Great to have someone "mentioning the war" - we really need to examine the expansion of GST. More sectorally targeted taxation must inevitably lead to more tax minimisation scheming - the only beneficiaries being the lawyers and accountants who produce the artifice behind each scheme. By contrast GST rates can be increased quite simply and off-sets provided (e.g. via the social security net) to allay concerns that the less well off will be worse off. But I doubt we live in a time where anyone in public life seeking voter support will have the intestinal fortitude to even broach the subject. More's the pity.

The fundamental errors that people make when evaluating why Labor does or does not pursue a particular policy are:
1. The mistaken assumption that Labor is a progressive party.
2. The mistaken assumption that policies are decided on rational grounds.
3. The mistaken assumption that Gillard is a member of the "Left" faction when such a beast does not exist in the modern parliamentary Labor party.
4. Expecting any real change in stance, policy etc in the near future.

Keynes was once asked why he was espousing a policy he had previously opposed. His reply: when the facts and circumstances change I change my mind: what do you do Sir?
Wayne Swan is no John M Keynes.

We, the taxpayers, ratepayers, roomers and roamers of this country are being done, done like a Sunday dinner with its frills and frolls.

It’s a double dipping. We have to pay for the politicians to write the Law and for the Economists to hold their hands at penning it.

Who of us cares what name you give to a Tax? GST, INCOME, or OUTCOME? We remain the same MUGs who must scrape to pay it.

A yes Minister, a No Economist and the paraphernalia their Servants all hung on us.

And we have to struggle on two feet until they bring us to all four at the do-gooders Palace's back door for a scrap of left-over.

Hell to you and your gun-enforced democracy. I’ll soon be in the home I have belonged since I was born, the immense Void, you dirty PARASSITES

Increasing taxation is not the answer.We have a $ 1.4 trillion economy andd each yr the average money supply increases by 3% for GDP + 3% for inflation. 6% of $ 1.4 trillion = $84 billion.Our State Govt banks + the Govt Commonwealth used to create some of our new money supply,debt free or the profits from interest reduced our taxes.

So in going from a $84 billion credit to an $ 84 billion debt,our Govts are in reality a %168 billion pa deficit plus interest.This is a debt of $15,000 pa for every worker plus interest.This is why we have to sell off Govt assests.We have to going into debt to build infrastructure.

We don't own the increases in our GDP,the private banking system does but virtue of creating the money to equal it.We can only manage 3% increase in GDP because the more growth we have,the more debt we incur.China's Govt banks create 80% of its' new money for growth as debt free infrastructure.China can grow at 10-12% and the debt based Western monetary system stagnates because debt = growth.China has a very inefficient banking system and much corruption but can out perform our economies because it can build infrastructure almost debt free.

The answer is to slowly reduce the fractional reserve system of banking ratio and bring back Govt owned banks.

Increasing taxes to service more debt to build infrastructure,will not see us progress,since our GDP increases = debt.

This is a must see. 'The Secret of Oz" by Bill still Last yr it won the Biff International award for best documentary.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g

'The Wizard of Oz' by L Frank Baum had deep economic meaning that was lost when important symbolism in the book was removed in the 1939 movie Classic starring Judy Garland.

Arjay, when are you going to accept that you don't understand a word that you write?

>>China's Govt banks create 80% of its' new money for growth as debt free infrastructure.<<

What exactly do you mean?

As it stands, that is a nonsensical statement. Which of course means that no-one can say "that's wrong", because in order to be wrong, it at least needs to make some sense. That sentence fails that simple test.

>>The answer is to slowly reduce the fractional reserve system of banking ratio...<<

Not really. You have the cart in front of the horse. The fractional reserve system actually acts as a brake - it limits the amount that a Bank can lend.

The key is simply that if we borrow less - that is, all of us, including government - there will be less pressure on the Banks to support that demand by creating debt.

By the way, the funniest thing about "The Secret of Oz" is that anyone takes it seriously. It is pure fantasy.

The second funniest thing about it is that it won the "Biff International award for best documentary" in 2010.

