another of the vulgarities of the present system,is the bankfee, where any over the co0unter withdrawel is charged a set fee..[again i think it much fairer that a tiny percentage be charged..[on all transactions in or out

[say .0001 percentage point]..currently any mug drawing out as little as 20 dollars gets charged 2 buck's..[or +or-..10 percent]..clearly victimising the little guy..if we all had the same rules we could all faily share the burdon

take the 10 percent gst we all pay..[except those with tax egsemption[or who get the company [or a trust fund]..to pay their bills,..these are taxing times indeed

another thing that copmes to mind is wage isnt incme[legally speaking,..properly defined income is proffit derived from on selling an unimproved fungable..[a tradeable commodity]..ie no labour was expended in value adding..we dont have wage tax[we have income tax]and there really is a difference.

another fair tax was death duties[many people never pay tax in life,so fairness indicates death duties are fair...noting trust funds and corperations dont die..[yet have the right of persons,..

thus in all fairity should be time limited to equate to real personhood..ie die..[or lose their person status under law]..there have been dioboligal machinations by dead corp-orations under the acclaimed legal standing of personhood, so much so that people have lost the rights and dead corperations have gained govt favour

but for now i would like to leave the debate with the big..[fair]concept of a low,fixed proportunate transaction tax..[in lue of income/gst taxes], fair bankfees and duties for corperations will come next..

but what govt will give..[return fairity alone,it must be done world wide..[overnight]..say at the next g20?..ratified at joint sittings like they did the other shananigans

Maximillion

I agree with you, I can see merit in the idea of a transfer tax, if as Baker claims, it would help curb speculative transactions and 'non-productive activity'.

Pericles

"The problem with this sort of punitive tax is that it discourages the activities that create the revenue stream it is supposed to produce."

A transfer tax would discourage short term speculative investment which would surely be a good thing. It would only be 'punitive' for those making frequent speculative transactions. Those making long term investment in real productive capital wouldn't be penalised and this would provide greater economic stability and real capital growth.

"In the case of Australia, it would apply mostly to our Super Funds, reducing - even further - their attraction as a vehicle to save for our old age."

Super funds should be long term investments. The reason most people have seen the value of their Superannuation decline is that most funds managers have been investing for quick returns and have come unstuck with the collapse of Wall Street. I think the transfer tax as outlined by Baker might actually help guarantee our Super to a much greater extent than is currently the case.

lest we forget currently super gets 15 percent tax GOING in..[and again 15 percent comming out..[how can 1 percent comming out make less super]..lol..those who pove the current disparity..love the current system...

likely their family trust pays for and owns everything..[family trust began as the means to avoid death duties, but now has become an art form to avoid paying tax on anything..time to at least tax their transactions

Well I have always thought a flat transaction tax would be worth a go.

As said, there is simply no way to avoid it other than to deal exclusively in cash, and nobody, to any large degree does that.

It should however be collected by the banks and banks only. When you draw money from the bank or use your EFTPOS card, you pay. When the retailer or any other recipient of your money deposits money into the bank, they pay. When any
money either enteres or leaves a bank the tax is paid.

It realy does sound quite simple.

Accountants would hate the idea as nobody would need one as you would have nothing to claim as you have not paid anything other than the flat .25%.

Max
You're right it might net some medium players but the big tax avoiders don't pay tax now and it has nothing to do with deductions etc or artificial schemes the problem is with corporations money speculation and transient implements etc that the big con jobs are done.

The 'olden days' mini mainframe computers were an example

Licenced from US (profit)Boards made in US sold to Eire (profit); the boxes are then fitted sold to Argentina power supplies added(profit); sold to a US holding co(profit)adds switches; Sold to distribution co add peripherals France (profit); then sold to distributor (profit)who buys in screens from Asia; compatible ROMS added here to get around local content laws under license(profit); add local software engineering (more Aus content) then sold to customer(profit).
The 25% on the Aus end sale profit is neg. International corps can arrange the profit margins to maximize national tax.

NOTE:
The drug corps have be sprung using this technique to inflate sale prices. I think there are laws against this but proving it is near impossible in some instances again cost of recovery is enormous and not always successful.The numbers involved are staggering.

Then there were a number of these corps who went into negotiation with the ATO under double taxation laws etc and the ATO had to accept lessor tax because it would have cost far more to go to court.

Then there's the tax haven dodges. It is a myth that a simpler tax system would result in more tax receipts just ease/less cost for corps. (staff costs etc.)

Exam', you seem to have missed the point, EVERY transfer of money would get the .25%, including all the clever instruments et. al.
Transfer pricing,(profit rip-off), money speculation, ownership bids, anything that involved moving money from one place to another would be taxed, no havens allowed, no "corporate rate", nada.