Tristan,

I agree that "earned" tax credits are appropriate, but so is broadening the tax base as well as keeping it progressive.

I tend to think the tax credits model - matched to a higher threshhold $10K, and a 15, 30 (up to 100 or 125K), 45 (after 100 or 125K) model - would provide the grestest incentives for the lower and middle income earners.

Clearly to do this though you need to broaden the tax base. This is where it gets tough - but I'm not against tough decisions.

I do however think the statist model is tired tart than ran its course. I have just written a piece on differntial Vouchers for education - now that's a great idea - competition and choice and more investment at the low end!

Mate - I just give you a hard time! You'll come around to the side of economic markets driving growth. I have 20 years to pursuade you, like primaries it will be the only gig in town some day.

Corin

Corin,

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'broadening the base'. I don't want to see a flat tax, although I wouldn't mind some action on negative gearing and the introduction of a wealth tax. I also think that credits should only be offered up to a $26,000-$30,000 threshold on a sliding scale. Any further than that and it will just cost too much. Wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, abolishing dividend imputation - can all help fill the gap - but at the end of the day this won't be enough to fix the damage done by significant tax cuts to middle income earners. Tax credits ought be paid for through restructuring PAYE - and ultimately this means higher taxes at the upper end of the scale.

As for 'statism' - aversion to the state is nothing new - but what is it actually based on? What's wrong with the principle of free education anyway? And what's wrong with the principle of expanding Medicare? (apart from evoking the state as the proverbial 'boogeyman')

Tristan

G.T. please join Monash in not having a clue. diver dan, these people don't care about our situation, they just see it as CD. Money is their God, they have no understanding, or want any. They are greedy, selfish individuals, for whom compassion for their fellow man does not exist.

They are brilliant at theories, and maths, but real life as we know it, they have never, and will never experience it. Strangely it is the only life I have ever known, struggling to survive, producing wealth for the already rich men. It is a much more fulfilling life than to be burning the midnight oil like Scrouge, worried whether or not the price of their shares will fall, or how to further exploit the working class.

A recent Bill Leak cartoon depicting three big business men watching JWH on TV telling us the new IR was good for workers and sreaming out ib the background, "go you good thing" is pretty close to the truth.

G.T and Monash, you two sad buggars, wake up to yourselves, smell the roses.

No SHONGA, it is you who is selfish, as is evidenced by your utter disdain for anyone who isn't part of the lower working class, including even the unemployed, who would be much better off under an unregulated labour market.

Once again, rather than refute any points, you simply lash out with emotion and play the victim card. You believe only your type has it hard, and you believe everyone owes you something.

Don't you think the unemployed, who are priced out of the market with strict IR regulations, are much worse off than you? Don't you think it's unfair that the system has been biased towards lower workers for so long, or are you just spoilt?

The notion that employers are all evil people who get a thrill out of firing and abusing workers is an infantile lie propagated by unions. If you believe this, answer a couple of questions:
1) Why in their right mind would an employer want to fire or mistreat a productive worker?
2) If a worker is NOT productive, why should an employer be forced to keep them, assuming they are not contractually obliged to?

Employment is not a right. Wages come out of someone ELSE'S pockets, just like payment for any other good or service - money that OTHERS earned. You are not entitled to that, you must work for it, by providing a valuable good or service.

Tristan,

Perhaps: A broadening of the tax base is best done by reducing tax exemptions (including the rebates for car use, etc, etc), or raising CGT to 30% (this would mean that property would be less favourable as a vehicle to evade tax as well - but possibly an electoral loser - so I'd be cautious).

Did I mention the GST and Food - ideally this being covered too. It was wrong-headed exemption in the first place. People at the bottom get compensation by the lift in the Tax Free Threshhold.

Cheers,
Corin

"At a time when France is ripping itself apart and has 10% unemployment, and Germany more than 12% unemployment - I tend to think the tide of history is against following this path of the 35 hour week and state pension for life." - Corin

Leaving aside France, I find it somewhat disingenuous to compare Australia with Germany. In Australia you are deemed to be employed if you work a mere one hour in the survey week, whilst in Germany you are considered unemployed if you work less than 15. If Australia used the German benchmark, our unemployment rate would be higher. Additionally, Germany is still suffering from the economic effects of reunification. Despite attempts at redevelopment, unemployment in the former communist East remains at around 18%.

Like Mr. Howard, it seems you're trying to compare apples and oranges, but all you're getting is fruit salad.