Amazing pericles did not pick up my error. It should have been 0.1% tax or $1 in $1000 tax. A turnover tax stops all the rorting. No excuses or imput tax credits. If you cannot handle such a small tax, then you should not be in business. No one complains when they have to pay rent and tax paid by all is the rent for infrastructure and Govt services.

The likes of pericles do not like the idea of a turnover tax because they will have to pay more while the average person pays less.

Arjay, a TT would see even the rich pay way less tax and, they would also save huge amounts as they would no longer have the need to tax minimize as they do, something that is very costly.

Indi, I agree that if this type of tax were introduced, we could do away with the likes of NG as apart from increased net wages, the investor would also have virtually tax free rental income.

A TT of just 2% should do the trick, so why the government doesn't introduce one at just 0.2%, instead of the levies they are introducing is beyond me.

As I see it, this would be a great way to test the water so as to say.

As for banks passing the tax on, they are hugely profitable businesses and, they make their profits from our money.

So the government simply needs to legislate against increased bank fees so at least they can do some of the heavy lifting for a change.

I just don't have a problem with genuinely successful people paying less tax!
But I do have problem with huge multinationals getting away for decades, just not paying any, or far less than comparable home-based corporations!
And here we are talking about tax avoiding multinationals, often with bigger annual budgets, than many sovereign nations!
And yes, when they don't pay their fair share, someone else has to pay it for them. As was the case when the Granny killing GST was introduced!

Ajay, you may well be right, but your solution just adds to the current complexity!
One very wise man once said, at some point, complexity always becomes fraud! Quote unquote!
My preferred system just jettisons all current tax measures and (hide behind) complexity, and replaces all that with a completely unavoidable, stand alone expenditure tax.

Sorry Arjay but, the problem with your proposal and others, it just increases the always passed on by the banks, tax liability on the very entities, we would encourage to relocate here.
Namely high tech manufacture!
Our only possible future, other than a third world banana republic!
Let all pay some tax, but only a fair measure, and in complete accordance with their affordable spending patterns, which by the way, is also everyone's individual carbon footprint!
If a simple system that charges just 18 down to 5% of your expenditure, but then allows you to also pocket the former 7% of the bottom line, that were once your tax compliance costs!
Would you continue to shell out that 7% of your bottom line, just trying to avoid an effective 11-5% impost!?
Rhrosty.

Rohsty we have to get away from the idea of taxing people and start taxingbmoney because, unlike our current taxes, which are only collected once, a tax on money taxes the same $100 every time it shifts from one account to another, which can be thousands of times a day.

The tax structure wrongly penalises taxpayers on the volume of their income. It needs recasting so that tax on income derived from payment for PERSONAL, HANDS-ON wealth creation (i.e., actual creation of goods and services) is set at a very low flat rate and that the bulk of revenue-raising be at the expense of income derived from acquisition, without personal creation, of wealth.

Sources could be a Tobin tax on income derived from gaming international currency transactions, from investment (which merely allocates wealth to give permission to creators to create it), from international trade (profiting from the production cost differential between Asian slave countries and Western countries which have constructed a social contract).

The broad principle is policy settings leading in the direction of a redistribution of wealth from the takers (whose personal success is at mere acquisition of wealth created by others) to the makers whose contribution of wealth entitles them to decide on its social distribution.