This fiction is proposed by a complex rationalist, to effectively transfer the tax from the better off, to the worst off.
It will draw down discretionary spending and further compound housing affordability.
During the financial year ending July 30 2003, according to Ross Gittens, the total tax take from all sources had been 235 billions for the year just ended.
The banking fraternity produced/were responsible for an article appearing in the middle pages of the Q'ld Sunday Mail; during either August or September 2003, which reported, that according to irrefutable bank records, total unavoidable recurrants for all Australians, had totalled 6,785 billions, (rounded) for the year just ended.
4.8% of 6,785 billions collected as an unavoidable expenditure tax, is 330 billions; or, 95 billions more than the total tax take, reported for the period under examination.
Why is it that complex rationalists always seem to want to replace the most complex tax system on earth? With something very nearly as complex, which simply does not address the quite massive avoidance by our largest corporations?
One of the most obnoxious avoidance schemes, is the practice of "creating" an offshore subsidiary in a tax haven, and then outsourcing some element of admin to them, at considerable/exorbitant cost to the parent company, who can then write off this cost, to avoid tax/keep most of the money?
A simple unavoidable expenditure tax would make this practise produce more rather than less tax.
A simple stand alone expenditure tax set at just above or just below 5% would raise more tax than the current complex arrangements: Continued---

A simple unavoidable expenditure tax set at around 5%, would as outlined, collect more tax and end the quite massive avoidance; as demonstrated, that sees as much as 100 billion avoided annually!?
A simple expenditure tax, collected in a fee free paradigm, via the banking fraternity; and, set at around 5%, would end the need for compliance or often onerous compliance/reconciliation costs, adding in the first instance, around 7%, (averaged) to the Australian based bottom line?
Very marginal regional variations in the tax rate, would alone be all that would be required to address either inflation or stagnation.
This new mechanism, would entirely replace interest rate adjustments as the inflation/stagnation control mechanism! Thereby allowing interest rates to progressively fall to all time historical low; or, until they turbo charged, the slowest parts of our multi-speed economy!
A simple expenditure tax as outlined, would allow all other taxes, PAYE, PAYG, fuel excise etc/etc, to be jettisoned; [as advocated by the Author,] boosting the economy; and, adding as much as 30% to Australian bottom lines; and, 25% to household disposals! Paid for in full, by actually effectively ending, all the current forms of often quite massive avoidance.
A simple stand alone expenditure tax as proposed, could also encapsulate a carbon component, 0.3-5%? Which like the tax itself, would rise with economic growth, which by the way, would no longer be dependant on population growth, or growth in the taxpayer demographic!
A 25% increase in household disposals, would allow the immediate imposition of a non-contributory 15% super, leaving a still significant 10% in hand, to boost savings and or discretionary spending, and put downward pressure, on the dog chasing its tail, wages/price rise spiral!
Rhrosty.

Why not just abolish all taxes and have any deficiency in government finances made up from the sale of politicians' assets?

Footnote: A simple unavoidable expenditure tax; like that outlined, would also prevent Multinationals and others, from using offshore/onshore investments, to write off actual income and thereby avoid tax.
Money which should remain inside and circulate/recirculate through, in and around our national economy, creating each time it changes hands/entities, more and more local economic growth and prosperity!
The averaged 7% savings; and the quite massive reduction in bookwork or record keeping; and or, its financial/human relations costs/social dislocation etc, produced by a 5% single stand alone impost, should effectively silence the moans; or any possible reason, to actually avoid a fair share of a common burden!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty:

...You make much more sense when discussing taxation issues, (an innovating point on which I agree), than you do when discussing the marriage of homosexuals to each other. Your views are confusingly incongruous!

So, your "simple, unavoidable expenditures tax" will magically put an end to avoiders, Rhosty? Just like the GST was going to do, eh? Your "unavoidable" tax is going to use the "banking fraternity", is it? But wouldn't that generate the greatest cash economy in the world? You'd legislate against cash, Rhosty? Right.

Seems to me the Putland proposals actually get to grips with loopholes through which trucks are currently driven.