So Sophie reckons passing of the unfair dismissal legislation will lead to employment growth. No one has yet, to my satisfaction, demonstrated to me how this might work.

I can see that it will increase staff turn over, add to the training costs of employers, escalate anxiety amongst an already nervous work force; but for the life of me I fail to see the employment opportunities that reside in the capacity of an employer to arbitrarily un load some one on what I suggest will often be a whim.

The assertion regarding unfair dismissal and employment is a bit like the nexus Costello drew between the introduction of a GST and the black economy. On more than one occassion he and others said that the GST would see an end to the black economy. Back then he failed to demonstrate how this magical thinking might work - and in fact it has not. The claim that by watering down unfair dismissal laws will lead to employment growth strikes me as little more than wishfull thinking of the same ilk whatever and ilk might be)*.

It will allow for employers to shed staff when times are lean and re engage them when business picks up. I guess the economists and Sophie assume the increased fluidity in the labour market will see the sacked retail worker moving seamlessly from sales, to fruit picking to call centre work to delivering junk mail to .........

And I guess even though the wages are low, if you believe Soph', the foreshadowed tax breaks will make Private Health Insurance more affordable as the public system gets wound down, will make dental care cheaper and more accesible, will make tertiary education more affordable, will make it easier to afford a trip to the GP ( the doctor that is not the motor car race )and will let those who live that long afford a reasonable level of residential care in thier old age. They will clearly need to go some where as housing affordabiltiy for this generation is dream realised by only a few. I am indeed sceptical. A tame senate will deliver this nation little other than heart break and misery.

So I say to Sophie, that fiesty little fire cracker from the North East of Victoria - Show us your proofs!. Just a peek will do nicely

* it has been suggested an ilk is a New Zealand moose.

Inkeemagee

There is something anomalous about an individual taxpayer paying higher taxes than a company. This is especially so, when all indirect taxes are taken into account. An incorporated, non-biological entity, that does not have to support a family, save for retirement, or go through a divorce. An entity that seems to need more infrastructure, and places heavier burdens on environment, can also deduct more of its input costs against its profits.

The tax disincentive of moving from welfare to paid employment, is also something that needs urgent attention. How is it possible that people start paying tax at half the value of standard welfare? Presumably welfare is non-taxable, but if it is, the concept is even more bizarre.

The lonely cries from individual taxpayers are now competing with calls from the business community for tax reform. Business claims that corporate tax rates need to be internationally competitive, otherwise businesses will pack up and leave. Private taxpayers of course are a captive lot, and not enough of them are leaving the country just yet. The non-indexation of marginal tax rates adds to election cynicism each time voters are compelled to the polling booths. We are put in situations that force us to choose between the parties on the basis of the biggest “tax cut” on offer – we are being asked to make decisions we should not have to make.

With the proposal from the Liberal tax reform group for less black letter tax law, and consequently more tax rulings, class rulings, product rulings, ATOIDs, advance opinions, practice statements, private rulings etc., the future of tax certainty is not promising.
And it leaves us at the mercy of the ATOs interpretations, not fair to them or the public.
Time to rethink getting rid of all taxes bar a debits tax, with legislation to control transactions going overseas. The more the bills paid, the more tax paid.The more complicated the intragroup transactions, the more tax paid. No tax incentives, no tax disincentives. Accountants doing books not for tax but to comply with ASIC requirements and the information of the business operator.
Would involve the ATO only dealing with perhaps a thousand financial institutions.The tax industry deployed to more productive endeavours.
No tax returns for all bar about 1000 institutions.
Solves the problem of the effective 87 % tax on low income earners in partial employment.
It has been estimated that a 0.45 % debits tax could replace Australia's current revenue.