The nation needs services and infrastructure if it remains a nation!

And the citizens need to collectively fund that through some mutual obligation compact.
What it doesn't need are unproductive parasites getting rich from the huge money churn that is current tax structure!
Nor do we need leaning billionaire multinationals/local millionaires, earning profits here and so structuring their business model as to avoid, air and reasonable tax, the price of earning an income or profits in any democracy or open free market!
We need to reduce spending without cutting services! And the only way is to eliminate the fee demanding middleman!
All our social services must be supplied in not for profit paradigms. As we now do in aged care by funding the means-tested client then allowing various service providers to compete for the aged care service provider.
And could be replicated as a service provision model in education and health!?
Assisted by far greater regional autonomy, along with the formal recognition of local government.
And in combination halve the social security budget while increasing spending on unmet need.
TBC. Alan B.

one thing for sure and that is 1 billion a year to fund the marxist dogmas at the abc is crimminal.

Continued:
So how do we pay for our service model without tanking the economy or bankrupting the citizenry? And can we produce a model that eliminates the fee collecting unproductive middleman? All while incorporating an unavoidable tax collecting system the wealthy and privilege will gladly pay?
Well, yes we can. Given the top tax paid in actual real money to the ATO, by any CORPORATE entity, the year ending 2017. Paid as their share of consolidated revenue, topped out at 13%! And that one in four paid NONE!
Then a flat rate of 15% paid by everyone above a reasonable tax-free threshold, say $37,000.00? Would reduce the tax paid by ordinary PAYE workers by at least 4%!
As well as permanently remove bracket creep from a highly convoluted money churn!
And completely obviate the need for reconciliation, returns or any compliance costs! OR AVOIDANCE!
Which would be entirely counterproductive and add an entirely unnecessary, additional cost burden. Thus through simply paying their tax as a flat rate above the threshold, they could return former tax compliance costs, back to the bottom line as an averaged 7%, thus paying an effective rate of 8%!
All while increasing the revenue stream by no less than 2% and as much as 15% in the case of the one in four multinational avoiders, who reportedly have avoided billions and for years!?
As for Australian national who use various tax havens to avoid our tax? They should be disendorsed as Australian citizens and be asked to follow their money. Ostensibly to make room for the rush of fully cashed up self-funded retirees, who along with high tech manufacturers, would want to relocate here along with their healthy bank balances!
TBC. Alan B.

Continued:
It's not just taxes that must be reduced but economy-killing energy costs! Both in the factory and on the farm! Alleviated by lifting all the current bans or rules and regulations that prohibit or prevent, peaceful purpose nuclear energy.
Here I'm advocating for MSR and thorium and using MSR to reprocess other folk's nuclear waste to earn annual billions and enough to more than pay for several dozen CLEAN, SAFE, MASS PRODUCED, factory-built reactors, that don't need water sources to operate.
Therefore can be trucked to where we want or need them. And in so doing reduce energy prices to lower than 3 cents per KwH?
It's clearly not taxes currently ruining this economy, manufacturing or farming in this country, but massive ginormous energy prices! And pettifogging pollies, to gormless or financially conflicted, to do anything about it!?
Alan B.

Great topic, yet the answer is simple:

Taking things from others without their consent, is immoral.
The bible calls it "Thou shalt not steal".

So what if you have constructive ideas, say you like to build a nation? First you need to ask and receive permission from those involved!

Now with money there is a catch: it was printed by the state.

Had we been permitted to conduct our lives without the money that the state prints, then it would be fair for the state to say: "if you want to use my money, then there are conditions, strings attached - and taxation is one of them". Don't like the conditions - don't use the money that they print. Simple.

Had this been the case, then the author's claims can be thrown out the window - why not take from the rich and give to the poor or for any other purpose, after all you agreed to the conditions that come with the currency (including in principle foreign currencies by means of international agreements).

The problem of course, is that a multitude of laws forbid us from living outside the framework of state-printed money, practically forcing us to use the state's money and all that goes with it, taxation thus being only one of the least of the state's immoral atrocities.

I like to cooperate, I like to pay my taxes in order to help the less-fortunate in my community - but I, and all others, deserve to be asked first whether we want to be part of it all, and we were not!

