I'm just curious, which other entities are exempt from tax. eg. Do the various Rationalist Associations of Australia pay tax?

How about *all* non-governmental entities which handle money pay tax at the same rate as companies. This is the simplest and easiest system to implement and leaves non room for people complaining about special treatment to others. This would include for example: political parties, non-governments schools, sporting clubs, etc. . It includes the charities, non-profits and NGO's, of which many are actually profitable and thus should be paying tax.

I should point out that in the above I'm only saying that profits (ie: net income) should be taxed, not total income.

This is especially important in the case of charities, where the money that it hands out would be considered an expense. eg: if a charity receives $10,000,000 and hands out $9,500,000 to the poor while spending $300,000 on administration then it has made a profit of $200,000. This $200,000 is what should be taxed, not the $10,000,000.

Thinkabit; the only way to implement a universal tax that everybody pays, is to implement an entirely unavoidable expenditure tax.

This is the only way conceivable to ensure that people not only pay a fair and formerly avoided share; but that no one pays more than they are able to pay.

In other words, your actual total tax impost is tied directly to your affordable expenditure outlay and no more!

And no Im not talking about the cascading GST, which should be among the suite of taxes to be entirely jettisoned; but rather an expenditure tax that includes all expenditure; not just that entered into at a retail level!

Collected as money departs accounts is the way to go?

And as a consequence only the banking fraternity need become unpaid tax collectors; not struggling small business!

And given the sheer size of the current avoidance; (religion, multinationals) bringing everyone into the tax tent is the only way for current honest taxpayers to pay considerably less!

And given there would also be no longer any need to pay for compliance issues!?

Business can pocket the former tax compliance costs, which apparently average around 7% of the average bottom line.

And around 2% more than what they'd need to pay pay in estimated total tax, if we finally obliged everyone to pay a fair share.

And made even easier as a concept, if smart cards were to replace cash in the economy?

Imagine if your total tax bill were actually lower than former compliance costs?

Who would be dumb enough to still pay that money as some sort of futile effort to avoid some tax; and as futile as trying to avoid unavoidable businesses expenses!

This is the only real way to gift real tax reduction!

Currently we pay too much tax just to get a tax return; and this eternal money for nothing, money-go-round, costs the nation/taxpayers billions!

And about as productive as paying someone to dig a hole, then paying someone else to fill it again!

Imagine the actually avoidable cost, if that's six million holes?
Rhrosty.

Currently tax as a proportion of the GNP ( our combined total expenditure?) is around a reported 4%!

Given my proposal would only lift it to around a marginally variable 5% as a proportion of our combined total expenditure.

The most tax we'd be asked to pay would be a marginally variable 5%?

And the tax rate could be microscopically adjusted, to alone control all inflation and far more rapidly than the current method of adjusting interest rates.

This very real tax relief for those actually paying our tax would improve the average bottom line by as much as 30% and household disposables by as much as 25%?

Thereby allowing the imposition of a non contributory super of around an affordable 15%.

Which would be guaranteed by the creation of thirty year self terminating Bonds, created exclusively for investment in profit earning infrastructure (shovel ready toll paying projects, rapid rail, our own national shipping fleet) and affordable housing!

Bulk shipping i.e., remains the most profitable venture on the globe!

And we remain an Island nation currently completely dependent on price gouging foreign shipping to move all our bulk trade goods!

Naturally those avoiding a fair share of tax; are to be expected to construct all the vacuous, obtuse reasons in the world, for avoiding essential tax reform; including the harm that could be done to business; by actually requiring them to pay less total tax!

Caveat Emptor!
Rhrosty.

This article is based on a false premise: it conflates foreign debt with public debt. But foreign debt is the amount borrowed from non-residents by residents of Australia. It has nothing to do with how much our government gets or doesn't get in tax revenue.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Rhosty, a land tax would be fairer, more efficient, better for the economy and much much much harder to avoid than an "unavoidable" expenditure tax.

And I suggest you look at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-07/tax-to-gdp-ratio-chart/5436302 to see the real extent of our taxes compared with the size of the economy. Admittedly it's GDP rather than GNP, but there isn't a big difference between those figures in Australia.

Definitions:

Income tax (n): The punishment inflicted on people who are not rich enough to avoid it

Corporation tax (n): The penalty suffered by businesses too small to operate trans-nationally

Sorry Aidan but your proposal unfairly singles out one section of society, and put affordable housing further out of the reach of even more folks!

Besides we already pay a land tax every time we pay rates!

Your manifestly socialistic/animal farm ideas have no currency in this country?

As I predicted those who oppose inherently fair tax treatment and overdue reform. will come out of the woodwork with all manner of obfuscation and irrelevance,to try and have this idea, which you as usual oppose, die stillborn!?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, the exact opposite is the case. If, instead of introducing the GST, the Howard government had introduced a broad based land tax, housing would be much more affordable now because house prices wouldn't've risen so much when interest rates fell.

