Micat; we can not provide advice to people we do not know until we have to understand them better. Then we each make a choice to walk or not to walk--- on the side of them. This is our decision.
Those of us who often fragmented migrant spend the most time with the backlog. First we have to learn the English language, then we must find out an apprenticeship or trade, after that we might have a chance to plan for home and family-if everything works. Make love not war. I hope the translation is inherently correct? Cheers, Rhrosty.

So, is 'foleo' a pseudonym/nom-de-plume for one Bryan Kavanagh?

Seriously serious? You betcha.

Work, save, and pay off a piece of land and a house - and then, in addition to rates and taxes for services, keep paying to 'rent' what you've already paid for? And, in your scenario, IF the land is deemed (by whom?) to have become more valuable, then, even if you're on a fixed income (superannuation/pension) you will be required to pay a higher 'rent'? Where would it end? Have a heart.

Income tax is based on earnings, and hence, in normal circumstance, capacity to pay. Conversely, in your scenario one would pay 'rent' based on land value irrespective of use - retired on pension, or making a motza manufacturing whizbang widgets? Fair and equitable? I don't think so.

Rhrosty,

I take it your expenditure tax is like a GST, except that no-one can claim anything back for the tax paid on supplies, services, or equipment - so, in value-adding the full cost has to be passed-on, so everything gets dearer, and people end up paying this tax all the way up (or down) the line. Certainly smacks of double-dipping to me? And, a significant disincentive to small and medium enterprise. However, Big Co might then be able to expand to include all segments of operations, from primary materials (eg mining, smelting, agricultural production and machinery manufacture, etc), and then, having value-added all along their in-house production stream, end up paying the tax only on the initial inputs and labour. A very non-level playing field?

Rescind negative gearing? Might make housing more affordable for owner-occupiers, but would make buying or building an investment property more expensive. As some with spare capital make more housing available by investing in property, removing this affordability incentive (negative gearing) could end up with higher rents and even less residential accommodation available?

Want to make more housing available and affordable? Get government to build heaps of cheap housing on government land. Prioritise.

Yes Rhrosty. A special gift for your innovation through a song.

http://youtu.be/poaXgXQmdIo

Thank You Rhrosty.

We a thought back to the point underlying the heart in the question by articles author... "What’s happening to us?".

I have always worked within community and until recently was able to contribute original and creative in thinking, as a project manager. Today however, I feel we are at the edge of a new era. Unless we consider our changing environment at ground level I fear that Australians and, the issues faced by many in demographics [young and old] will have nowhere to live... struggle to survive - struggle to find justice as governments struggle to provide the right kind of policies for what is realistically ahead. Affordable Housing is a base to most other issues that go with a persons essential needs. Don't you think?

Todays Health report said it clearly on the ABC.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/adolescent-health/3980102

Hasbeen. TA for your input, I find it interesting but a bit narrow. Having worked in disadvantaged sectors most of my life in Australia and overseas I find your portrayal combative, favoring confrontational methods that appear to rest on blame and shame.

My own world view is based on planing inclusive communities that build on social cohesion. Equity is key when looking at what is ahead and planning for it. Australia has a deep Housing issue, at local Council levels, through to its national criteria. Which people like you duck the issues.... The inequality we face will move into even more serious dimensions.

Saltpetre; no I'm not BK. But I like what i read from him.
Lets look at your comment:
You say: Work, save, and pay off a piece of land and a house - and then, in addition to rates and taxes for services, keep paying to 'rent' what you've already paid for?
I say: We should pay off the house, but always pay rent for the land. No other taxes - just land rent. By what right do you claim ownership of a natural resource? Next, you'll want to own the sky, the ocean, and the wildlife. All of this is "Res Communes", as the Romans called it.
You say: IF the land is deemed to have become more valuable, even if you're on a fixed income you will be required to pay a higher 'rent'? Where would it end?
I say: The end is the same for all of us. Land is valued by valuers, a professional occupation. I'm happy with that. If the rent is beyond the means of pensioners, then defer the debt until death or sale of peoperty. Many councils do that now for rates. Not a problem.

You say: Income tax is based on earnings, and hence, in normal circumstance, capacity to pay.
I say: Income tax is paid only by a few PAYE people, caught in a trap they can't escape. Rich people can and do avoid it.
You say: Conversely, in your scenario one would pay 'rent' based on land value irrespective of use - retired on pension, or making a motza manufacturing whizbang widgets? Fair and equitable? I don't think so.
I say: We would all have the choice of living where we want/can afford. Rich people will choose to live in expensive suburbs, and pay much more. That's fair. With deferral for hardship cases, poor people can see out their days in their own house, while eventually repaying the market rate for the land they occupy. Why should anyone get a free ride, especially while holding other worthy users out of that space? So, that's equitable.

foleo, if somebody wants my space, they can buy it - from ME. Have you noticed what's been happening with capital city real estate (particularly in Sydney)? It's been skyrocketing. Soon, only those on a high paying city job will be able to live anywhere near the CBD, and the also-rans and pensioners (even those who put together a nice retirement nest-egg) will have to be moving to the outback. (But that's ok with you I suppose?)

I can see your idea of taxing land and nothing else, as a clean sweep, a way of simplifying taxation and user-pays, but I don't see how this ties in to productivity, or how it can ever hope to meet the cost of all government programs - unless the land 'rent' became so expensive that most people would have to live in those cubby-holes they rent in Tokyo.

As for owning waterfronts, beaches and ocean and fishing rights, some people do - the 'chosen ones'. Or do you exempt our Indigenous Land Rights holders from the 'rent' net?

I still think this 'land rent' scheme is half-baked, and offers nothing towards increasing affordable housing, nor in making taxation more equitable.

The future lies in productivity, and only taxation based on production is capable of being fair and equitable - IMHO.

Yours is the half-baked argument, Saltpetre. Tell me, would you pay the same amount for a parcel of land with an annual $2000 land tax on it as you would if it didn't have such a charge? No, of course not, you'd pay less. Land taxes, or rates, on properties act to REDUCE their price: taxes on goods or services INCREASE their prices. Land tax has nothing to do with assisting affordability? Get real, Salty!