Maybe all you high tax guys don't realize this, but it is extremely simple now for people who get fed up with their wages getting "redistributed" simply to work elsewhere, as is happening already in record numbers, accoring to Australia's top demographer.
(see e.g.,http://wopared.parl.net/Library/pubs/rn/2003-04/04rn54.htm). Its like a new form of democracy for well educated professionals. None of the Western European countries have managed to solve this problem (3 million European scientists work in the US), and it is, of course, harder for, say, a French Doctor to move to the US than an Australian one. So pointing to the socialist European countries as an example of what is going to work in the long term is rather misleading .

If Australia really wants to have a decent number of professionals into the future (doctors, scientists...), my suggestion is that people give up on the idea that high levels of money redistribution (and hence the punishment of the successful) has a long term beneficial effect.

RC I don’t think you are right when talking about Australia’s so called “brain drain” I have a friend who works in the CSIRO in Canberra (he is from England) and he was telling me about a conference he went to in Cairns which 7 Australians and 7 Foreigners would have a talk fest (don’t remember what it was about) anyway the funny thing was the 7 foreigners was actually 14 seeing that the 7 “Australians” were all born overseas and had come to Australia to work for the CSIRO.

Secondly would you leave all your friends and your lifestyle in Australia behind for an extra 20-30K a year? Most good scientist in Australia earn more then $85K a year and I doubt many would move there kids out of school and leave there home for a couple of extra bucks. Sure some do but I would say most of them do it for more then personal economic reasons (maybe for better funding of their research)

I think we should increase tax breaks for start ups to spur more investment in bio tech and high technology. I think its currently 150% but we are competing with the likes of Ireland who I think has tax breaks of about 320% (that’s off the top of my head)

Also does anyone know if this is correct, that super funds cannot invest in start ups?

“Abolish the dividend imputation scheme.” Why tax twice? It would reduce incentives for people to own shares who use it as a way of reducing there own tax.
“repealing capital gains tax concessions” Once again stifle investment and crack down on those who want to invest in new companies.
There are a few minor good points but most of it is anti growth anti hard work and anti Australia.

Hmmmmm I sniff a greenie and anti-globalist I wonder if this bloke was one of the people violently attacking the good people of the Victorian police force on the weekend?

This article echoes the comments of Michael Carmody when he retired as Taxation Commissioner in March. He was concerned about the high marginal tax rates paid by those whose income was between $16,000 and $21,000. His proposal was not to cut the marginal tax rates for those earning over $80,000 as the government subsequently did.

I think if would be fairer if corporations that operate in Australia paid income tax based on their turnover rather than their profit. When consumer corporations decide to take their profit offshore they stop manufacturing in Australia. The mining companies sell their product at a low price to their HongKong or Cayman Island partner who onsells it to the final consumer at a high price. Why the rigamarole. The corporations tax is 15% in HongKong or Cayman Islands. The consumer is in Japan or China etc

Although I can see its easier to tax high wealth individuals rather than corporations

Could Kim's slogan be : Let's have a tax on everything! ? I am sure that would resonate with the voters.

The trick for Labor is to find the right balance between getting things done and leaving the average punter with enough in their wallets to allow them to do what they want to do.

Not an easy task, one that would be significantly more difficult with a slew of new taxes.

re: the G20 protests - I do not support the violence of the small minority who - through their actions - are marginalising a legitimate movement. I do think, though, that there are important matters at hand. I think the World Bank and IMF need to be reformed so as to give third world countries control of their own destiny. And that means rejecting a single neo-liberal template enforced through 'structural adjustment' packages.

As for globalisation - there is good and bad. On the one hand, the world is getting smaller, as global information flows increase - and this is a good thing. It gives rise to greater mutual understanding and the develop of a 'global consciousness'. On the bad side, what Boris Frankel calls 'financialisation': the development of the finance capital sector, and volatile finance capital flows - to the exclusion of productive long term investment - produces instability and uncertainty for governments.

As for dividend imputation - it costs billions in lost revenue every year - and mainly benefits the 20% of Australians who own about 90% of all shares. Why should the rich receive a tax break when there is not enough money for school infrastructure, for reducing hospital waiting lists, and with $100,000 degrees on offer in our universities?

We have one of the most modest taxation regimes in the OECD. Infrastructure and services need to be paid for by someone, and without additional taxation we will all lose from decrepit of missing infrastructure, from substandard services, and from user-pays charges that discriminate against those least able to pay.

Tell me - what's preferable about user-pays charges - that are little different than a 'flat tax' - compared to progressive taxation based on capacity to pay - where business pays for the infrastructure it benefits from? People like Western Red are just concerned that THEY will be more tax - and have no concerns for the social needs of the majority of Australians - or the infrastructure needs that are so vital to our society and economy.

How is investing in infrastructure and services "anti-growth" and "anti Australia". Is there some essentially Australian neo-liberal ideology that we all must subscribe to in order to be recognised as citizens? Furthermore - infrastructure contributes to growth. Investment in fixed capital is the lowest it has been in decades. Poor quality roads, rail, education, ports - this is something we all pay for in the end. Infrastructure contributes directly to growth. As the Scandinavians show, a subtantial progressive taxation regime combined with incentives for industry and infrastructure investment - are a recipe for growth and economic success.