The $80 billion never existed; it was just another wild, unffordable Labor promise

Wetherill is a Labor premier: couldn't run a church fête and has ruined SA.

Housing is up because of stupidly low interest rates which give a false sense of prosperity and ready money. Even people who do not borrow have to pay more. Production has not inceased to match the cheap money supply.

Baird is a small 'l' liberal premier with a corresponding attitude to other people's money. He has tossed $47 million into 'deradicalising' would be terrororists who are already costing us billions due to their welfare dependence.

The GST and other taxs will go up because our Left-wing PM is another big spender.

ttbn,

When the government spends money, it exists regardless of whether or not it existed before the government spent it.

Labor premiers in SA tend to do slightly less damage than their Liberal counterparts. Wetherill's not really been that bad. Rann was much worse (though in his first term where he didn't have a parliamentary majority, he was much better).

Housing is up because of low interest rates, but what's "stupidly low" is the government deficit. Were the government willing to borrow more, the RBA wouldn't have to slash interest rates to try to get the private sector to stimulate the economy.

Debatable! very debatable! And just one man's opinion at the end of the day!
Rhrosty.

Land taxes are like putting Dracula in charge of the Blood Bank. Anyone who pays Council Rates knows there is a huge disconnect between the rateable value of the land and the market value. Any time they want more blood er tax, they change the rate or the ascribed value, and the victim er landholder, has no say in the matter. The only time anything has a monetary value is at the moment of sale when the buyer and seller agree that price and in the currency used. A simple spending tax at a low, predictable rate, has many advantages. My book Your Future in Your Hands details the flaws in a Land Tax and the Debits Tax and others.

" Land Tax is the only revenue mechanism to generate positive benefits for the economy."

This is wonderful news. Why not make it 100%? Imagine how rich we'll all be then!

Amazing how people lack critical thinking about even the most obvious drivel when it comes to government.

Notice how the author, in an article about appropriate tax in the public interest:
1. does not define the public interest?
2. does not define the appropriate rate of tax?
3. does not define the State?
4. does not define efficiency in taxation
5. does not define a net benefit from taxation
6. does not give any concern or attention whatsoever to the question what government should or not should not be doing with the money it raises?

I once heard John Fairburn, a distinguished economist, discuss the whole range of taxes. Land tax has many advantages

It is a wealth tax

The ownership of this wealth is unambigious, no cunning lawyer can get around it.

It is a brake on speculation

It is easy to collect, just add it on to the council rates.