strayan:

you seem like one of those people who are convinced that "life smiles on me."

it would be interesting to take away your plasma screen and silk pants and see how you fair. it seems as though you have discovered what many would call 'animal happiness', and I can assure you that it doesn't last

Terje, You make a fair point, I'm assuming that a billionair earns more, much more than a storeman, I refer to the billionaires income, not the fact that he/she is a billionaire. I don't much care what type of tax is used, as long as the billionaire, which I assume has an income of at least millions per annum, pays at least as much as a storeman. A wealth tax would stifle the notion of enterprise, and I would not like to see that happen, however I would like to see the wealthy pay more than 25% of their earnings in tax, as reported in News newspapers today. I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF TO BE A SOCIALIST, THOUGH MANY IN THIS FORUM DO. All I ask is for those who make their wealth from this country, to be responsible enough to pay their fair share of the taxation burden, which is what every P.A.Y.E. employee does. My contention is if you are wealthy, you can afford to pay a little bit extra, please correct me if you think I am wrong.

Shonga,

Billionairs are a tiny proportion of our economy. I have no problem what so ever with the concept that they should pay their taxes just like the rest of us. However we have a progressive taxation system that from next years says you are filthy rich if you earn $125,000 per annum. That does not seem to be a policy targeted at Billionairs. It seems to be targeted at professionals. In essence it is targeting the working classes.

As I said I would be happy to abolish income tax and replace it with a federal land tax. That would approximate a wealth tax. And it would literally tax those who profit from this great land.

Regards,
Terje.

Terje; Mate I would be happy with "any" form of tax, where the wealthy paid their fair share, and I agree with you re $125,000 p.a. these days is not rich, a miner can earn that, let alone a professional. Why is it that Governments of both political persuasions, don't clamp down on the "real" wealthy? Is it because if they do the wealthy, who are usually media tycoons, or oil barrons, take out an advertising blitz against that particular party, to convince the apathetic electorate that is is somehow criminal to tax them, and would lead to dire circumstances. I am on a low income less than $40,000p.a. and am looking not for tax cuts, but for services like health and education for the tax I pay, those services which have either been cut, or exist on unfair formula's. Do you think my aspirations, unreasonable...

On the matter of tax, the purpose of taxes is to benefit the public interest, not to punish people. A uniform tax system is discriminatory in that it treats unequals as equals. Rather than construing a progressive tax system as being one which penalises people for working harder, I think of it as a tax system which gives concessions to those who need them.

Eugene, your point would be valid if the tax system had something to do with willingness to work, hourly income etc rather than gross income.

The current system does not take enough factors into account to ever come near being fair. It is based on a model that does not represent reality. Should I pay more tax working full time than the person who is able to meet their needs/wants by working fewer hours? I think not. The current tax system will never be able to judge fairly between the needs of people or the capacity to pay of those individuals.

R0bert