is delightful.

It's ironic that you should choose Kerala of all places to discuss.

Kerala has one of the highest, if not the highest, rates of female suicide in the world, especially of young women. It is one of the few places where female suicides outnumber male suicides.

So what spurious correlation will the social scientists come up with to explain this one?

Social scientists don't seem to understand that correlation is not causation. Which is why most of their 'rock-solid' theories melt away like ice when exposed to the sunlight.

Gavin:FAIR-GO! mate. Just think for a moment just what a lower tax rate for those pathetics, or as some may say crooks who do not pay what they should anyhow.
1. JOBS for retiring government members, and all they have to do is vote yes. I know it could be beyond most but they are easily led and they all slavishly toe the party line.
2. Imagine the donations to the liberal party funds if they do vote yes. The libs will have more money than even telstra.
So Gavin I think a bit of self flagellation is in-line for you followed by a frigid bath or shower and a craven, belly-on-the-ground apology to the 'man of steal' numbat

New Orleans today represents the health of Australia tomorrow ( it may not be quite as windy and damp, but you get my drift ) if we persist in this mickey mouse debate about money and personal wealth; that's all it is. It certainly is not about tax.

It will be dressed up in all manner of neo liberal clap trap about the rights of the individual, self determination and freedom of choice but at the end of the day we only have X or 2 times X because some one else has sweet f all.
Mooney is right - the average Australian will pay dearly in health terms for tax cuts - take Tesltra out of the picture and an estimated 4 bill from the tax take and the a government inclined to get ut of service delivery as fast as it can and you a grim picture for middle to low income Australia. The threads in the safety nets are getting further apart already.

We will also be told lower tax is an incentive to work hard; well I know well paid lazy professionals and poorly paid hard working community members - the latter will continue to work hard for little return. And the former by the virtue of distorted societal values will keep getting paid a motza for doing bugger all.

And works not all its cracked up to be - hard work is its own reward some tell me - well then lets all work for free!.

The Howard Government must GO.

This tax proposal is the tip of the iceberg in the marginalisation of 90% of the Australian population in order to immigrate high level skills, consolidate business structures and streamline John Howard's economy.

Note that I say John Howard's economy, because if 90% of Australians are not directly benefiting from it then it is NOT the Australian economy. What we have here is a test pattern for neo feudalism in Australian politics.

The pinacle of this new FEUDALISM is not in fact the tax proposal or even the ambiguous workplace relations proposals. The real kicker is Brendan Nelson's portfolio gutting of free and effective education in this country. Immigrants coming to this country used to respect their fellow Australians. These days they see that the government wants THEIR foreign based skills, does not have the confidence in its own people to give them free and effective education, hamstrings its own people with HECS fees for life and effectively sidelines them from economic participation. Why should immigrants respect their fellow Australians?

John Howard has effectively sent out word that this is a foreigner's land of milk and honey and if they support him they can pushover up to 90% of any citizens that get in their way.

As was the case with King John before the Magna Carta, this strategy is great for economic growth and resilience. However it does not sit well with the populace at large. King John was brought to his knees over this very same strategy. I know my fellow Australians and it is only a question of time before 'Our King John' meets the same fate.

None of us, not least of all John Howard himself , wants this outcome. The alternative Labor government is grossly unpalatable to a clear majority. It is thus incumbent on John Howard to lift his game or meet his fate.

PS Has John Howard ever read early English history? He seems oblivious to the ramifications of what he is doing. Maybe he is just starting to forget things.

The article makes no attempt to separate out the influences of income inequality from wealth inequality. In fact it does not try very hard to argue anything, prefering just to float a few hollow assertions.

The author instead seems keen to bash neo-liberals. And yet he makes no attempt to understand their arguments. He says that the authors from the CIS appear (from their arguments) to be well educated, and yet he fails to return them the favour.

The author uses "neo-liberal" as a form of veiled insult and then pretends that it is wrong to use the word "socialist" in the same way.

I give him 4/10 for his article. Gavin must try harder