David L.

Seriously? I can't believe you write this crap, let alone think it.

This prevelant idea you mouth, is not original.

Just as a reminder, none like the rich have the huge ability of dodging taxation, while at the same, the ability to lobby government for a bigger slice of the pie cooked by the less well off.

Your unbelievable!

Yuyustu: Without taxes and the multitude of things they pay or have paid for, well before you were born! Society would be reduced to living in caves as illiterates hunting our food down with a stone tied to a stick! Some of which would be each other! Moreover, taxes are not charity, but rather the fair price we pay for the privilege of living in a harmonious multicultural democracy.
If you disagree, I sure there's someplace where nobody pays any personal income tax? Perhaps a study tour is indicated, which when you've finished? You could come back and tell the rest of us how it's done or possible? Or just stay there, if you survive?
The trick here is to collect them, in a not for profit paradigm that eliminates all the usual unproductive parasites!
Who seem to believe, they deserve frequent free lunches? and or, that the world owes them a living?
Be they double dipping, double handling bureaucrats or entirely unproductive and completely unnecessary tax practitioners, who alone are served by current convoluted complexity!
Alan B.

Yuyutsu

Have you heard the term "redistribution ".

It's the fundamental role of Government. Nothing remotely like stealing.

You and Dave are obviously on the same page here. I, on the other hand, am in a different library.

Y,

So if one is paid in Bitcoin or foreign currency, then there is no need to pay tax?

Dear Alan,

Please read my previous post more carefully: I am not against taxes, only against compulsory taxation.

«Society would be reduced to living in caves as illiterates hunting our food down with a stone tied to a stick!»

Yes, and if most people don't want to pay their taxes, then so be it.

The fact that you don't like living in a cave or hunting with sticks and stones is your own problem - you have no right to impose your desired lifestyle on others.

Realistically, you will find enough others who also don't like living in caves and hunting with sticks and stones, so the issue you brought up is not really a problem, even if a few who think differently to you would opt out and not aspire for the "privilege of living in a harmonious multicultural democracy", which for you seems so dear.

I do share your sentiments over the unnecessary complexity and unproductiveness of the existing tax system.

---

Dear Dan,

Redistribution need not take the form of stealing.

I am not on the same page as "Dave" because I do support redistribution (within reason of course). "Dave" on the other hand, does not seem to be opposed to stealing in principle, he just wants government to steal somewhat less, about half of what it currently does.

Unlike "Dave" I don't want government to take less overall (though I would like them to distribute it differently, but that's a different issue), I think that the amount they currently take is reasonable, but they should only be asking for it from those who agree (while those who disagree should refrain from using the money that they print).

---

Dear SM,

Technically, foreign currency can be made essentially the same as local currency by way of international agreements. I do not support Bitcoin, but I have no right to prevent others from using it. I do however have a right to deny them services if they choose not to pay taxes.

I don't give a damn what I'm described as or how ignorant people think I am but no-one can deny that there is only one fair tax & that is a Flat Tax where everyone without exception pays the same rate. This will give more people a better standard of living & still enable the go-getters & smart & devoted to money, the opportunity to satisfy their addiction.
Public service salaries must be reigned in also. Only then can we become competitive again & resurrect the many local enterprises that were killed off by the ruthless greedy.

Leyonhjelm asks the question; Do those earning $120,000 receive $34,000 worth of value (tax benefit) from the federal government? Do they receive $34,000 worth of roads, defence force services, courts and public broadcasting?

Leyonjelm in his usual fashion goes on to answer the question with a resounding; The answer is no; the value someone earning $120,000 gets from the federal government is a tiny fraction of the tax paid.

Really Dave, is that the case, you didn't provided any figures as to what the value is. How do you determine for example the value of such things as defence forces for someone earning $120,000. If you believe, as some do, that the murderous hoards are just over the hill, ready to attack at any tick of the clock, about to unleash rape and pillage on you and your family, with the only thing standing between them and you is the defence forces. What value do you put on the DF in that case.

If we are paying a Senator around $200,000, and all he can come up with is unsubstantiated nonsense, then was he worth employing at that rate in the first instance, or would we be better off if he was unemployed after the next election.

