Col

I agree with you the best tax system is the simplest system and should not pander to the excesses of big government, or big business or even big egos for that matter.

When you say “Simply sucks of the “nanny state” trying to protect people from themselves” –

Are you referring to the concept of banning NG and protecting DEBT LEMMINGS (amateur landlords) from themselves?

Or are you referring to the “nanny state” in terms of the billions of tax-payer dollars squandered on the tax-breaks-r-brigade?

Either way, I agree it is time to stamp out government largesse that panders to the wealthiest in the community.

With your obvious tax knowledge but what appears to be a limited understanding of what is fair, I wonder if you might benefit from the following link. It concerns the next generation and how they are being duded by NG.

http://firsthomeowner2008.googlepages.com/

Have a nice day

Pelican,we have enormous amounts of natural gas which we sell to China for a song,why not sell gas to the people who really own it for a reasonable price?

It is cheap energy which underpins our living standards.Get Govt and the multi-nationals out of the equation and ordinary Aussies will prosper.

Pelican,
“I am no expert on this but thought that a fairer taxation system might also be developed to assist with goals of sustainability. That is, those who consume more pay more.”
And
“Those who consume the most would pay more tax via the GST”

I honestly can say the same: I am no expert on economy and taxation at all; I just hand over the paperwork to our accountant, pay my taxes and hope for the best :)
I wouldn’t have participated in this discussion if you hadn’t brought up the thought of sustainability. I find this a very important issue that needs much attention.

What role can taxation play in meeting the target of making our energy supply as sustainable as possible? The focus should be on climate policy.

Pelican, I happen to have come across a speech a while ago on a greener tax system. The speech was not from Australia but from the Dutch State Secretary for Finance at the Brussels Tax Forum so I can’t say that it would be 100% relevant, but there are some good ideas.

The Finance secretary lists, in his speech, what his lessons he has to offer for using tax as a means to promote a more sustainable society.

* The tax aim and the environmental aim can be combined effectively. Tax polluting behaviour rather than clean behaviour.

* To use environmental taxes to lower other taxes.

* Find public support when introducing new taxes.

* Creating a greener tax system is best done in acceptable steps.

* To ensure that the number of taxpayers is kept as small as possible to be able to lower administrative burdens (and thereby saving).

* To deter environmentally harmful behaviour by making it more expensive and encourage eco-friendly behaviour by giving incentives etc,

I’d be very interested to read your or anyone’s thoughts.

Oops, I forgot to add the link to that speech:

http://tinyurl.com/5ruw8a

Mr nobody “limited understanding of what is fair,”

“Fair” is an entirely subjective and varies from person to person.

My partner has a son who thinks “fair” means, because she gave birth to him, she should support him and his drug, alcohol and verbal abuse until he or she dies.

Her and my idea of fair is somewhat different.

What large government does is interfere to pretend they make things “fair”, whereas small government leaves people to gro to their own potential for themselves.

I support small government.

You rightly comment on my fiscal knowledge.

I stated in my first post a desire to make things simpler and my response to you

“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”

As for your discrimination claim and website: http://firsthomeowner2008.googlepages.com/

Rubbish!

Simplicity of system would leave the present recognition of NG in place because what you call “NG” is a norm for all forms of investment and is in line with current and historic accounting practice, that the costs incurred in production of an income are offset against that income to determine the operating return on which income tax is assessed, regardless the investment be residential housing, shares (margin lending (yikes scary), a small business, partnership pertaining to the tax entity or in the case of a corporation, all the activities of the corporation.

Your suggestion would treat investment housing different to all the other investments and be patently “Unfair”.

My elder daughter bought her first house, by herself at age 21 in 2001, without help from anyone else. She worked two jobs, in a call centre and for a real estate agent to get her deposit and costs covered. Now she work s as a senior supervisor in a different call centre and earns enough to drive an Mini Cooper S (which she paid for) and is looking for additional investment property.

Observation: she looked for solutions, you seem to be looking for excuses.

Cevilia “Tax polluting behaviour rather than clean behaviour.”

Who determines what is “polluting” and what is “clean”?

Using tax to reward and penalize would be wide open to wide abuses and expensive appeals and under-the-table fixes with government (ie loss of employment threats seeking government subsidies - like the auto manufacturing industry of today).

It is no different to reserve bank using interest rates to address inflation.

It is like using a chain saw to perform micro surgery.

The treatment being more detrimental to the patient, in this case the national and personal economies, than the original complaint.

I suggest leave tax as the method to raise funds for government to perform its duties and leave matters of environment and pollution and wealth distribution and all the other emotional feel-goods to direct legislative processes.

Like my answer to Mr nobody regarding NG, such processes which attempt to address particular “irkes” only complicate the tax system to the detriment of all, often with unseen consequences to the economy (job losses, higher rents, reduced quality of life, bigger bureaucracies of government which are less efficient etc).