Hi, CR
I find it hard to merely talk about simplifying tax because, I automatically anticipate the consequences any simplification or reduction in tax brings.
I look upon paying tax as buying services from the government. If we pay less tax, we receive fewer services.
We pay tax, and the government ‘should be’ at our service. I recognise that there are problems with a big government and squandering taxes.
That’s why I like the idea of tax shifting- if carbon is taxed, polluters will pay more tax and other taxes can be reduced.

“No government will repair the deficiencies which negligent parents inflict upon their children.”
It’s good to point out that the problem with negligence doesn’t have to be just a monetary problem. But while money can’t solve all child poverty problems, ensuring that all families have adequate housing and access to health care and education does solve a big part of the problem.

I do recognise problems with our government, but I anticipate even bigger problems when a corporate world would, more or less, run the country.
I hope that one day it will be possible for taxpayers to vote online on the main issues as they come up, which means the government can decrease in size and less tax will be wasted.
At least a government is democratically elected and is available for other purposes than to boost up the economy.

I would need a lot of faith to believe that corporations will be more ethical and accountable than democratically elected governments.
Private enterprise is about maximising profits- it is not elected by the citizens and not democratic.
What would stop it to exploit resources, people and the environment?

And how free would one actually be in the claws of a greedy, corporate world that cultivates our behaviour by manipulating emotions- a marketing society that makes us slaves of our passions and addictions?
I wonder whether Freedom doesn’t just rely on social policies more than on a little extra disposable income.

Continued

I DO love the things one can do with money and that money can increase options, but I wouldn’t want to exchange a reasonable welfare system that provides aid to those who need it for some extra disposable income.

To say that riches are the way to freedom is something that marketing spruikers want us to believe.
Who knows, perhaps Janis Joplin was right and “Freedom is just another word for ‘nothing left to lose’. ”
Perhaps the Buddhists are right and freedom may mean non-attachment to the material world including people.
Freedom is such a multi-facetted concept and may be personal.

I have no faith in modern consumer capitalism as a provider of freedom.
It encourages conformity and one-dimensionality, and an intolerance of those who wish to break out of the expressions of individuality manufactured by the market.
The boy who is isolated from a group because he doesn’t wear the latest style Reeboks.

“I passionately believe people are naturally kind and generous “
That’s a really lovely idea, and I agree that people are naturally good.
But don’t you think that, no matter how good people are, it depends much on the economy whether people can afford donations?
For example, even when we pay less tax, interest rises may still hold people back from being as generous as their nature allows them to be. People are struggling with angst about the financial future as well.

I think that for me the time has come to move on and to agree with you on some of your points such as increase personal tax thresholds and reduce world population and disagree with other points.
You’re welcome to have the last word, Col, because I don’t think I have any new points regarding taxes for now.

This discussion has provided me with some new thoughts and interest, so I wish to thank Pelican for providing this interesting thread and all other contributors for making this an enjoyable discussion.

Cevelia “I look upon paying tax as buying services from the government.”

It could be looked upon as that. However, I dislike taking a market full of consumers and vendors and replacing all the vendors with a single monopoly vendor. It is the very basis of bad commerce. It destroys the benefits and efficiencies of competitive supply.

The notion of tax shifting was seen with the introduction of GST, shift from sales tax, stamp duty, land tax onto GST, except the lying bastards in the states did not remove all the taxes they were supposed to. They will do the same if you think about carbon tax too.

“ensuring that all families have adequate housing and access to health care and education does solve a big part of the problem.

Cannot be done due to the reasons previously stated, not all people act either in their own best interests or with responsibility for their children. Every person has to accept some self responsibility, global safety nets are subject to significant diminishing returns. They are also a disincentive to people, who may accept lower standards to qualify for handouts and doing nothing.

“a corporate world would, more or less, run the country.”

Corporations do not vote, only people vote and powerful government is capable of behaving with all the negative characteristics of corporations anyway.

“Private enterprise is about maximising profits”

No, private enterprise is about ensuring the business is there for tomorrow and the day after, not just for the profits of today. That is the old socialist excuse for nationalisation and it is a lie.

“What would stop it to exploit resources, people and the environment?”

Well protective legislation will do a lot more than simply playing with taxes.

“And how free would one actually be in the claws of a greedy, corporate world”

Corporations are run and owned by people. They are the conduit for collecting sufficient equity to enable the risk venture to be financed. They are heavily legislated and corrupt practices are legislated against as they are revealed ( example: Sarbanes Oxley in response to Enron)

“but I wouldn’t want to exchange a reasonable welfare system that provides aid to those who need it for some extra disposable income.”

I have not suggested removing all welfare. I do believe a balance does need to be made between, on the one side

Individual incentive and opportunity (including the opportunity to express compassion and philanthropy)

versus

the costs of a welfare safety net.

I repeat, safety nets are seriously subject to diminishing returns and need to be set to the bare poverty level or they will attract the lazy opportunists who would rather do nothing than work to improve their own circumstances.

“I have no faith in modern consumer capitalism as a provider of freedom.
It encourages conformity and one-dimensionality, and an intolerance of those who wish to break out of the expressions of individuality manufactured by the market.
The boy who is isolated from a group because he doesn’t wear the latest style Reeboks.”

So your solution – they are only allowed to wear same coloured uniforms?

Where is the “expressions of individuality” in that?

Consumer capitalism leaves the choice with the individual to buy or not to buy and what fashion statement to make be it conservative, punk, contemporary etc. etc. (actually if I were younger I could definitely see me in goth garb).

“it depends much on the economy whether people can afford donations?”
and the less you tax them the more they have to donate.

I see no merit in simply being the last to post.

I do see merit in challenging ideas and having to defend and thus analyse and clarify, for myself, my ideas too.

The matter of tax is an enabling matter.

Tax is not a system for punishing the wealthy or to redistribute wealth.

Nor is it there to buy a safety net, intended to protect people from their own stupidity.

Tax is needed to fund the necessary work of government and our desire for efficient government would suggest it should be, overall minimised, to keep government “lean”.