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