NewAustralia, I agree with the neutral green taxes you advocate but I believe that there do need to be some progressive taxes incorporated into the system especially at the higher levels of income where green taxes alone will not deter the profligate consumption that lies together with population growth at the very heart of civilization,s current crises - financial as well as environmental.

You also have a point on the rego but probably the tax policy needs to be supplemented by some mandatory restrictions on the type of vehicle that will be allowed on our roads.

Finally the question of mining royalties needs to be addressed bearing in mind that the resources they extract belong to us all and form part of the nation's capital. Also the mining companies in the boom years received enormous windfall revenues which swelled their bottom lines and enabled them to pay huge wages which had the effect of disrupting the rest of the economy and helped boost consumption no end, not to mention the environmental destruction they, with the collusion of governments were responsible for.

Your policies may already address these issues in which case my apologies for being a bit lazy and not checking them out before posting.

quote<<E.g.You pay more for fuel but there is no rego.>>rego is a state issue[new australia sounds like a federal body]..its simply dumb to say govt are going to give up their rego[plus then we come to compulsory third party[INSURANCE]what you giving away fre insurance as well?

remember the COMPULsory 3 rd party insurance..is 4/5 ths the cost of rego

<<(Rego is a flat tax irrespective of how much you drive so not really a green tax)>>more sense would be to include the rego[and insurance]..into the price of fuel

<<Note the top 30% tax rate comes with no tax free threshold>>so the poor dumb kid getting 5 bucks for delivering papers pays it..[the same as a lawyer who's income goes into a family trust dont pay it]

you planning to tax trusts and multinationals?...they just become farmers[and escape paying tax all together]...you put in loop holes people jump into em...whats the saying macqury street farmers [the new groth tax avoidence industry...

not taxing farmers is dumb...not giving those not growing food govt aid makes sense[but the way your doing it now i can farm swamps..and plant em with cotton[divert whole rivers to grow rice in deserts and escape any tax at all]..grow gmo/corn..no wories..grow gm/soy..no sweat..tax egsemption for vegan farmers only?

how about forestry[all them tax scemes of pine]..irragated with water licences getting tax egsemptions

its funny i noted in the ninties how farmers/miners/loggers took over the green movement..just to shut down our protests..[now by their deeds are they revealing themselves]...i bet the cattle/sheep/pig/chook farmers dont get tax free lurks.

there is so much more absurd stuff put forward..[but hey..you need 500 people before you go anywhere]..formerly...thus the need to gather the newage/farming/mining/gst/carbon taxing voting...green's/democrats..that have gone senile as their new age becomes old hat?

One under god, I think you need to have another look at our tax page: http://www.newaustralia.net/tax.html. I think we are closer to your view than you think! The idea is to replace rego with a the carbon tax that would be levied on fuel. The revenue would have to be recycled back to pay for third party injury insurance (like the Victorian TAC). Overall motorist would pay about the same, but you would pay more to drive your hummer everywhere and less to get on your bike.

In the end no thinking person will agree with *ALL* the policies of any party or independent.

So you have to vote for the party / independent that you dislike the least - or cop-out and put a line through your ballot.

Cheers,
Alan.

NewAustralia, I’ve noticed something that worries me a little.

In your response to Foxy’s questions, you missed one. And in your response to my three points that I sought comment on, you omitted one.

Foxy’s question; “You need 500 members before you can be registered as a Party - how many have you got so far?”, went unanswered.

My concern about “political donations, that so gravely beholden governments to the wishes of the big, rich and powerful end of town”, was not addressed.

This might just be due to a simple oversight, but it does give the impression of possible avoidance of issues that might be uncomfortable to address and thus it damages the perception of transparency and sincerity a little.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very interested in the new party and I congratulate your for initiating it. I’m certainly not of the same rather negative mindset as Foxy, but I do think that a whole lot of questions need to be asked, starting with really basic ones, before we can gain confidence that signing up would be a good move.

It is easy to be negative about initiatives like this, since it is crystal clear that we are looking at a wish-list rather than policies. I doubt they have been aired outside the wine-bar in which they were hatched.

Financial policies haven't been costed yet, so it would be churlish to ask for any detail.

But one entry struck me as indicative of the lack of serious thinking that has gone into this exercise.

In http://www.newaustralia.net/tax.html you find the following:

"Spending Increase: Free Dental Care! Free Ambulance cover! Cheaper Private Health Insurance!

[note: the exclamation marks are in the table, they aren't mine]

"Funded by: Abolish Private Health Insurance subsidy; No Medicare 'Safety Net' for high income earners

"Revenue neutral? Yes! (Since the subsidy is not a tax measure)

"Winners: Those needing dental care

"Losers: Private health insurance share-holders, employees"

This is so simplistic, so ignorant of the reality of the relationship between the Public and Private Health systems, that it is breathtaking.

If we look at a typical simple $1,000p.a. policy, $700 is provided from after-tax income by the policyholder, and $300 is provided as the government's subsidy.

So for each $300 you "save" with this measure, you lose the $700 contribution.

If you manage to eliminate all Private Health Insurance completely, you take about $7 billion out of the system, at the same time as you put the entire burden of an additional eleven million people onto the Public system.

Detail is not necessarily important at this early stage. But surely some level of reality is.

Pericles is right, the health system is complex and I would suggest
that it should not be touched initially.

Compaed tyo many overseas health systems it is very good.
Not perfect but very much better than many others.