Do those earning $120,000 receive $34,000 worth of value (tax benefit) from the federal government?

Paul1405,
Add to this GST, Fuel Tax plus all the other taxes & license renewals, permits etc etc. people will realise how much they're really paying in Tax.
On the other hand, as you rightly pointed out, people on high salaries for example in the Public Service are without any doubt whatsoever overpaid. The Commissioner of Taxation on $770,000 plus allowances is straight forward immoral considering that all he does is sit there. We don't even need a Commissioner for taxation, we have all the rules in place to negate that position. There's an immorality already. The same goes for the several thousand bureaucrats who are not actually doing anything themselves apart from playing figurehead yet still receiving top Dollars. For what I ask.
To make it all more fair have everyone pay 25 Cents for every Dollar earnt.

Paul,

Coming from the party that provides the gold standard in unsubstantiated nonsense, that is a little rich.

No one doubts that a government is supposed to supply goods and services paid for by taxation and that taxation needs to be progressive based on income. However, the value of the services to the taxpayer depends largely on the efficiency of the government in supplying these services with labor richly earning the reputation of pissing the money away on pet political projects that deliver little to no value.

Taxation is a disincentive to work or to invest and should be limited to just that which is needed.

Interesting that a significant aspect of the sub title to the article didn't get touched in the article or subsequent discussion.

The idea of "ability to pay". I'm guessing that could have lots of meanings but the most obvious is the assumption that earning more leaves more spare money to pay more tax.

In my view that's not a given, people can be quite capable of earning good incomes but not managing that money well, they can have personal circumstances requiring that extra income (a health problem, an outstanding debt they need to clear, a financial disaster from the past they need to clear etc).

At the same time others may have circumstances that allow them to reduce their work income to concentrate on things they would rather do, they may have a home paid off, no kid's, enough property to grow a lot of their own food, be more handy at DIY than others etc.

A tax system that takes non of that into account and only concentrates on the narrowly defined idea of taxable income (which generally does not account for any of the previous items) is not in any way distributing the taxation burden based on peoples ability to pay.
Some will be hurt far more than others by the taxation system with no consideration to their circumstances.

R0bert

Has anyone thought of voluntary taxation, where you only contribute according to your conscience, certainly a novel idea. A restraint in Newtown decided to take down its price list, and have the patrons, pay as much as they felt obliged to. Well I can say my forty cent rump steak was delicious, but my wife's $35 pasta was rather so so. The truth is the restaurants income went up, and BTW they don't serve rump steak.

Dear old Dave was on Paul Murray Live last night, always good to hear what the enemy have to say. On the question of spending of $247 million on the School Chaplin's programme Dave thought the programme was good, but spending taxpayers dollars on it was bad. Dave suggested those Chaplin people could do it voluntarily. Possibly Dave might like to extend the voluntary aspect to all those being paid from the public purse, including overpaid Senators like himself!

voluntary taxation, where you only contribute according to your conscience,
Paul1406,
Totally & utterly unfair that the Leftists should be excempt from paying Tax ?

Dear Paul,

Yes, I have been thinking of voluntary taxation for a long time.

But it wouldn't work if you pay just what you like: people should be issued (or self-assess) with a minimum tax according to their income, then if they pay less they become ineligible for public services and benefits. For a wealthy person, this could mean for example that if they are robbed the police wouldn't come.

Voluntary taxation must be only for individuals - companies should not have the option to opt out.

Along with the minimal sum which ensures the basics, should come strong recommendations for additional optional sums for designated purposes. Those who do not agree with some specific additional purpose should be encouraged to mark their tax-return so the same additional sum goes into a different option. Those who pay in total less than recommended will have their names published.

We have no real alternative to pay tax if we keep on relying on the services that are provided by taxation.
Negative gearing & bracketing only exacerbate our economic woes instead of stimulating our economy.
The finacial experts have been getting it wrong & are still getting it wrong. What they call a successful system is an immoral failure to the detriment of 95% of the population.
Flat tax IS THE ONLY way to regain the balance that will enable this society to get back on track for everyone to enjoy a decent existence. The rich will always be rich, no matter what tax system is in place.

Taxes and governments came about in an interesting way.

