The problem Joe has with this issue and the budget in general is that he is too flamboyant to be a Treasurer. Nobody likes a budget and particular one that involves a lot of pain for all.
My wife would make a good Treasurer. When we have to tighten the belt in many areas she does not try and do it all at once. Joe should have kept it so that we had to deal with two or three major changes this budget and left some of us on side.
By confronting all demographics across the board he has everyone offside and then we makes flippant statements to try and justify those changes because he cant believe we would challenge them. Look at Costello's budgets- he kept low key and did a few at a time. No cigar smoking for Pete- just numbers.

The case for indexing fuel excise is undeniable as you have pointed out.
The complexity of tax system is a huge problem.

The Whitlam concept of rebates as against deductions, introduced complications which, with a regimen of taxing out and grants back, has created a mess, difficult to assess, while buying votes and fostering an entitlement mentality.

A taxpayer should pay tax on everything he earns after deducting everything he has to pay to earn that income.

An example is the child care issue. We do not allow the cost of childcare as a deduction but subsidise childcare.

It is quite probable that it is costing the government and the family more to get a mother to work than the net value to her and the community of what she is producing.

How much simpler to allow deductions for child support, reasonable cost of getting to work, reasonable cost of self education and education of dependants, reasonable cost of child care, medical expenses of self and dependants, life assurance, income insurance-- and tax families as one unit.

It would sort out mothers who should work from those who would be better looking after children.

Adjust rates of taxation may be necessary.

We should get the system someway back to the system in 1953 which allowed me as a kid fresh out of school was able to fill in a tax return in 20 minutes with no help from a H& R Block or ITP.

The battler with 3 kids who lives at Campbelltown and has to get to Alexandria to work in a factory would get tax justice and whole army of accountants and public servants would have to learn to make a productive living. That, alone, may even balance the budget.

The politics of envy and entitlement will send us down the path trodden by Argentina, Greece, Spain etc.

The general thrust of my argument is that our tax system should be re-aligned back to reality to bring us back to a productive society.

The truth is that our current, often complex set of tax laws are obsolete and no amoumt of tweeting will result in a tax revenue system, capable of sustaining our future needs.

What's needed is a new, less complicated tax system, one that taxes fairly regardless of the amount of income and, much more simplified. My suggestion being a flat transaction tax, one that taxes money transactions, not people's or companies earnings.

By allowing earners the benefit of the additional income, (that being the tax they would usually loose), this money, billions each year woukd effectively be spent adding to the economy and, even if it's saved, not spent, or,if it leaves our shores, it woukd still be taxed.

A flat tax of just 2% on all purchases/transfers and say 0.2% on financial money trades would be affordable to all including the poor as they would not have the GST to contend with.

Either way, tweeting a broken system only makes it a little less broken, it doesn't fix it.

And this bloke is an economist.

Alan low income earners, particularly welfare recipients are already compensated for any increase in the petrol price. Perhaps you didn't know welfare is indexed, just like fuel was & should be. They have been compensated by more than inflation until now, by the benchmarking that was in use.

If fuel goes up, so does the inflation which is used for that indexation.

Have you ever tried to learn a bit of math Alan?

Why not solve two big problems with one solution?

Restore the indexation of excise, but remove that same fuel excise completely for those below a specified income level.

This would benefit those lower income earners who depend on using their vehicles to get to work from outer areas where public transport is inadequate.

It would set their fuel cost as a legitimate expenditure in earning income, and give a small amount of extra disposable funding from their tighly-stretched household budgets.

As A.B.S. statistics show that existing fuel expenditure amount is proportionaly larger for those with higher discretionary spending capabilities, an indexed excise would make a worthwhile contribution to general revenue.

Sorry Hasbeen, you're slightly in error there, welfare isn't completely indexed.
Those who need it the most, the unemployed, are NOT indexed.
If the Gov' were to raise the dole to a livable level, and then index it, you could have a point but as it stands it's just another barrier to getting as job, and/or keeping one.