And no mention of a finacial transaction tax.

Meanwhile the banks are making billions profits WITH OUR MONEY.

This tax must be implemented, even on a very low trial basis.

NG, here we go again.

So tell me, wher are people going to live?

If you take away the investor, you also take away the security blanket that allows banks to lend, knowing ther is always a buyer out there.

The result, no NG will most likely see the return of the min 30% deposit. Good luck!

Collecting tax is one thing , the way it is spent is another.

First we should find ways to stop it being wasted, then we may have a chance.

I've made my point a number of times previously about the fundamental unfairness of an income tax system that makes people more responsible for contributing to society if they work extra hours and make a bit more than if they are able to meet their needs from a more relaxed income stream. It may be difficult to do a lot better but talk of fairness while we tax peoples earned income on that basis is nonsense.

Stamp duty should go, at the very least it should protect those changing homes to meet family circumstances.

R0bert

Yes Robert, the more you earn, the more taxes you pay, but the less rewards you get when you retire,I.e pension and benefits.

You know it's a sad world when one has to decide whether or not it is worth while doing this extra hours,due to taxes and reduced benefits, if any are claimed.

The entire logic behind the tax system is in fact a dis incentive to work harder.

Watching Barnaby Joyce today, he said the libs ar not against more tax from miners, just not in the form of the proposed mining tax.

His alternative, which has been my alternative all along, is to increase royalties.

Why is this so hard to grasp.

I know one reason is because the likes of Victoria won't get the lime share, but then again, they have never cared much about us in QLD.

I say again, tax the eggs, not the chickens.

The juggle is always between simple (desirable) and fair (also desirable). Unfortunately I think the two are mutually exclusive, and some compromise in the middle needs to be reached.

From a tax accountants point of view, I would welcome simplification (I could then get on with work that actually adds value to businesses). I am very aware though that to do this to a large extent compromises on fairness - most of the depth of complexity in the current systems (yes, there is more than one!) has arisen from the desire to be fair to people who have differing circumstances. Eg given tax concessions to small businesses, or giving tax rebates (offsets) to those with particular personal circumstances.

For example it is easy to propose that a wealth-based tax is ideal, as it taxes the "rich" more. However, this quickly becomes a disincentive to save (and we dont want to end up like Greece). Income tax can discourage people from working harder (not good when we have a productivity decline anyway). Financial transaction tax we had and it was scrapped (the banks just pass it on anyway - remember FID & BAD).

I have yet to see a proposal that is truly "fair" or doesnt have unintended consequences (like a wealth tax).

I agree JohnBennetts, the first thing to do is virtually eliminate hereditary wealth. Then make the wealthy and self-employed actually pay their fair share of tax. Then stop the tax evasion, negative gearing and superannuation and share-option wroughts the wealthy enjoy. Then up the GST on luxury goods. But nah, let's just slap a wealth and assets cap on every individual.
Of course a percentage of manufacturing and production, and thus the economy, would collapse because it has evolved to cater for gross inequalities. The bogan bourgeoisie is only there to drive technological development to service the wealthy. They're like a sophisticated version of the King's tasters. The king's tasters new they were putting their lives on the line, but the bogan bourgeoisie actually think it's all about them--that they have cultivated palates!
Ah, new money..