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