Abolish Stamp Duty. Why should we pay five-figure sums to the State Gov't every time we buy a house? It's daylight robbery.

Getting rid of this tax would stimulate house sales, helping out the economy.

Celivia,

Your link is very interesting and a very workable tax system, if we are to progress to a sustainable community.

Environmental costs will be a need to be factor in the choices people make and eco-friendly behaviour should be rewarded with a lower tax bill.

This means tax the polluters and provide incentives to move across to non-polluting methods. This can be done in stages.

We cannot change to completely clean methods overnight, but we can impose higher taxes on those that pollute and reduce taxes on workers families and reduce taxes on profits for industries that are either clean or engaged in transforming to environmentally friendly methods.

We need to shift the tax burden; not necessarily impose higher taxes. Lower taxes on income and profits and increase taxes in environmentally unsound behaviour.

For example, companies manufacturing solar panels would benefit as sales increase and profits rise, whereas industries like mining would have to either pay a higher tax percentage or repair damage to the environment, moving towards preventing environmental damage in the first place.

Companies could benefit in reduction of unnecessary packaging by reducing their tax burden if they change their ways to recyclable packaging.

Also, to encourage greater use of public transport, there could be free tickets if travellers use public transport regularly for a minimum number of times each month.

I am sure that everyone at OLO can think of ways to use taxes as a way to transform our nation into one of environmental sustainability and more equitable as well.

I look for to some positive ideas.
________

Col Rouge – your knowledge of tax is in direct proportion to your self interest, however, your understanding of inequities in the current system is zero.

As Mr Nobody has observed you are unable to detect when there is imbalance or unfairness in the any tax system.

Also you clearly need reminding that this is a public forum, you don't dismiss me or anyone from posting our opinions. Disagree all you like - I welcome that, but don't dish it out when you clearly can't take it.

Fractelle “however, your understanding of inequities in the current system is zero.”

“As Mr Nobody has observed you are unable to detect when there is imbalance or unfairness in the any tax system.”

My statements is simple, any suggestion to use the tax system to fix what some might see as “inequalities” is the most pointless and stupid way of doing things because, the tax system is a very inefficient media for rectifying “unfairness”, taken that you can separate perceived “unfairness” from the components of real “unfairness” and real envy / differential ability.

I would note, pelican, who I thank for initiating this thread,

Acknowledged and agreed with me including the rider

“We are forever being taxed more for less and less services by government.

I see excessive tax as being equally unfair to everyone in the community, rich or poor. Excessive taxation erodes personal motivation and inspiration for people to achieve more in their lives. simply look at the history of USSR and the eastern Europeans, people risking death to escape from a system where individual achievement was not only criticized but was considered criminal.

In UK in 1960s some people were taxed at more than 100%. Marriage laws negatively affected an individual’s tax position. So wealthy people emigrated offshore and if staying in UK, remained single, rather than marrying.

Both those decisions could be considered as promoting the decline in social values but what else should individuals do when the tax system is expropriatory?

What is your suggestion to make things positive, rather than whine about what you think is unfair?

As for

“you don't dismiss me or anyone from posting our opinions.”

Your opinion is instantly dismissable. All you do is whine about the obtuse and how you dislike me.

Get this, I don’t care what you think. You can post whatever you want and if need be, phone womeone who might actually care but

If you post ad hominines at me, I will respond not just in kind but with leverage

Col

Thanks for your comments.

I did not expect you to agree as it takes a certain openness to understand ‘fairness’. An openness premised on the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes, or thongs.

With that in mind, I was thinking perhaps a look at NG* from another angle might give you a broader perspective:

http://feudaloptionsparty.blogspot.com/

*(that is, NG = negative gearing, the rort – a rort based on claiming Loan Interest deductions that exceeds income from source, talk about a dodgy practice)

Enjoy the breeze

Hi CR,
Your daughter has done very well for herself and the best time to start investing is at a young age. Good luck to her.

“Who determines what is “polluting” and what is “clean”?”
There needs to be a consensus on what “pollutants” are.
For example, there is clear scientific evidence and therefore consensus that pollutants such as CO2 and lead are toxic.

“Using tax to reward and penalize would be wide open to wide abuses…”
I suppose any tax system can be open to abuse. Have you read the article? The Secretary makes it clear that such tax system is possible, that in fact, it has been done successfully. His speech was about informing the other European countries about the successes and the govt’s further plans.
It can be done especially when the government has public support and when the new Green Taxes are introduced step-by-step. It was and is a democratic process and is quite popular.

About the manufacturers- they will, simply, need to fill the demands of the public. If the public demand greener products, the manufacturers will need to either reform to meet these demands or close.
I don’t really understand why this would be a big deal for the economy. If one manufacturer closes won’t another just fill the hole in the market?
I mean, there will always be a demand for most items that are on the market now, e.g. cars or washing machines. All that needs to be done is to manufacture a greener version of the same products. How hard can it really be?

And if the government can help by stimulating clean choices, why is this wrong?

Doesn’t a government have to always keep the future in mind when making decisions?
Isn’t that’s why they stimulate to save for the future through superannuation and encourage people to invest in Real Estate with incentives such as negative gearing and interest deductions- so that people have an opportunity to secure themselves for the future?

Continued

Securing a reasonably clean environment is even more important than securing financial freedom.
Without a healthy environment and ability to sustain ourselves no individual would even have a future to secure no matter how many investment properties or shares one has gathered.

Any government who does not take into account the wellbeing of our own and next generation is not acting in the best interest of the people.
Governments primarily have a duty to serve us, the citizens- not to fatten up the wallets of big corporations.
Leading a country is about balance and keeping the big picture in mind.

There is, IMO, nothing wrong with maintaining our environment, which is necessary for individuals to be able to flourish.
We all need to pay taxes and Green Taxes are about shifting taxes from the things we want, like our income, to the things we don’t want, like pollution and a toxic environment.

Fractelle, I like your ideas and I think you got it right; shift taxes from people to pollution and all of us will be better off including our future generations.