The grand flaw in all discussion of "reforming the tax base" is that it starts from a states'-eye point of view, and assumes that the problem is how to keep increasing the funds that are taken from the productive class, and channelled into the hands of the political class without limit to spend however they want.

As the political class grants itself an immunity, in their official capacity, from the laws against misleading and deceptive conduct, it means that all discussion is conducted with a licence of fraudulent misrepresentation.

At no stage is there any consideration of the proper starting point, namely, what governments should be doing or not doing in the first place. What would stop them from taking money they don't need, and wasting it? In other words, the concept of limitations on government power is missing from the whole discussion. They expect their claims of "Gimme gimme gimme" to be taken presumptively as being about the public interest.

Politicians are so used to talking in their echo chamber of blatant dishonesty, that when they wander out into the community doing the same, they don't realise what an exhibition of fools and charlatans they are making of themselves.

As a member of Peter Hendy's electorate, I can affirm that he is a disingenuous slimeball typical of politicians, won't answer a question, won't respond to constituents, and when he does, it's with a form letter giving a standard spiel ignoring everything that was said, and reiterating his view that government is the master and the people's role is just to shut up and keep paying for it.

Peter, the other glaringly obvious option for tax reform is to simply present the electors at each election with a list of government departments and sections and personnel, together with how much they cost, and a tick-a-box asking which offices should be abolished.

That would enable you to verify or falsify your assumption that you represent the electorate, wouldn't it?

The best solution is to replace the GST with another option that the Hawke government considered but eventually ruled out for political reasons: a broad based land tax. As this would have to be phased in slowly, a temporary rise in income tax would be needed to cover the gap.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine, your problem is that you wrongly perceive there to be a separate productive class and political class; the real objective should be to enable everyone to become more productive.

Keeping governments starved of funds doesn't make them more efficient, it makes them pursue false economies. Sometimes these even result in the loss of the capability to operate efficiently.

Yep the main requirement is an injection of guts into Tony & the crew to allow them to make the decision to cut, cut, cut.

We need to get rid of all the booby traps in additional spending Gillard & Co. locked into forward planning. The NDIS, Gonski, the NBN, the libs know it is garbage spending, & we can't afford it, but they have lost the gumption to do what is necessary.

Hell even Newman in Queensland got rid of more useless Labor added public bureaucrats then the feds.

They may be starting with the announce of defunding a host of useless NGOs, but we will have to see a lot more to make the difference necessary.

New taxes, garbage, we have too many now. Pry some useless mouths off the taxpayer teat, that is what is needed.

It's assumed that indirect tax is the GST! Why? And by who?

Those who want it to be so perhaps?

The ATO or equally unproductive Tax Practitioners perhaps, terrified at the end of the endless and growing gravy train of entirely unearned income, our overly complex system invariably creates!

Or could that claim be being made by state politicians, aware that we just don't need a middle tier of official administration, and could far better use the 70 odds billions per, we'd save with their passing, and without sacrificing so much as a single service!

As for the claim, but minister, we can't jettison state governments!
What prevents that beside state bureaucrats or their serving ministers?

We the people can do what we the people dam well like!

Little wonder there's so much resistance to a bill of irrevocable rights, which would automatically have to include a citizens initiated referendum!

And try telling the passing parade going through ICAC, that we the people, wouldn't be far better served, winding up our extremely costly, and obviously broken state parliamentary system.

With just one notable exception, we are the most over-governed nation on earth!
Even so, the conservatives endlessly waffle on about small government!

When perhaps what they really mean is outsourced government; particularly where that provides financial benefits for the ruling class/mates/cronies!?

I have spoken at length about tax reform, and the inherent advantages of a single stand alone expenditure tax system, not the least of which would be ending tax all avoidance and the destiny of demography, forever!

Oh and given the endless prevarication/lack of any real action, we don't seem to like any of that either? Hmm?

A very wise man once said, at some point complexity becomes fraud!

Makes you wonder why so many senior politicians seem to have so much trouble introducing real reform or the very transparency that would declare it, actual real tax reform!? Eh?
Rhrosty.

The biggest mouths clamped permanently on the taxpayer's teat Has, are entirely non essential tax practitioners and the ATO!

If we had a single stand alone indirect taxation system, the first two groups that would be made entirely redundant are these extremely costly two!