In early times, people would establish villages and farms, and Bands of robbers would ride in at intervals and take everything the villagers had.(As in todays WARLORDS?). But just when the farmers recovered and got on their feet again, another band of robbers, would come and take everything they could again.

So when the first band of robbers came back, they found there was nothing to take, beside which, by the robbers taking everything all the time, it prevented the villagers from being able to run their farms and so that produced no gain for anyone.

The robbers or Warlords figured out, they would gain much more by staying in the village and protecting it from other robbers, and allowing the farmers and villagers to keep enough so they would stay and keep on producing.
So they only took a percentage. -- Taxation.
And they protected the people from other attacks. -- Government and army.

It is not surprising that politicians would act like the Robbers bandits and warlords by
fleecing the people.
Now isnt that a nice bedtime story? A true one too.
Moral of the story-- The more things change,the more humans remain the same, and the left wing thinks they can bring about a utopian world.

Well good luck with that

The origins of taxation was something the king imposed on his subjects so he could afford to wage war, not much has changed. In the good old days of serfdom, the serfs didn't pay tax as such, they didn't have cash to do that. The surfs folk'd over a portion of what they produced to the lord of the manor. Which in a good year wasn't too bad, the surfs only half starved. In a bad year they still had to folk out the same amount, and then they all starved, except the lord of the manor, not much has changed.

except the lord of the manor, not much has changed.
Paul1405
Well, there are a lot more Lords nowadays & their titles have changed. They're known as bureaucrats now & they're predominantly PC Left..

David Leyonhjelm asks:

"Do those earning $120,000 receive $34,000 worth of value from the federal government? Are the subsidies for child care, schooling, healthcare and opera tickets worth that much? Or do they receive $34,000 worth of roads, defence force services, courts and public broadcasting?"

He answers this in the negative without providing any evidence at all to support his assertion. From their his essay goes down hill.

The reality is that the more you earn, the more likely you are to take advantage of the infrastructure that can only be created effectively by governments. You are more likely to use the roads. You are more likely to purchase items made overseas and hence need ports. You are more likely to have more waste that needs to be disposed of. You are more likely to access cultural activities.

Even things that rich people think they are paying for: private schools, private hospitals, etc. are often subsidized by the taxpayer.

One of the biggest issues with the Australian taxation system is that the rich are in fact able to avoid paying tax. There are numerous opportunities to reduce your taxation liability under Australian tax law; however, these often can only be accessed by those with a high level of wealth. Perhaps, Leyonhjelm should suggest a new taxation model: a flat tax rate on all income and assets?

Reduce tax avoidance by the wealthy and their tax rate can be reduced. This is the problem with libertarians: they want to keep more of their own stuff, but they also want the government to give them more of other people's stuff.

Dear Agronomist,

«The reality is that the more you earn, the more likely you are to take advantage of the infrastructure»

This is a pretty safe bet. Yes, more, but not proportionally more as the earnings.

«...that can only be created effectively by governments»

Leyonhjelm would claim that infrastructure can also be created by charities. But let's assume for a moment that infrastructure can indeed be created effectively only by governments, this still does not exclude the moral alternative of voluntary taxation.

«One of the biggest issues with the Australian taxation system is that the rich are in fact able to avoid paying tax»

Indeed, everyone, not just the rich, should be able to avoid paying tax if they have no shame, yet society should be able to expose and shun such people.

«Perhaps, Leyonhjelm should suggest a new taxation model: a flat tax rate on all income and assets?»

Why assets, assuming they were purchased after tax, which at times was even over 50% (until 1986 in Australia)?

As for income, Leyonhjelm's Liberal Democratic Party already has this policy: http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ldp/pages/542/attachments/original/1495177382/Policy-Taxation.pdf?1495177382

"Lifting the tax-free threshold to $40,000, cutting personal tax rates to 20%, and cutting the company tax rate to 20%"

We may argue that this rate of 20% is too low: the original rate that the Liberal Democratic Party envisioned was 30%, then including a negative-income-tax (it's like UBI) to replace the welfare system. This original policy was in fact fashioned after Milton Friedman, a guru of the Libertarian movement - http://www.ldp.org.au/great_liberals_in_history