This post is related to "miners put the spotlight on unions"

Tao, A week or so ago i sad is that you Barnaby and said go away.

I am sorry, I wrote the wrong name that message is for my mate

Dunart Joyce. Go back and read Dunarts post, He jumped into this
forum like a smart-arse and that message is now for Dunart.
Dunart thinks he is a entrepreneur but he's not because he dosn't
have the ethics and compassion needed. I am totally for unions
they are needed for balance in society whether you belong to them or
not. However i am very much entrepreneurial with the ethics dunart
will/may never have. Tao, be cool. That is what we are meant to
be discussing here which is directly connected to work choices
and its effects on society. The work choices bill was rushed and so
badly written it will be a legal nightmare for all. No other
western country has such anti-union legislation.

Have a Good day.

written

DLC, I can't understand your problem with an NIT.

As my recent paper on tax/welfare reform (called "reform 30/30") showed, it is perfectly affordable to introduce an NIT and significant tax cuts a the same time.

You say it would remove incentives to work -- but that is exactly wrong, with my scheme improving the incentive by drastically cutting EMTRs.

And while it's true that the NIT is a subsidy, so is all welfare! So what?

You suggest raising the TFT -- and 30/30 suggests that also. But alone this measure still leaves us with a complex and inefficient tax/welfare system that costs too much, discourages work, has unnecessarily high admin/compliance costs and is unfair.

Speaking of 30/30 -- Nick, why aren't you in support of the idea, at least as a template for the direction of reform?

I recently read some papers regarding a 1% debt tax. It states that
if all transactions (including cash)had a one percent tax on them it would raise more money than the current system does. It also states that for an extra 0.5% all citizens would have excellent health care.
GST is gone, income tax is gone.

There had been studies at uni and they found no problem with this simple idea. This is real tax reform. I guess that some of you realize that there is little chance of this happening because finally
Big Bussiness would have to pay their share. The Government gets
paid daily through the banks computer network. That's a vote winner give me one percent anyday.

To start off,
The 30/30 paper is anything but new; it is a rehash of ideas in another paper you wrote many years before that.

Next on the Agenda...
The fact that you cannot see a problem with subsidies leaves me feeling a little depressed with regards to the health of Australian Liberalism.

The current welfare system, with all it's faults. Still requires people to accept a job when offered, the NIT system provides no mechanism to replace that.

The focus of modern Liberalism should not be to make socialism sustainable, but to get our ideas out into the public domain so that once the failure of socialism becomes apparent (through a depression) we can hold weight in a battle of ideas on the direction this country should head in our attempt to regain prosperity. If we falter and do not challenge every assertion put forward by those who glory in statism, then we will end up like FA Hayek, spending the rest of our lives regretting not fighting every battle as Australia drifts further along the path to totalitarianism and poverty.

Any comments on the one percent debt tax from my last post.

Sly,
I'm going to go ahead and come clean here, while I have heard of the 1% debt tax system, I've never really looked into it. Given that, I'm going to judge it purely by assumptions one can make by it's name and your comments regarding it.

From what I gather this tax is structured to place more of the tax burden on companies, while yobs who mindlessly consume are allowed to keep more of what they earn. So the least productive should prosper at the expense to the most productive? This will encourage more companies to invest in Australia, how?