Col Rouge claimed:

"In absolute terms, the simplest is a pole (sic) tax, everyone pays so much for the privilege of being here."

It was a POLL tax, Col and was the most unfair form of tax where low income paid the same flat rate as the wealthy. Resulting in riots throughout Britian, it also brought about the downfall of the Thatcher government.

I think Col has been quaffing too much of the vino and watching too much POLE dancing and become a little confused.

I take any snide insults from the foetid fingers of Col as acknowledgement that my post is most accurate and that Col's ruminations on tax are to be treated with all the gravitas of a waitress at Hooters.

"In absolute terms, the simplest is a pole tax, everyone pays so much for the privilege of being here. "

Col I've floated the idea previously of an income tax system based on time rather than dollars (no answers yet for investment type income).

The one thing we all get the same amount of (on a day by day basis not over a lifetime) is time. The current system places less social responsibility on those who choose to use their time for non income producing pursuits than those who spend more time trying to earn income. Hardly fair.

I've suggested that our responsibility be based on a certain number of hours (with the option for the finacially hard up of the debt being paid by through specified community service rather than cash).

My tax responsibility would be based on so many hours at my average hours income. Someone who chose to work fewer hours at the same hourly rate would not somehow become less responsible for their share of the cost of keeping government functional nor would someone who worked extra hours incure a greater responsibility.

Not perfect and it does not cover some forms of income but far fairer than a system that places greater responsibility on those who work longer hours and less on those who work less.

R0bert

Hi Robert, whilst I understand your value of time, basically we all have 25,000 days (or so) to experience. How would it be if I were to employ someone, with the excess of my income to serve my “time”?

It makes paying tax as savoury as a gaol term - worse, criminals did something wrong to deserve the time they serve and tax payers are generally law abiding. :-)

Using “time” would reverse our fairly sophisticated economic system back to a barter process. The “quality” of the product of that time is indeterminable. Whilst I would assume your time to reflect your attitude and values of honesty in your posts, I would suggest not all would be so honourable in their commitment or their effective time contribution.

“Not perfect and it does not cover some forms of income but far fairer than a system that places greater responsibility on those who work longer hours and less on those who work less.”

There is no “perfect” solution and no “fair” solution.

Tristan Ewing’s on one of his leftie economic platitude articles, comments to paying additional taxes to ensure some supposed worthy social service be either maintained or expanded.

I believe the solution to “fairer” taxes is to minimise the need for them.

Smaller government, not larger government. People being allowed to be responsible for their own destiny and not taxed into servitude to support “large” government’s idea of destiny.

Ultimately, the excess income left in peoples pockets will enable them to afford both the necessaries and luxuries, avoiding the cost of the bureaucracy of governments (we have enough of them in Australia).

Too many of our sovereign choices are subordinate to government regulation. Government planners, who decided on green wedges around Melbourne and caused the current land price crisis in housing.

Government bureaucrats, paid to employ government planners, paid to employ consultants to come up with master plans which are ignored or abandoned on the whim of a politician faced with a tough election.

Lots of waste and no accountability in government. The private system has, at least better accountability.

Foxy thanks - some good suggestions in the list of ideas.

Col
Yes I definitely meant 'avoidance' (whoops!).

I would argue for wiser government (rather than small). The needs of the 'collective' are often addressed better by government than by private enterprise (not everything I grant you).

It makes sense that if we need health care or fire and police services, we contribute via taxes. In effect, a form of insurance and would come a lot cheaper for the individual than if it were in private hands eg. America's health system. (I agree that there is also a lot of nonsense paid for by taxes)

It was ludicrous when schools started talking about sponsorship by private companies like McDonalds to increase their funding.

Reminds me of the case in America where a student refused to wear his 'Coke' T-shirt on Coke day and wore 'Pepsi' instead and was suspended for a day. The best link I could find was: http://www.ibiblio.org/commercialfree/presscenter/art_32698.html

Col:"I am happy to challenge any politician to justify the exhorbitant level of taxes we are shackled with, relative to the "Real" services which are delivered."