Beloit is a city in Wisconsin, about the same size as Dubbo, that has held an "international" film festival every year since 2006. It is run by volunteers, and is an extremely worthy enterprise.

http://www.beloitfilmfest.org/biffy-awards/2010-award-finalists-biffy-winners/

The award is actually called the "Biffy", not the "Biff International award". I'm sure that it has great prestige in Rock County, but I'd be careful about boasting about it too much. People might wonder why it didn't receive greater recognition. Like, say, at the Boulder Film Festival in Colorado.

Another Biffy winner at that particular festival was "Artois the Goat", the synopsis of which goes as follows:

"Lab technician Virgil Gurdies struggles to choose between his truelove Angie and his newfound quest to create the greatest goat cheese the world has ever known."

They're big on cheese, in Wisconsin.

http://www.eatwisconsincheese.com/wisconsin/history_of_wisconsin_cheese.aspx

Bless.

Correction Pericles.You don't want to understand anything I write because the truth hurts.Start by arguing basic facts.

Why should private banks create money from nothing to equal increases in our GDP? Answer that question.

In any of the posts I have seen, there are obviously not many if any, who can understand the value of a high top tax. A high top tax (it was 66.6% in the 1950-1970 period), kept high salaries down to a decent level, and that kept costs of goods and services down also which allowed everybody including low income workers to live much better, they could even buy and keep their own home. The GST may be of some benefit, it was to replace the sales tax, but it is a general tax, presumably everybody paid the same – maybe. There are so many people jumping up and down whenever high tax is mentioned, Tony Abbott is typical, he almost has a fit, but nobody really gets hurt, those taking the high salary like the CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, on $16 Million he doesn't become a pauper though, while there are many workers who can get only two or three days work a week, and cannot pay either rent or mortgage, and are virtually kicked out into the street. Today, with a high top tax there should also be a higher 'no tax' of about $30,000 or possibily more. In the US the top tax has been as high as 94%, look up "History of tax in the US" or even "History of tax in the UK", it will surprise you, tax has to do certain jobs, and one is to reduce obscene incomes, which treasurers don't have enough intelligence to realise.

The problem with a high top tax (one that is significantly higher than the company tax rate), is that it creates greater incentive to find ways to avoid it. I get what you are arguing, but think that human nature will make it less effective than it would ideally be. To be fair, you would probably need to create another income tax bracket, keeping the ones you have now, but have a new one for incomes above say $500,000 (that said there are a lot of CEO's on less than $500k too).

I am sure that there would have to be some statistics somewhere that allow you roughly calculate what the revenue effect of this would be, particularly if combined with an increase in the tax-free threshold. Much better to have the majority of people on a low rate of tax, with little welfare - saves on redistribution costs. Also, my marginal rate is 80% - given that I have children who are in daycare and get some childcare benefit and child endowment money for them. Where is the incentive to work any longer when I only get to keep 20c out of every dollar that I make.

We need a new system or at least a significant over-haul!

All this talk about increasing taxes will not make the country improve or your lot any better.Just take back what rightfully belongs to you,ie your increases in GDP which gets created as debt by private banks.

Over $180 billion pa is created as debt.Half is GDP and half is inflation.That will reduce the tax of the average tax payer by $15,000 and you won't have to pay the interest.Infrastructure can be created debt free.

Hmm a few quick calculations shows that I am wrong. Indeed, to raise the tax-free threshold to a still measly $34,000 means that anyone earning more than $180,000 needs to be hit with a whopping 90% to make up the shortfall. Obviously there could be some savings in welfare too that would help to balance the books, but I dont think anyone earning more than $180,000 pa is rich (well-off, but not well-off enough to justify paying 90% tax).

Back to the drawing board!

i stopped posting remany topics
but will write a few thoughts

howard cancelled death duties
created gst to give bribe to the states
on condition states reduce certain capitalist taxes in their state

thing is where did the savings to the federal govt go to

other pioints are re high income tax
the rich have long used family trusts
so trusts should recieve a higher tax
because the smart guys plan their tax avoidance

gst dont need increasing
it needs to be that no/one can avoid paying it
same with fuel excise..no egsemptions..no subsidies

if you use fuel you should pay the tax on it

if your not paying it..govt is colluding to tax the poor..
and support the rich avoiding paying their due

that being said tax on wages is morally corrupt
[many dont get taxable wages..live like kings..]

