fractional reserve our taxes..not our savings!*!
why can we bank..intrest free for fee..with big moneycapital c-=ists..

that they leverage into cash flow
yet our own govt cant leverage iour taxes one cent
its just too insane for words..but the rich got lawyers..making laws

sepperating us from our only power
lawyer making laws..making capitalists rich off our leveraged savings
to repay via non leveragable taxes[i told rudd to do it..he got sacked we got the liar

but how come banks can do
what our govt cant do?

so its time for a level of lawyersw..to back the people
test id the capitalist runns ..or needs be attracted..all we can loose id a few pennies off our exchange rate

this will make jobs
tax it as its spent..where its paid..
not where the tax write off avoids them paying it.

and those using minimum..get all basic services for free
[call it a base divident..[the 10 %..LEAST ABUSING of govt services must get some free dividend..from govt..just as govt must leverage..our tax

just as we must front run..tax transactions
cancell all personal tax..under 40,000..[want to win win..or loose big time?

or restore true traditional value back into coin
no tax on coin...

if coin is a lie..
what is fractional reserving capital..
yet not the peons paying compulsorry as we go..tax.

tax all income exchanges
wage isnt income...bonus is.

It is the easiest way to collect tax, now that almost all transactions are electronic/computerised.
There's also no way to evade/avoid it, if you make domestic transactions compulsory (no offshore banking).

Problem is you can't "trial" it.
You need to abolish other taxes simultaneously.

We were led to believe GST would replace virtually every other tax, only to find it just tacked on to the existing system, with the major taxes (income, company, property, capital gains, fuel, tobacco) staying put.

A transaction tax that replaced *all* other taxes is something most people would probably support.
But like me, they fear it will just be an additional tax, rather than a replacement.

<<It is the easiest way to collect tax, now that almost all transactions are electronic/computerised.>>

Now they are, but this will no longer be the case!

<<There's also no way to evade/avoid it, if you make domestic transactions compulsory (no offshore banking).>>

You mean criminalising holding bank accounts in other countries and travelling with foreign cash?

Trying to hit the big end of town, speculation, hedge funds, shares and all that nonsense, all you get is hitting ordinary people, making the operation and accounting of everyday/saving bank accounts prohibitively complex for ordinary moms and dads.

Leaving aside the anti-business rhetoric for a moment...

>>Yes, it is aimed at the big end of town. You know – that mob that the government is in bed with! THAT will indeed be the big and probably insurmountable stumbling block to giving this thing a trial run<<

- thank you Ludwig - the only reason a transaction tax has not been implemented yet, is that no-one has worked out the detail.

There is no doubt that our tax system needs reform. I read over the weekend that out of the 150-or-so taxes in place in Australia, just ten provide 90% of revenue. A tax as simple as a transaction tax - which at base, is just a more sophisticated GST - would be phenomenally attractive to all.

Big business included. In fact, every business, large or small. The amount of time, money and energy that is wasted by businesses in keeping right with the taxman is absurd, in a modern, technologically adept society. It is a drain not only on productivity, but also on initiative and ingenuity.

So, such a scheme would undoubtedly be attractive to everypone

Oh, except the public servants, whose livelihood is depends on the creation, implementation, monitoring, adjusting, and enforcement of those those 150-plus taxes. I have no doubt whatsoever that their advice on a simplified tax system will be very much along the lines of Sir Humphrey Appleby's to Jim Hacker... "a very brave policy, if I may say so Prime Minister".

The Robin Hood Tax, as its name implies, is far more of a socio-political statement than a genuine attempt to propose a solution. As the article rehctub links to admits, they have no idea how to implement it, or how much it would raise, or whether it would even have the desired effect on behaviour.

Someone will crack the detail sooner or later. But be assured that when they do, there will be such weeping and wailing from the army of over-superannuated public servants dependent upon the status quo, you'd think it involved sacrificing your firstborn.

In my view it should be introduce, in a very small way, as a levy.

Let's say a 0.02% tax on all bank transactions.

After all, they (labor) had no problem introducing the alcopop tax, so why not this one.

Sure, it may cause some short term pain, but if it actually works, and can, at just 2% replace every other tax we have, surely it's worth a try.

I have little doubt most people go use another $209-300 a week in their kitty.

No more tax returns for the average wage earner and an extra say ten grand a year to spend.

As for low margin ventures, like the finance/shares sector, sure, have a much smaller tax.

But, every single dollar in this country, whether spent here, or hidden overseas, touches an account here at some point.

So there would literally be, nowhere to hide!

Don't forget, we've been here before.

>>In my view it should be introduce, in a very small way, as a levy. Let's say a 0.02% tax on all bank transactions.<<

For ten years we had FID and BADT. 0.06% on deposits, and from 15% to a fixed couple of bucks on withdrawals. A poorly conceived and badly implemented tax that created a lot of work for Banks, who of course passed it straight on to customers in the form of fees - over and above the tax, of course.

And Shockadelic's argument that "it is the easiest way to collect tax, now that almost all transactions are electronic/computerised" fails the real-world test too. One of the problems with FID/BADT was that no-one really understood how it was calculated. In fact, when it came to light in 2005 that the NAB had over-charged 140,000 accounts a total of $10 million over a period of twenty years... it turned out that none of the customers had actually noticed.

Both FID and BADT brought in a fair wodge of money, but they lacked a sound rationale. It just sounded like a good thing at the time.