Abruptly introducing a broad based land tax at a significant rate now would of course be unfair to those who've just bought land. But I never proposed doing so; I favour phasing it in slowly (over a few decades) so that it doesn't destroy land value but greatly slows its rise.

I don't know why you'd consider that to be socialism, let alone "animal farm ideas". But I can tell you now: your fascistic idea of not even letting people buy stuff without the government knowing and taking a cut has no place in this country!

And anyway, what you think is "overdue reform" is based on the idea that our tax (as a proportion of GNP) is about a fifth of what it actually is. I've told you this before, and you ignored me. Today I provided a link and you're still ignoring it. What would it take for you to admit it's a terrible idea?

Aidan, you've got it backwards, adding something/anything at the front, stamp duty or land tax,The cascading GST i.e, can only make land dearer and consequently housing dearer!

Apart from that the only people penalized are the "landed gentry" and the doers/the entrepreneurs! What's next mate, state owned farms?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty, before you say I've got it backwards, stop making silly guesses as to what my position is! I'm not proposing adding anything at the front, nor imposing GST on top of other taxes. Indeed I'd like to see a broad based land tax eventually replace both stamp duty and GST, though preferably not as a direct replacement as the GST's a bad tax that we'd be better off ditching sooner rather than later.

As land tax would only be on unimproved land value, it wouldn't penalise the doers/the entrepreneurs at all. And if by "landed gentry" you mean those who make an income from land investments as an alternative to productive work, WTF's wrong with making that less lucrative?

Your mention of state owned farms is a complete non sequiter. Can you even think of a state that's implemented this policy and owned farms at the same time? You might just as well have said "What's next mate, clothing tariffs?", as it has just as much bearing on what I said – though of course that wouldn't fit your completely baseless "manifestly socialistic/animal farm ideas" strawman.

Aidan we already pay a value related land tax; it's called rates, and like land tax the only folks that pay are those who own some land!

Whereas everyone, including some of the biggest current tax avoiders (Multinationals, sham religions) would pay an unavoidable expenditure tax!

It's way past time that ordinary small business folk were relieved of being unpaid tax collectors and that role given to our very profitable banks!We can at least agree on one thing. That the GST is a bad tax that should never been introduced!?

Instead we should have done something to make offshoring just to avoid tax that ought to be paid on profits earned in this country, entirely unavoidable.

and give it would apply equally to international transfers and remittances; a bank collected unavoidable expenditure tax does just that!

John Howard is on the public record justifying the introduction of the Granny killing GST, (his preferred so called tax reform) on the grounds that some 95% of corporate Australia, had at that time, already offshored their operations.

And this time please don't interpret my remarks as wishing that 95% of corporate Australia should offshore their operations to avoid their fair share; as you did in an earlier conversation!

An additional land tax would simply add to the already opaque complexity which with we regulate some of our tax measures; family trust and some so called business expenses/corporate tax?

And a visiting Republican Senator invited as a guest speaker on Q+A, is on the public record as saying. "at some point complexity always becomes fraud"! Quote unquote.

How is a land tax not like stamp duties not front loading, which by the way is just one of a number of reasons housing has become progressively less affordable?

And how much Australian land do tax avoiding multinationals own?

Clearly you've given this tax avoidance by some corporations which by the way often have annual budgets, bigger than some sovereign nations, a good deal of "rational" thought!?
Rhrosty with two R's

rhosty, although rates are (in some areas) related to unimproved land value, they don't remain proportional to land value. Instead they're adjusted every few years according to how much the council spends. And they're not usually set at a high enough rate to significantly depress land values.

Land tax is not front loading because, like council rates and unlike stamp duty, it is an ongoing cost not an upfront cost. It would be relatively simple to collect (the same process as council rates). The only potential complexity would be in ensuring the value is fair. And it would eventually enable more complex taxes to be abolished.

Your "unavoidable expenditure tax" has all the disadvantages of the GST with none of the advantages! Businesses would be slugged with a load of costs that they can currently claim back on GST, and those costs would not be on profit but on turnover, making it harder to achieve a profit. It would create a huge black market in foreign currency transactions. And it would be a costly and unwarranted intrusion into people's freedom.

And unlike land tax, it would be an up front loading making housing less affordable.

I don't think I actually interpreted your remarks as "wishing that 95% of corporate Australia should offshore their operations to avoid their fair share"; rather I thought that your odious tax plan (essentially a GST on absolutely everything) was so badly thought out that you failed to realise 95% of Australia's financial sector would offshore their operations to avoid getting slugged with it. They'd have no choice because, far from being their fair share, it would be an unfair impost that would send them broke if they carried on as before.

Meanwhile the existing situation with multinational corporations offshoring profits occurs because of ambiguity of whether those profits are really earned in Australia or somewhere else. What do you think the deciding factor should be?