Young Dan, thanks for that info. I wasn't sure of the status of that matter. The implications for the CSA are quite serious if the applicant's case is upheld. Mind you, if it is, the Govt will simply legislate to allow the CS Registrar automatic access, but at least then it will be an explicit power, not an illicit action by a corrupt Agency.

Antiseptic,
They can change what ever they like as they have done in the past ten years but it doesen matter, the offenses have already been committed and caused the harm, thousands of suicides and theft of property, now they are going to pay. Changing corrupt judges or providing pretend courts wont help either as they have done in the past.

ASyeonakis

I agree with your proposals – all good ideas and very fair.

And if there is one thing Australia needs it is some fairness injected into the system which is looking very regressive at the moment.

One extra suggestion if I may:

BAN Negative Gearing.

It is destructive of the social fabric, encouraging amateur investors to take on the role of DEBT LEMMINGS.

ENOUGH.

Let’s buy a big industrial shredder and dispose of this negative concept once and for all. Don't want to buy a shredder, no problem. There are plenty of flush toilets around.

Excellent one page article on negative gearing and the rort it is:
http://www.prosper.org.au/2007/11/01/negative-gearing-incompetence-or-conspiracy/

Also, for those interested in tracking the housing bubble (mainly result of negative gearing) you can check this:
http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewforum.php?f=11

Have a nice day

Fractelle “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.”

The poll tax was introduced to offset some of the council rating system.

Those who occupied their own homes had been paying house rates for local council services which those in commission houses (council houses in UK) did not, regardless of the significant income of many in commission housing, who were perfectly capable of buying a home had they had the attitude to do so.

In fact many ex council houses were sold to their occupiers at a discount to help them become owner-occupiers and millions benefited from that “Thatcher” government initiative, which the socialist swill never had the balls to deal with.

But you so obviously failed to read or include the rider which I also posted:

“I can see the obvious disadvantages of using just a pole tax, so do not suggest it as an absolute solution.”

How small minded of you.

As for “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.”

You can take whatever you want away with you from my posts.

Since you obviously have nothing of merit to add to the debate, I suggest you just read the views of others and learn that your personal take on the world is not omnipotent (actually more like impotent).

Mr Nobody “BAN Negative Gearing.”

I thought this might come up, almost suggested not banning it originally.

Your reason “It is destructive of the social fabric, encouraging amateur investors to take on the role of DEBT LEMMINGS.”

Simply sucks of the “nanny state” trying to protect people from themselves.

Banning NG would make the tax system more complex by applying differentials to tax laws based on mediums of investment and, likely, increase the rentals paid by tenants to cover the tax adjustment denied investors

Col

Not exactly well endowed with self irreverence are you?

You made a mistake, have a laugh and move on.

Remember it is POLL not POLE.

However, you may have been thinking of 'dearest' Maggie dancing just for you.

;-)

Pelican “I would argue for wiser government (rather than small).”

The two are not mutually exclusive.

However, if in doubt, put faith in smallness rather than wisdom, it is more readily observable.

Certainly a large incompetent government wreaks greater havoc than small incompetent government, 70 years of Russian communism being the classic case study.

As for funding of services, I always favour pluralist solutions over an exclusive government monopoly. It is simple, monopolies are evil, regardless of the ownership or the emotional rhetoric of the socialist minded. However, I also believe government has a role to play in developing and pursuing good governance, especially when cartel and monopoly opportunities present themselves (FTC re Microsoft) or a new fraud manifests itself (Sarbane-Oxley re Enron, for instance).

“Yes, this is the crux! We are forever being taxed more for less and less services by government.”

Pleased we agree :-)

“There are many government services particularly in the areas of the arts and sport which would be better met by the private sector.”

Exactly, we could discuss Jackson Pollacks “blue poles” ad-infinitum, end up always questioning if it was worth a brass razoo and still ask:

would our taxes have been better spent waxing the moustaches off all the ugly women in Australia?

ASymeonakis I think you need to consider the purpose behind your suggestions:

Define what is “low income” and what is “high income”.
Why treat companies different to individuals (which actually creates the tax loopholes)?
Why retain such an inefficient FBT system when the government operates with such high budget surpluses?

Fractelle “Not exactly well endowed with self irreverence are you?”

Being “endowed” to any degree with a negative is moronic.

But it is what we now expect from your posts.

If, however, you are suggesting I first “consider” what I write and in this instance believe my background might contribute to the debate, you would be absolutely right.

As for poll versus pole – yeah terrific, yawn.

(consider youself are dismissed)