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

Well I can't argue with that on the face of it but something that is easily observed is not necessarily more effective. :)

Yes Blue Poles is a good example (one of many). I am an art lover and visit art galleries, I am not into sport but many people are - why taxes are expended on what are essentially 'interests' and 'hobbies' and is ONE area I believe the private sector take an active part. It is not that I don't value some investment in the arts/sport from taxes but not at the expense of more important programs at not at current levels.

Excessive taxation can be de-motivating and our many tiered system of taxation is particularly restrictive, not to mention deceptive.

BUT my main beef would have to be waste - as a government employee, I see both severe waste on one hand and badly directed spending cuts on the other (particularly in the areas that can least afford - usually the frontline or operational roles that deal directly with 'services' to the public). In my opinion as a humble government employee this is our role - to be of service - but this is not always facilitated for various reasons.

I would argue for balance and for a 'fairer' system. By fair I mean a fairer distribution of burden, remove tax avoidance opportunities and a simpler more straightforward method of taxation.

One aspect on my wish list would be for income splitting for one-income families with children. We have a one income earner providing a living for a whole family without much in the way of tax benefits. This provides a disincentive for those who would prefer to stay at home to raise their children.

I am realistic to accept this won't happen because the push at the moment is to 'encourage' more people back into the workforce to offset the skills shortage. A shortage that could easily have been avoided by better forward planning and management.

Celivia and Fractelle

Some great points regarding Celivia's link and the idea of a polluting tax. Taxing the polluting behaviour would provide great incentives for companies to commit to greener practices and assist in the goal of sustainability. This is exactly what I meant by using the taxation system to aid in the goal of sustainability.

A good example of incentives of this type are the grants managed by AFFA and EHA for water conservation projects. These could be expanded to provide incentives to business (not just non-profits) to include water saving and other energy/green practices in their business plans.

For example a car wash might choose to recycle water through a filter system and/or reed bed and then re-use the water. A grant to assist the set up such a system or a tax incentive would go a long way towards promoting environmental options.

The solar rebates are another great idea to encourage use of renewable energy. One day I can see a world where the kids are all shaking their heads wondering why their ancestors did not utilise better what nature gave us in abundance.

A taxation system that is designed to encourage green practices and discourage polluters or wasteful practices would not be difficult to attain whether via grants/rebates or direct taxation.

One reservation I have is that a tax may not stop the polluting behaviour and might rather mean that the consumer pays more for that product/service. It would only work if the environmental options were affordable (either via pricing or rebates). That is one of the problems I have with the carbon tax is that it does not stop the polluting behaviour. It can't work (I don't think) in isolation if these other incentives are not in place.

Mr nobody “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.”

Are you suggesting I am not open?
Are you suggesting, like Fractelle, I do not understand what “fairness” and being “fair” is all about?

How arrogant of you!

You have too little knowledge of me to make any such character assessment.

Because you interpret my support of small government and lower taxes as a non-understanding of what is fair and a lack of openness, defines your ignorance.

And your ignorance is no measure at all of my senses of compassion, fairness, ethics, empathy or philanthropy.

As to fairness, I headed the ethical standards committee of a professional organization for many years. Have you such experience on which to rely?

I suggest you keep your comments “objective” and desist in your desire to take cheap shots at my character based on your blatant ignorance or I might be prevailed upon to reciprocate in kind.

Celivia – my daughter is my hero. She is also the “happiest” person I have ever met.

“For example, there is clear scientific evidence and therefore consensus that pollutants such as CO2 and lead are toxic.”

But such things are not absolute, they depend on method of use and the availability of alternatives. Simply taxing them only makes the price greater for the user and often, since their use is a function of price.

The cheaper option for goods and services are more likely to be the heavier users of traditional processes and materials, example, hybrid cars, better for the environment but more expensive. Conventional cars: cheaper but relatively more detrimental, according to the “science” but who will be paying more, those who cannot afford a hybrid car – that’s who. Your suggestion is more likely to tax the poor who buy older second hand cars, than it is those who can afford the more up-to-date and more expensive alternative.

Celivia “Secretary makes it clear that such tax system is possible”

Many things are possible. It does not make them, necessarily, desirable.

My point is simple, regulating peoples freedom of choice, through progressive taxation, is an exercise in social engineering and an abuse of governmental powers. Government is not there to control our freedoms of choice, it is there to reflect our desires.

Small government and lower taxes leaves discretion with the individual.

Large government using differential taxes as a weapon to control personal discretion is “Socialism by Stealth” and an abuse of governmental authority, as well as being more bureaucratic and less efficient.

“Securing a reasonably clean environment is even more important than securing financial freedom.”

That can be done by direct legislation to the processes and materials used. You do not need to mess with the tax system to achieve it.

“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.”

Disagree, taxation, like Denning said, is an imposition of government used to fund the necessary work of government, it is not a personal “need”.

Using “taxes” to engineer a particular social outcome is the least efficient way of achieving such goals. Better alternative is direct legislative action and possibly, where a lot of problems do lay, better regulatory observation.

I do not recall who it was but one poster on this site kept whining on about industry ignoring and flaunting the EPA regulations.

Getting away with flaunting regulation reflects a deficiency in the effectiveness of compliance officers.

“Government” is responsible for enforcing compliance.

I suggest look to government to administer its existing responsibilities before giving them more authority and more taxes to waste on more pointless exercises in social engineering.

Mr nobody your link http://feudaloptionsparty.blogspot.com/

I went there and received the following message

“This blog is in violation of Blogger's Terms of Service and is open to authors only”

Reads like that blog is full of crap and your “credibility”, is damned by association.

Pelican, taxing luxury goods is a bad idea once you consider the economic implications. It hurts the people who make the items far more than the people who consume. For example, if you tax boats, you would harm the local boat industry, while the rich would be more likely to spend their money on an overseas holdiay rather than a boat.

There are some rational ways to tax consumption, but you should restrict it to those activities that do real harm, rather than using it to attack the rich. Charging more for water and CO2 emissions is a good start.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

I would generally consider myself more a lefty, but I think I agree with most of what Col says.

I don't agree with using the tax system for environmental purposes as some have suggested. I think it's best to keep tax as simple as possible, and that will also make it harder to avoid, and much much cheaper to administer. I really think the tax laws in this country are ridiculously complicated.

What hits home for me is ...

'Using “taxes” to engineer a particular social outcome is the least efficient way of achieving such goals. Better alternative is direct legislative action and possibly, where a lot of problems do lay, better regulatory observation.
'

Col,

I understand the objections to NG, and I understand your opinion of 'why should housing be treated differently to other investments?'. I am interested what you think of allowing NG to owner-occupiers rather than getting rid of it for all. Seems like a solution to me. Especially since most owner-occupiers see their own house as an investment for retirement.