My simple ideal Tax scheme would be everybody pays 10% on Zone A, 9% on Zone B & 8% on Zone C on all forms of gross income from all sources regardless of what or where it is. No rebates for anything, no depreciation, no discounts, nothing off what-so-ever. Just 10% flat.

Should money be taxed going into accounts as income or going out as expenditure?
Freediver,doesn't the price of a capital good(land,house,car)depend on what someone will pay for it?Why have complicated tax laws for something so simple and necessary as purchasing a house?
As a persons income goes up the tax rate doesn't change;it would be x% of gross income or sales and,yes,automatically deducted from accounts.
As for this tax reducing competition,I believe it would create a very competitive marketplace where people would be able to pursue their ideas and ambitions without being penalized or burdened by compliance.
Jayb,would you say you were in agreement with this proposed tax system?
Antiseptic,do we need such a level of govt.control?Some govt.control is necessary but have we got too much?Could this tax proposal give people a freer,more invigorating outlook on their lives?

Aust politics and the parliaments it produces are becoming increasingly authoritarian, with some truly draconian legislation implemented by govts both Labor and Coalition. I simply can't see any point in discussing any change to taxation that may lead to a reduction in the capacity of Govt to control the behaviour of the populace.

It may be that a far-future Govt will be sufficiently sanguine to introduce such a reduction of the power to control, but I will be advising my grandchildren not to hold their breath waiting for it(when they eventually emerge to take one).

Sounds OK g.w.

Should money be taxed going into accounts as income or going out?

Going in. (Gross earnings) No deductions for anything. This would stop people like Bondy & company from only paying $1 tax for the year because of Tax minimilasation scemes while the rest of us pay dearly.

Another measure, I'd like, would be double tax on "Interest free, non repayable loans" to "mates" and full public disclosure. The loan would be considered as speacial income as it wasn't "earned."

I am putting this forward as a motion, for a detailed investigation into this proposal, at the State Conference of a political party soon. It it succeeds, the study will be done and decided whether the proposal stacks up. I will be pursuing it with passion and vigour and it will later be voted on to become policy and taken further. Have to start somewhere and getting input from everywhere is the beginning.

gw, one of the problems with levying tax on gross income is that those that have low margins (or individuals with a high cost of earning their income) are punished. That's why we now allow deductions for costs incurred in earning that income that is being taxed. Eg It costs me about $5000-$6000 in additional expenses to earn my salary, which at the moment I can deduct from my gross income. My sister earns roughly the same amount as I do, but costs her maybe $500 a year.

Likewise you could levy one rate of tax on a construction company and see it be fair, but the same rate of tax on the gross income of a supermarket (particularly an independent one) would see it lose money thanks to the tax burden.

To do the same thing to capital sales without allowing for costs of purchase and improvement would encourage rapid escalation in land prices, as there would be disincentive to sell current holdings and competing buyers would need to increase their offering to attract a shrinking pool of sellers.

I am fully aware of the complexities of the tax system - its what I do for a living - and would welcome simplification. However, there needs to be a very careful analysis of the impact of the simplifcation on both taxpayers directly and the economy (ie the example on land sales above).