"...single mothers will lose up to 75c in every dollar they earn from taking a part-time job, and that's not counting the cost of child care, travel and work clothes..."

Partnered mothers will lose even more.

In 1951 the average tax on income was just 11%.Today we have the GST and taxes,charges,stamp duty on every posssible good or service.Back then, people survived without the Nanny State.They were tough and self reliant.Now we have huge bureaucracies that actually perpetuate the dependance on social security.This coupled with housing costs has forced both parteners to work long hours and pay the taxes for all this nonsense.

I propose we take a serious look at an "expenditure tax" or really a turnover tax that takes say 2% of all turnover with no imput tax credits.All the tax office has to do is to look at your bank account for the year and say pay 2%.The beauty of this system is that it compounds.Once money changes hands 5 times it has an effective compound rate of well over 10%.Many multi-nationals would be paying tax for the first time.There would be no point in hiding cash money.Who is going to take cash for a 1% discount?Well,you aren't going to give the full 2% discount for no advantage.

Many Govt bureacracies would simply disappear.Whole armies of lawyers and tax accountants would cease to exist.Human intelligence could be into research and development instead of tying ourselves in knots under mountains of bureaucracy,legal disease,and confusion.

The mechanism for this tax is already in place.It is called the GST.Simply reduce the GST and also decrease by a greater proportion the imputs tax credits.It could be an evolutionary system that could well free up human intelligence to add to the nation's productivity and give everyone more time off work to grow our family life.

I advocate the abolition of income tax entirely. So whatever reform they come up with that reduces income tax is a step in the right direction.

Malcom Turnbull and Craig Emerson are singing from the same song sheet. Malcom sings the high notes and Craig sings the low notes. It is a truely beautiful song. It has been too many years since we had such sweet music reverberating from Canberra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

well it is about time that we as a nation face reality .
how long can ordinary paye taxpayers continue to subsidise property investors through negative gearing.

if everyone jumped on the bandwagon and negatively geared then we will be faced with fiscal disaster.

politicians are too scared to face up to the reality that the system is completely broken and needs major surgery not a cosmetic touch here or there.

i understand that negative gearing returns something like $7Billion/yr to those that in on the racket.

can anyone explain to me why we want to allow capital losses from investors to be offset against income. my understanding is that this is not the case in other western/oecd countries.

I understand the political dilema in that so many are in on the racket now that complete abolition cannot be obtained.

Therefore I recommend the following:- grandfather existing negative gearing arrangements and set a limit for existing investors as to how much they claim. therefore reduce revenue lost from $7b/yr to $2b/yr.

Then I would recommend that you would have $4b/yr for tax cuts and $1b/yr that could be devoted to public housing to make home affordability greater and get round the perennial furphy of housing shortages that is brought out every time that negative gearing is discussed.

we have a crisis in asset inflation in the residential housing market which is making it impossible for ordinary aussies to own their own home.

this asset inflation will burst just like the commercial property markets did, the commercial market adjustment hurt those that invested in commercial property, when the residential property bubble bursts it will hurt ordinary people who have borrowed heavily against their home.

if the Labor Party is going to be fair dinkum it has to develop a plan for the future for a better society not play with merchant bankers in the cosmetic surgery of public life.

Slasher ,get real,Labor got rid of negative gearing years ago and the was a shortage of both rental and residential accommodation for purchase.Interest paid on any business activity is a legitimate tax deduction.There are better ways of making housing more affordable if you are interested?

i earn a salary and pay taxes and make investment decisions to make a profit and hence pay more tax. i am sick and tired of bludgers who think the public should underwrite their investments. if you make a loss then you should not expect hardworking people to subsidise your lifestyle.

negative gearing is the biggest rort out, we should be encouraging investments into productive profit bearing activities not subsidising through the public purse of individual wealth creation.

the most cost effective way of making housing more affordable is through public housing being rented and then over time sold to enable future investment to meet demographic trends and shifts.

Though it needs to be dispersed through the community not concentrated in particular locations, this can be achieved by public housing authorities purchasing certain percentage of housing from developers in new estates.

if negative gearing was eliminated you could substantially reduce income tax, not just tinker at the edges. sacrificing $7b a year in revenue is a very expensive way of ensuring sufficient rental accomodtion exists. in fact it would be labelled irrational and an interference in the market. it must be removed to ensure neutrality between alternative investment decisions.