as long as its the same laws for all...[why not]...

we dont need income tax..[nor sales tax,..if we got a turnover via deathduties...and everyone had to pay thats fine...but no egsemptions...bring it in over night and tax every penbny that leaves the country

i suspect i pay more tax than you...that you possably mannage to make your tax return come out negative..due to your re-investing...and thats fine...i have no doudt your an honest broker...but not so the others far more wealthy than us combined

i wouldnt swap what i have for the pratts wealth...i like my worry free life...but when my life is over..what do i care what goes where

[besides wealth dosnt last long...the first generation builds it the second spends it the third start from scratch..at least with death duties the poor get something...even if its only free education and very basic health care

currently we educate people and big business gets all that training for nothing...then avoids paying even tax...its morally corrupt...a good accountant can make any set of books look like negative return

death duties is fair...were dead...whats the worry...at least they leave something behind for the living...even if their whole life..they didnt give a damm about no one...

we could even allow some to give to charity to offset death duties somewhat..[but not completly]...subject to it being truelly charitable

or spouses and children get their share tax free..or on a sliding scale..[means tested]...as long as it applies equally..who can complain

Death duties was a Christian thing, because we all believed once upon a time, that all property was vested in Almighty God, represented by Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, or whoever the Monarch was at the time, and that the Monarch/State had a claim to a share of it on the death of the subject. Since we seem to no longer believe that, or a noisy and influential minority appear to believe that all property should belong to the State, then we have abolished the right of all people to have the justness of State acquisition tried in a court.

Death duties resulted in the subdivision of the great land estates originally owned by English settlers in Australia and allowed lots of tenant farmers to own their own farms and land. This was a great move for Australia and made for a prosperous and economically viable country. The same did not happen in Argentina, and their landed gentry took their wealth offshore, while still keeping their large estates.

I think it is obscene that Richard Pratt is able to pass on a fortune of five billion dollars, and Kerry Packer an atheist was able to pass on his fortune, while there are 100,000 homeless sleeping cold and wet in Australia this winter. We know that Mr Pratt was a benefactor of certain charities, but as one wag said, stealing from the poor to give to the opera, is not necessarily a good thing. By collusive marketing which is proven, Mr Pratt was able to take small amounts from very large numbers of consumers, and accumulate a vast fortune. My heart bled for a grazier I knew in 1972, who inherited 8000 fat bullocks from his father, and had to sell them to pay death duties. Some of them were up to eight years old, and had been kept back to avoid paying income tax during his fathers life time.

I think it is time that death duties were reintroduced, but only by the Commonwealth. The tax on working people should be lowered to give them a better lifestyle

You can count me in as a supporter of death taxes, although not because it is fair, or because an atheist was allowed to keep his earnings(!)

It's just that I think we are better off it people rise to positions of influence on their merits, and not on the coattails of their parents. I see no evidence that the Packer and Murdock empires have benefited at all from their being passed onto the kids. It would be far better for all concerned had instead both handed over the reins to his top executives.

When Frazer was P.M. and Howard his Treasurer, a V.A.T. or G.S.T as it's now called was favoured strongly by Howard but vetoed by Malcolm as not being politically wise.Tax reform is always dangerous as the workers get taxed on the returns from their labour, whereas the Wealthy, the minority, are taxed on the returns from employing their capital.In a Democracy numbers count.Howard should have advocated that all income tax be abolished and only a 20% TAX on spending,up to say $100,000. be imposed and a larger one, after that threshold.

Yes I KNOW! all you accountants and financial advisers would be out of a job, but there would no longer be a need for complex tax options.

With income tax, Capital gains tax, and transfer duties, a further death tax would only be a triple tax on the same assets.

Why not simply do away with private ownership of everything? Or has that been tried and failed.

I see it more as a fairness and a moral issue.
Is it fair that someone like James Packer has all those billions handed to him when Kerry died? Is it right to receive so much without working for it? Once it was seen as quite obscene and bad for the ethics and morality of the person who inherits. Money not earned was viewed as a sin. Funny how in regards to government welfare payments that still seems to stand but it doesnt apply to the spawn of the filthy rich anymore.

The family home and any family owned and run business should be exempt as should personal possessions like jewelery or artwork etc but any stocks, shares, investments, cash and investment property etc should be taxed on the death of its owner.