Yes, this is the crux! We are forever being taxed more for less and less services by government. Governments don't do well when they start believing they are businesses and forget they are 'funded' by the taxpayer in the first place.

The current surplus was bandied about as a great achievement by our last government while we all watched as health and other critical services went down the gurgler.

There are many government services particularly in the areas of the arts and sport which would be better met by the private sector. Many government programs are just blatantly political (image rather than substance) and usually with little accountability or monitoring processes. As per Foxy's link which suggested self funding for art and sport (millions of tax dollars are spent on sport - and I don't mean small time football teams or local community sports but the big leagues).

It is a complex problem.

I send an other text about Australia and it disappeared or I published it on an other thread! I do not know what happened with it.
Now simple I give some information from USA and some thoughts from The Guardian newspaper.
How to earn $3.5 trillion and pay zero taxes
The GAO study found that 71 percent of foreign-controlled corporations operating in the United States paid no taxes in those five years; nor did 61 percent of US-controlled companies.As a percentage of all federal tax revenues, corporate tax payments have declined from 23 percent in 1960 to 13 percent in 1980 and 8 percent today.The top 400 U.S. taxpayers, with an average income of $151 million, paid 27 percent in total taxes in the year 2000. All other taxpayers, with an average income of $34,600, paid 40 percent in total taxes.A study by Citizens for Tax Justice notes that over the ten-year period from 2001 to 2010 the richest one percent of Americans are scheduled to receive tax cuts averaging $34,000 per year. For the 20 percent of families with the lowest incomes, the average tax cut will be $77.Government and independent sources confirm that an elite group of about 13,500 Americans have more income than the 96,000,000 poorest Americans

For a better taxation system (from The Guardian newspaper.)

Increases the tax rate for high income earners and big corporations and lowers it for those on low and middle incomes;

Cracks down on family trusts which are used by the rich to avoid paying taxes;

Raises the tax-free threshold for those on a low income;

Ends tax avoidance schemes which are used by big corporations to avoid
paying their share of taxes;

Adequately funds the Tax Office to tackle tax avoidance;

Maintains the capital gains and fringe benefits taxes;

Eliminates government handouts to companies such as direct grants and tax concessions.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

If paying INCOME-TAX is a VOLUNTARY obligation what is the problem with all who have posted on this issue ?

If the TAX COMMISSIONER can only attempt to get VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE why is this discussion taking place ?

Doesn't anybody understand the meaning of the word VOLUNTARY ?

The problem is that you have all volunteered and agreed to lodge a TAX RETURN and further agreed that you would declare, by way of a declaration that you personally sign, what your income was for the twelve months prior to VOLUNTEERING this private and personal information to the TAX COMMISSIONER along with your TAX FILE NUMBER so that he can identify you.

Why do you think that there are hundreds of judges and lawyers who do not pay this impost and the TAX COMMISSIONER can't do a single thing about it ?

If the TAX COMMISSIONER stores or maintains a record of your TFN or passes this private and personal information, TAX FILE NUMBER, on to third parties or allows access to the TAX COMMISSIONER'S data base without your CONSENT or, after you have expressly revoked your CONSENT in a manner contrary to section 8WB of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, he is liable to be prosecuted for a crime. That is why Carmody left.

This very issue is now before the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney as the Child Support Registrar seems to believe that they have unfetted access to the Tax Commissioner's data base without their clients consent, noncustodial parents, even though the Registrar is to get permission by way of a written statement under section 16B of the Child Support (Registration & Collection) Act 1988.

Why do you think the discussion Mr Rudd is having about the tax system is now taking place ?

For those interested in the details of the preliminary hearings in the Federal Court of Aust go to their web site. There is more to this matter than meets the eye and they know it.
Government and taxation is an illusion and they have plenty of money they dont need ours.
http://esearch.fedcourt.gov.au:80/Esearch?p=further_details&det=coa_order&mat_id=3536550