Nobody is entitled to a free lunch, let alone a guaranteed living, and by doing entirely (dig a hole fill a hole/one for you one for me) unproductive work!
Tens of billions far better spent at the coal face, as a far better defense budget i.e!
Rhrosty

Aidan, your problem is that you think North Korea is the ideal form of government. We have already established that your drivel about governmental efficiency, and its supposed superiority at economising, has no rational basis, and conceives no rational limit on government power.

Jardine, your problem is that you think North Korea is the only form of big government.

Thus you resort to making preposterous accusations, such as that I think North Korea is the ideal form of government..

"We have already established that your drivel about governmental efficiency, and its supposed superiority at economising, has no rational basis, and conceives no rational limit on government power."
We have established nothing of the sort!

Consider thhe school halls scheme: very inefficient in NSW and Victoria where the cash strapped governments have lost the capability to do that sort of thing efficiently, yet very efficient in WA where the cashed up government retained the capability.

IMO they turn the argument of tax collection to GST because they are scared stiff that a review of the tax laws and closing of the legal minimization which have grown over the years as we heard more off with the late Kerry Packer paying legally $10 a year in income tax over a three year period. And saying to the Senate Hearing he would spend more on tax if they spent his contributions more wisely.

Therein lies the crux of the problem. Governments, particularly socialist, have spent more than revenue collected and wasted most of it on schemes that didnt work. Whilst all parties collect those fat donations for their war chests to be re-elected to the Gravy Train, not to make them pay their fair and equitable share of actual income whereas the worker on PAYG has no choice as tax taken at source.

One way to raise revenue would be to make all incomes subject to PAYG and for second or other incomes like for Board members of several then a set percentage figure of income tax, to be reviewed on yearly returns.

Late Kerry Packer as example. Legally paying $10 a year for 3 years and still they don't actually have the complete income listed. Just what collected by Senate Review.


Certainly simplistic and would if brought in here apart from cause an outcry from the overpaid public servants and others on obscene salaries but would be popular with all working people as the resulting increase would go far to solve the problems we face of debt and shrinking revenue. Problem is no one party is willing to do this of seemingly review income tax laws which allow for no disclosure of incomes for those NOT on PAYG - hardly equitable but then democracy has been 'tweaked' over the years and not for the better. Like our way of electing officers to govern us. Corrupted by compulsory and preferential voting as well giving more than one vote one value

The problem is not a revenue issue, it is an expenditure issue.

Health costs are rising faster than GDP and the fed and state govs are struggling to cope with this which is why the co payment is so important.

The second source of cost increases is the local government's desires to act as agents of increasing social change, trying to provide services that are out of their purview

Shadow, your post epitomises the stupidity of this this government's way of thinking!

First without reason you declare the problem not to be a revenue issue.
Then with scant evidence you declare it to be an expenditure issue. You don't consider why health costs are rising faster than GDP, let alone how the healthcare process can be made more efficient. Instead you advocate a moronic false economy that, by discouraging early intervention, would probably see costs balloon.

And what's local government got to do with it?

Aidan
Re-circulating your stupid circularity doesn't make it make sense.

It just means you keep saying what you can't defend and either know is untrue, or are too dumb to understand.

"Consider the school halls scheme: very inefficient in NSW and Victoria where the cash strapped governments have lost the capability to do that sort of thing efficiently, yet very efficient in WA where the cashed up government retained the capability."

Can you see the stupid circularity in what you have just said? Because if you're genuinely so stupid that you can't see it, then you need to shut up, go away, and learn the basics of logical thought, before you presume to tell other people the way to a better society.

But if what you're saying is true, then what objection do you have to North Korea's government? Where do you think the governments get the cash from, you fool?

Jardine, my first thought when I read your response was that you'd resumed your moronic habit of posting spherical arguments.

But then I realised that your response wasn't quite as stupid as it first appeared, and you'd merely misinterpreted cause as evidence and on that basis misconstrued my argument as circular.

But it is still an error on your part. So please in future ask for clarification rather than jumping to the incorrect conclusion that an argument is circular!

"But if what you're saying is true, then what objection do you have to North Korea's government?"
Struth, how many objections do you want? Lack of respect for human rights, militarism, lack of political freedom, lack of economic freedom and government spending skewed to cater to a small elite while many people live in extreme poverty are probably the top five, but it might be quicker to ask what objection I don't have to North Korea's government. OTOH maybe it wouldn't, as I'm struggling to think of one.

"Where do you think the governments get the cash from, you fool?"
Well, you ignoramus, I think they get most it from taxes. Some comes from bonds. And in WA's case, a substantial proportion of it came from mining royalties. But the source of the money does not determine the spending efficiency, so why do you ask?