[their trust pays/owns it all
avoiding its tax obligations as it goes]

further its income tax..not wage tax
[income is proffit derived from no value adding inputs]
wage is money earned by adding value..no wage should be taxed

we should have a windfall tax
on all bonus..and other gains..[its them that are 'income']

anyhow the rich have managed to shift their burdens from their income
onto our wages..then onto even our spendings...

and put punitive taxes on even our few legal pleasures..
[to wit smoking..by lies and other deciets]...

like social costs..of 31 billion attributed to smoking
when its health costs..are only 667 million

even then the deaths 'attributed' to smoking...
is by docters writing smoking as a cause of death...
when the spin says attributable to smoking..

so they can spin
a new tax

see smoking should we ban it topic
[more revelations there soon]

next a tax on breathing,[co2]

Arjay

The wealth of a community is expressed by the ratio of the number people who perform useful tasks over the number of those sponging on them.

Mr. Saul Eslake knows this, his economy’s teachers and all economists know this but they don’t tell you.

The meaning of the very word ‘Economy’ is linked to the concept of procuring what is essential for survival.

Or I am wrong and parasites in their cecity do not realize the damage they cause to humanity

sceptic our opinions of who is a pariste will vary
[for me those who go arround killing murdering raping and bombing
are the parisite..so yes those in those industries are our biggest danger]

think of how many times we built housing over time
along comes a war and we need to rebuild europe
along comes a war and we need to build new homes bridges factories

[often with leches begging for funds off govt
often the self same govts that destroyed them]

so polititions are vermin/leeches parisites
so is the media..so great at teaching us the rules of sport
and the lives of useless sport'stars'..or movie stars

but somehow cant even inform the people of govts reasons for going to war[beyond embedded spin] or the reason for ever more taxes or ever more urgent[thus non debated 'bailouts'

its so easy to say the poor sick or young are the leeches
but they get pennies from govt compared to the billions reaped in by the multinational big business spin lobby vermin..

its time they got their noses out of the govt purse
time they were MADE to survive by their own capitalist rules

its time they stopped destroying the world..
by controling those who lead us

its time public servants served the public
not the oppressors

hell its beyond time
those with so much

stoppped oppresing and leeching off
those with so little

Unfortunatly doon cannot read or calculate $180,000 million which is $ 180 billion which is $15000 per working person + interet.We would pay far less tax.

I'd love to know where you get your numbers from, Arjay.

>>Over $180 billion pa is created as debt<<

Whose debt is this? Not the government's that's for sure.

http://www.debtclock.com.au/

It must be those nasty miners, borrowing money so that we can earn export dollars.

Oh yes, so it is.

http://www.news.com.au/business/federal-budget/national-debt-to-reach-1-trillion/story-fn5dkrsb-1225861074909

Would you like to explain to the mining community, and the Australian people, why going into debt for this purpose is such a bad thing?

If you can puzzle that one out, you're on your way to understanding just a teensy bit more about finance.

pericules/quote.."It must be those nasty miners,
borrowing money so that we can earn export dollars.""

who is the 'we'
earning "export" dollars
[to wit not paying tax/royalties at a realistic value
going by the wan swan..

and him saying
,'no more rivers of gold.
.from mark two..of the mining BOOM..'

he would know
he done the deals

just as the other labrat state parties did their 'deals'

aint it neat the 'deals are done in yanki dollars'
and the yanki dollar collapsing soon

and miners stuck in twenty year deals
[in us dollars]..with china for the next quater century

plus getting carbon tax refunds
as 'we' get the new tax burden

and they dont even say thank-you
just despoils our waters and airs and soils and now kak-a-doo[do]

Oh yes,
it is what it is
collusive theft of communal resources

""so it is.""
what it is

so much forboten
no smoking here please

just pay your new tax
and plenty more on the way
for the poor

tax breaks for the rich
break the backs of the poor

if you got the cash
you keep it
[after spending a bit to the media
you bought the media..

[stuff the people..
buy the media..buy govt
its so easy..to easy if your sleezy

and not too queezy]