Instead of opinions lets look at facts.
On 1 October 2010 the NZ goverment led by John Key raised the GST level to 15% and dropped the maximum marginal rate to 33% for salaries greater than $70,000.
GST in Australia remains at 10% since 2000 and the marginal rate in Australia is 49% for salaries greater than $180,000.
NZ was hit much worse by the GFC than Australia and has suffered the Christchurch earthquakes.

Yet in 2014 NZ exports are surging, Australia's are declining.

NZ growth for 2015 is predicted to exceed 4.2% while Australia's is predicted to be 0.85%.

The taxation system adopted by a country is a key determinant of its economic success. Richard Holden is right in his thinking and all you have to do is look to NZ to see how easy it is for Australia's system to be fixed.

First and foremost, I'm all for a true financial transaction tax, one that taxes money, not money earners as such and, no matter how little or how much one earns, we all pay the same very small amount.

This would see many benefits, such as hugely increased disposable incomes and would stop many who at present slip through the gaps, as there would be no escaping this tax, even if they move their money off shore.

The problem with tax is that most figures reported, are distorted by the media, like saying a company only pays 1% in tax.

Sure, while that might be true, it's doesn't count for the legal deductions that are made.

The other thing that people have to decide, is whether they want large corporations to pay more tax, or, would they prefer to have jobs, because let's face it, most jobs are created by big business, albeit, indirectly, so, given so many large corps are on the brink of leaving, if they have not already decided to do so, clamping down on their taxes may just be the straw that breaks the camels back so as to say, because outr government revenues rely on dollars, not percentages. So if a Corp pays one billion in tax, who cares what percentage of their sales that is.

rehcub: So if a Corp pays one billion in tax, who cares what percentage of their sales that is.

I do if that's only 1% of their Gross profit less deductions & loopholes, Trusts, etc. The low paid wage earner is paying 33% of his gross earnings less a few paltry dollars that he is allowed to claim in deductions.

An ex-brother-in-Law used to pay the bill when we went out & collect every ones share of the Bill. When away he would get a receipt for a $35 breakfast & only have the $5 special. He was only one of the little fish. These CEO's have Thousand Dollar lunches & claim it as a deduction.

Jayb, you're a bit out of touch on how things work these days.

Business lunches are something that the ATO has come down hard on and, in order to claim a lunch meeting, full documentation must be provided and alcohol is not deductible.

As for the low paid, they are actually paid more by way of welfare than they pay in taxes so I struggle to accept your assertion that they pay 33% of their wages in tax. Not only that, but for low paid, say $50K per year, the tax does not kick in until they have earned some $18,000 then they pay approx 20% of the balance, $8000 which is in fact 16% of their wage, before they draw welfare.

As for big business, you have to understand that we have the most costly business operating country and, if we pesue them on their taxes, I suggest they will leave because like most things, the majority of people only look at the percentage of tax they pay, and disregard the amount they actually generate for our economy through the likes of employees and contractor, with their employees.

Be careful what you wish for I say because if we manage to push these miners and other large companies off shore we will loose in the end.

Of cause if we introduced a transaction tax no one could escape their fair share.

Of course if we introduced a transaction tax, nobody could escape their fair share.
Well, that's probably right, but as yet another tax add on, further complication, cost and most of the current status quo! And therefore, regressive.
Perhaps, and given the lead NZ always seems to provide for us, when it comes to commonsense reform and what have you, we could outsource government itself, to that near neighbor.
And in so doing save the country squillions.
Imagine how much we'd save, just by mothballing all our parliaments, with all their pompous pontification/political posers; when what is really needed, is quite massive government downsizing or "outsourcing".
And just get it off of the bent or broken backs of entrepreneurs, and Australian free enterprise.
Trouble is, the current Conservative Kiwis would likely privatize everything, including private medicine. [What's it cost to see a doctor there now?] HOLY HORSE MANURE AND OUCH! PENSIONERS? OUCH! OUCH!
And while I'm on that subject.
Those medicare policy holders, who are deemed to be just customers, and are therefore not to be compensated, when Medicare private is privatized?
Should just claim all that they can now, then change their provider as quick as they can, to reduce Medicare private's cash flow to nothing; and give an extremely arrogant government, something they can't sell to anybody, with the brains they were born with!
Unless it's the current owners!
Regulate that! Yawol?
Rebel Rhrosty.

Beer for shearers is still tax deductible, and rightly so - you try getting 'em to come if you won't supply beer at the end of the day. It's a business expense par excellence.