"But the source of the money does not determine the spending efficiency, so why do you ask?"

You've already admitted that your belief in that proposition is circular, remember? You assumed your conclusion in your premises, remember? Fool.

You still haven't established
a) any rational criterion of efficiency of governmental action, or
b) any principle for limiting government power that doesn't depend on government to define it.

Therefore
a) you haven't established that the source of the money does not determine spending efficiency; you are only going around in circles - again!
b) you can't distinguish your political philosophy from that of North Korea: you share an open-ended belief in arbitrary government power and government's supposed superior economising competence, with any limits to be decided by government.

You have no criterion for economic freedom or human rights but what the government decides. I have repeatedly asked you for such a rational criterion and you repeatedly fail to say what it is. You have no rational criterion for deciding how much the government should take from the population. You cannot distinguish infrastructure from capital goods in general.

You have only an open-ended belief in unlimited government power, and when challenged on it, you stupidly say that you don't believe in what you do believe in, and when challenged to say what distinguishes what you say you do believe in, from what you say you don't believe in, you can't do it.

You deny that you support the enforcement the policies you favour, then you admit it and allege some imaginary point at which they cease to be enforced, and then you deny the logical consequence, that you are arguing that compliance becomes voluntary at that point.

You deny that your argument is circular, but when challenged, you admit that you assume your conclusion in your premises.

In short, you have no rational basis for your garbled self-contradictory brainwashed belief that the state does not confiscate all it has from the productive class. Not even the state agrees with you.

Jardine, you're exhibiting severe cognitive dissonance. I've neither admitted that my belief in that proposition is circular, nor assumed my conclusion in my premises.

Now, if you want to debate whether the source of the money determines spending efficiency, you're welcome to do so. I'd quite like to see you try to figure out a credible hypothesis as to how it could. But if you want me to explain something then ASK ME instead of accusing my argument of being circular because I haven't spoonfed you every tedious detail!

Your accusation that I've no criterion for human rights is an outright lie. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is such a criterion, and I've previously cited it when you asked. As for economic freedom, a good start would be that there shouldn't be arbitrary restrictions on trade.

Your claim that I share North Korea's open ended belief in arbitrary government power is another lie. I believe government power should not be arbitrary, but should be limited by the country's constitution and by existing laws (both domestic and international). I'd like the UDHR to be strongly enough enshrined in law to make it a limiting factor.

I don't assume the government to always have superior economising competence, though for provision of some services (especially those where the infrastructure cost is a high proportion of the total cost) I assume it does in the absence of evidence to the contrary. But for some things I assume it doesn't in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Both evidence and logic show that outsourcing the public/private comparison process is a bad idea.

Unlike other capital goods, infrastructure is geographically fixed.

I make no apologies for thinking tax rates should be set contextually rather than by some predetermined formula! Indeed I would regard the latter approach as highly irrational as it hampers the ability to react to events.

Why don't you?

It seems to me that we are moving inexorability towards, what to me is the least offensive indirect tax, the financial transactions tax ; it is easily collected, easily tracked and unlike the GST should eliminate black market avoidance still rampant.

Just before Christmas I bought a quantity of landscaping materials for a project I had in mind over Christmas: as I proferred my credit card to the man in the office, he said " have you got cash, otherwise I'll have to charge you GST ?"

wantok, I find it rather amusing that you give an example of why the financial transactions tax WOULDN'T be any harder to avoid than the GST!

To those who understand it, it is more offensive than the GST. Fortunately we're not moving towards it at all.

"Why don't you?"

There's no use asking me questions, or pretending to engage in a rational discourse, if your thinking is merely circular.

"Jardine, you're exhibiting severe cognitive dissonance. I've neither admitted that my belief in that proposition is circular, nor assumed my conclusion in my premises."

Yes you have. In a prior discussion in which you asserted, and I denied, the possibility of superior efficiency of governmental provision of services in some circumstances, you denied that your argument is circular, but then later admitted that you don't assume the ability to economise doesn't "magically disappear" when we consider governmental action. But the issue was whether government can rationally economise [i.e. work out whether a loss is worth it] in the first place. Therefore you have admitted that you have assumed what is in issue.

"Now, if you want to debate whether the source of the money determines spending efficiency, you're welcome to do so. I'd quite like to see you try to figure out a credible hypothesis as to how it could."

