Saltpetre, my point's were about choice and in my view the issue of fairness cut's the other way when it comes to choice.

It's not fair that those who choose to work harder have extra money taken from their income than those who make choices which are more recreationally focussed.

If total assets were the measure why is it fair to take more from those who've saved than from those who've spent the difference on consumable luxuries along the way?

I'm of the view that what we should tax is time. Not perfect but a fairer system than taxing income.

Make each adult who is capable of doing so responsible for contributing a portion of their time to the common good. For those on a wage that becomes a fixed number of hours of their average hourly pay rate, for those not working or doing minimal hours it is in time on community projects.

For self employed and investment income it get's more difficult but it should be possible to put some workable estimations in place, eg use the average working week to calculate the hourly rate on investment income.

The idea that someone who decides to work extra hours to get some extra income should somehow become more responsible to society than someone who makes different choices has no fairness about it.

R0bert

R0bert,

I guess the choice is between working for a reasonable living and quality of life; or living a meagre existence on welfare, with little chance of improvement.

Should we dispense with welfare? I don't see how we can. Could welfare and its conditions be made tougher, so that those able would be more likely to work for a living? Probably. However, much of the welfare system is politically based, and geared to vote-catching - with bi-partisan agreement being possibly the only way to scale-back or eliminate 'rorts' or excesses.

Whereas I feel sickness, disablility and assets-tested aged-care benefits are fully justified, I fear a range of family and child-care benefits may be excessive or unwarranted - placing an unnecessary strain on the public purse and therefore on those who contribute to it.

It is a fine balancing act of caring for the needy (as a matter of national pride and prestige, as well as of humanitarian compassion) whilst also promoting the industrious and enterprising (as a matter of economic probity).

It would be great if everybody worked together to build their own and the nation's economic and social wealth and security - but to some extent our welfare system mitigates against all pulling their full weight.

You are right that assets-based taxation would unfairly penalise those who save and build (and I absolutely hate the idea of death-duties). Don't know what I could have been thinking. The same problem would apply to higher business taxes, particularly for the self-employed and sole trader. In the end result, full employment and limited welfare appears the best solution.

As for tax, maybe the fairest way is a low flat rate across the board, only scaling up for those earning over $150,000?

Saltpetre, very much in agreement with that last post.

I'm not so opposed to death duties in principle but have not thought about it enough to have strong views either way.

The idea that some start out with billions passed onto them tax free while those working difficult and dangerous jobs are taxed on what they earn does not sit well. The idea that people loose the family home or a small business that they've been a part of creating or building up because one party dies and the impost of death duties makes it impossible to keep the asset is the other side of it.

R0bert

Thanks RObert, we seem to be pretty much on the same page, so we might just put it to bed now.

You're right about death duties being a bit of a thorny issue though, with some circumstances possibly pro, and others definitely anti. Best left alone, I think; and one can always hope for a better way to resolve some of the wider inequity between the haves and have-nots in this mixed-up world of ours. (But, leaving it up to government may not be the best way.)

Maybe one day people won't even have to worry about money - with reward being based purely on effort and contribution to the greater good. Could be visions of an idealistic world, but of course some will only see this as socialism or communism - which of course is nothing like what I have in mind. Just possibilities. (Social Democracy?)

Cheers, and Happy New Year.

Happy new year to all, including Peter Hume :-)

Apologies if I contributed to things getting a bit (over) heated, t'was all just in the spirit of debate :-)