You're doing it again. You're ASSUMING that the source of the money makes no difference to spending efficiency, when that is what is in issue, and then asking me to figure out a credible hypothesis when
a) I've already given you a credible hypothesis, that based in 1. the coercive nature of taxation, and 2. the disconnect between governmental provision and any demonstrated preference of the "consumers". You haven't answered that hypothesis, except by circularly pretending that it doesn't exist, and
b) You’re reversing the onus of proof. You’re the one asserting that government can economise more efficiently in certaion circumstances. Prove it.

"Your accusation that I've no criterion for human rights is an outright lie."

I didn't say you have no criterion, I said you have no rational criterion.

The UDHR is merely States deciding that human rights are whatever states say they are: Caesar appealing to Caesar. That's not a rational criterion because according to that theory, if they decided that free ice-cream, or owning slaves, were human rights, all of a sudden they would be human rights. But if you deny that, you are still left wanting any criterion for deciding what a human right is, other than "whatever states say it is". So ... what is it?

Same with the Constitution. We only have limits on government power because of people who DON'T share your circular belief in unlimited power.

You say you don't, but when I ask you to explain what rational criterion for limits you have, you don't have any except appeal to the state. So it’s circular.

You say you don't believe in unlimited government power, but believe governmental provision is justified because
a) government can access cheaper finance
b) private owners will be motivated by profit.
But since there is no area of production that this would not justify governmental provision for, therefore it's a creed of unlimited power, unless you can specify the limiting principle, which you can't, because when asked, you keep making it depend on governmental fiat.

According to your theory, no amount of tax would ever be enough.

Jardine,
<<"Why don't you?"
There's no use asking me questions, or pretending to engage in a rational discourse, if your thinking is merely circular. >>
Nor me you if yours is completely loopy. But your accusations of circular arguments seem to me to be an attempt to avoid difficult questions like that one.

<<I've neither admitted that my belief in that proposition is circular, nor assumed my conclusion in my premises."
Yes you have. In a prior discussion in which you asserted, and I denied, the possibility of superior efficiency of governmental provision of services in some circumstances, you denied that your argument is circular, but then later admitted that you don't assume the ability to economise doesn't "magically disappear" when we consider governmental action. But the issue was whether government can rationally economise [i.e. work out whether a loss is worth it] in the first place. Therefore you have admitted that you have assumed what is in issue.>>
Firstly, that's a different proposition than that which is being argued now.
Secondly, if that's what I admitted then it must be a typo and I apologise for it. Let me be clear:
I DO assume the ability to economise doesn't "magically disappear" when we consider government action. The work is done by humans, and working for the government doesn't suddenly cause them to lose their skills.
Thirdly, if this assumption was what was at issue, it suggests you hold the quite extraordinary belief that this ability does magically disappear!

Is that what you believe?

If it is, then rather than declaring my argument to be circular so you can bask in the illusory satisfaction that your absurd argument has by your silly standards beaten mine, you could dispute it and give a reason. But I warn you: if you do it that way you might actually learn something.

Jardine (continued)
<<"Now, if you want to debate whether the source of the money determines spending efficiency, you're welcome to do so. I'd quite like to see you try to figure out a credible hypothesis as to how it could."
You're doing it again. You're ASSUMING that the source of the money makes no difference to spending efficiency, when that is what is in issue>>
On the contrary, although that's not currently what's in issue, I'm offering to make that the issue. But if all you're going to do is parrot "that argument is circular" then forget it.

<<a) I've already given you a credible hypothesis, that based in 1. the coercive nature of taxation, and 2. the disconnect between governmental provision and any demonstrated preference of the "consumers". You haven't answered that hypothesis, except by circularly pretending that it doesn't exist>>
How could I, when you made it impossible to continue the conversation in the other thread by redefining "what's in issue" as what I'd just said so you could accuse me of circularity!

If you want to understand my position then I'm quite willing to discuss it more. But like you I'm too lazy to derive every argument from first principles. So there will be conjecture. If you want me to explain my reasons for saying something you disagree with then tell me and I will. But if you pretend it circularises and invalidates my argument, I'm not going to bother to waste my time.
<<b) You’re reversing the onus of proof. You’re the one asserting that government can economise more efficiently in certaion circumstances. Prove it.>>
And you're the one making the extraordinary claim that there are no circumstances under which it can. This medium is designed for two way conversations and I don't intend to explain all aspects of my position while you withhold your own reasoning.

Jardine (continued)
<<"Your accusation that I've no criterion for human rights is an outright lie."
I didn't say you have no criterion, I said you have no rational criterion. >>
You actually made both claims. But even a criterion you dismiss as irrational completely refutes your claim about my political philosophy.

<<The UDHR is merely States deciding that human rights are whatever states say they are: Caesar appealing to Caesar.>>
FALSE. It is a document not a process, and it acknowledges that the rights it lists are human rights even if states contradict them.

<<That's not a rational criterion because according to that theory, if they decided that free ice-cream, or owning slaves, were human rights, all of a sudden they would be human rights.>>
The latter would not be a human right because it would contravene another human right. And anyway the decision's already been made, and it does not include free icecream!

<<But if you deny that, you are still left wanting any criterion for deciding what a human right is, other than "whatever states say it is". So ... what is it?>>
I'm too lazy to derive them from first principles. Start your own thread if you want to argue ultratrivial stuff like that. Meanwhile, accept that you're wrong because the UDHR is a document not a state.

<<Same with the Constitution. We only have limits on government power because of people who DON'T share your circular belief in unlimited power.>>
As I am one of those people who DON'T share that belief in unlimited power, it's not my circular belief, but rather your spherical belief.

<<You say you don't, but when I ask you to explain what rational criterion for limits you have, you don't have any except appeal to the state. So it’s circular.>>
As circular as a parabola! But now you've got me curious as to what criteria for limits you have that fit your definition of "rational"?

Jardine (continued)
<<You say you don't believe in unlimited government power, but believe governmental provision is justified because
a) government can access cheaper finance
b) private owners will be motivated by profit.>>
Being motivated by profit is not itself a bad thing, but it does result in two potential drawbacks: the need to make a profit means that the savings they make are unlikely to all be passed on to the customers, the most profitable outcome isn't always the one that benefits the customers most.

<<But since there is no area of production that this would not justify governmental provision for, therefore it's a creed of unlimited power, unless you can specify the limiting principle, which you can't, because when asked, you keep making it depend on governmental fiat.
On the contrary, there are many areas of production that this would not justify governmental provision for. There are likely to be some where it would NEVER justify governmental provision for, particularly in the artistic and creative fields, for those services which are not capital intensive, and for highly specialized areas where technical expertise spans international borders. But I believe the decisions should be made in context rather than be predetermined.

<<According to your theory, no amount of tax would ever be enough.>>
False. I merely think the tax rate should be determined according to the available opportunities and opportunity costs. Which brings me back to the question you refused to answer:
Why don't you?

The only forms of taxation that should exist are personal income tax and company income tax. The rest are "secret taxes", designed to effect the low paid more than the high income earners. Corporate tax should be designed in a similar way as personal income tax, but using a system based on return on tangible assets as the base rather than the total, as it is for personal income tax.

Many so-called "service" providers set up companies so that their tax rate is much lower than it would be if they admitted they were providing services directly.

The GST was designed to take a higher proportion of the disposable income of the low paid than the high income earners and it hit pensioners even harder.

All taxes should be collected by the State governments and a proportion submitted to the Federal government, designed to finance the role of the federal government in matters that are better served by a national body.

ALCAM,

<<The only forms of taxation that should exist are personal income tax and company income tax. The rest are "secret taxes", designed to effect the low paid more than the high income earners.>>
You haven't thought this through very well – there are plenty of examples such as PRRT (federal) and land tax (state).

<<Corporate tax should be designed in a similar way as personal income tax, but using a system based on return on tangible assets as the base rather than the total, as it is for personal income tax.>>
How and why?

<<All taxes should be collected by the State governments and a proportion submitted to the Federal government, designed to finance the role of the federal government in matters that are better served by a national body.>>
That would be costly to administer effectively and offers no advantage over the Federal government being in charge of tax collection.

Look I do appreciate the fact that you are in earnest, and that you recognise that circularity would invalidate your argument, and believe it is not circular.

For my part, I am prepared to accept that governmental provision of service could be better in given circumstances, if it could be demonstrated in some way that avoided logical fallacy. However I can’t seem to find any argument for it that, when followed up, does not originally assume it.

Can you see that any question of what the tax base or tax rate should be, presupposes that government would be better at spending the money, by which we mean not spending it per se, but getting better results?

Aidan
Can you see that any question of what the tax base or tax rate should be, presupposes that government would be better at spending the money, by which we mean not spending it per se, but getting better results?