Pericles “your new system needs to raise at least $14,000 from every man, woman and child in this country”

Straw man.
If everyone had the *same* deposits and withdrawals as every one else, then yeah. Is that the case?

Some accounts will receive far more deposits or make far more withdrawals than the “average”, some far less.

“all businesses will have to raise their prices.”

That's a very bold assertion.
And like your “$14,000 a head”, complete bull.

With all existing taxes and their loopholes gone, prices might even go down. And people may have more to spend.

If prices go up, it's probably because the price was unprofitable, but the business could claim all kinds of alleviations that allowed selling at a loss.
So it was a phony dishonest price to begin with.

No matter what happens, the economy would adjust to a more realistic model, with no phony or biased factors.

Some of you are missing the point, and confusing the link, which is about the financial institutions, with normal every day domestic transactions.

Now as for the likes of Wollies paying cash and trading in cash, you have to be kidding.

I can just imagine the outcry from the share holders, not really knowing just how much they turned over this year.

Back to the tax.

Say you gross $1000 per week.

You would pay $20 tax when paid, into your account.

You pay your mortage, say $300, you pay another $6, you pay your car, insurances, utility bills etc, say another $200, the tax is $4, you then spend the rest, $500 on what ever and pay another $10 tax on those combined purchases.

So all up, you will pay $40 tax. THATS IT! Not one cent more.

So, you would have another say $200 per week to spend as you would under the current system.

Now the secrete is, your $1000 gets shifted around hundreds of times each day, collecting the small tax every time.

Share traders and the likes would pay a much smaller tax, as they simply shift money in huge volumes, from account to account, at times at very small profit margins.

The bottom line is a true TT would stimulate the economy, as the average punter would have an extra $200 plus EVERY WEEK FOR EVER at their disposal and, given it would replace most other taxes, it would relieve business of much of the red tape we work through UN PAID every day.

Who knows, it may even make employing enjoyable again.

I am convinced that a TT is the answer, as while an individuals money can only be spent once, it can be used time and time again and this is the basis of a TT.

It taxes money, not people.

rehctub, it seems you support what I do, a small tax on all deposits and withdrawals, not just financial institutions.

"Now the secret is, your $1000 gets shifted around hundreds of times each day, collecting the small tax every time."

This is what our opponents seem to miss.
The current system has high rates, because it's only the *final* net calculations that are taxed, with all intermediary transactions deducted or, in the case of GST, passed on to the next guy.

The current system also inspires evasion and avoidance.
Who wouldn't try to evade a tax of 30-50%?
Who would even bother evading less than 1%?

The current system also encourages poor money management in business, as those bad decisions can just be "deducted".

When you're taxed on all transactions you might think more carefully about whether you really need 600 new trucks, a logo rebranding on your 2000 stores, or giving all your executives unlimited taxi accounts.

Not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point, Shockadelic, or whether you have completely misunderstood the reality of taxation.

Let's start with the fact that whatever the medium, whatever the process, whatever the rules and regulations, taxation in this country puts over $300 billion into the government's bank account, Right now, this comes from many different sources including company tax, personal income tax and GST.

If you abolish these taxes, you still need to raise around $14,000 per man, woman and child in this country in order to balance your budget.

The few dollars that a transaction tax would cost you and me every year would not do that. It has to come from somewhere, so who actually has to sign the cheque to the ATO?

Companies, primarily. The vast majority of financial transactions do not just happen spontaneously, they are entered into in order to achieve a result - hedge a currency, invest in shares, lay off insurance risk - that is required by businesses. That's what Banks do. They have customers whose financial interests they are paid to protect.

If the transactions that make up that protection are going to raise billions of dollars needed by the taxman, that cost will inevitably be passed on to the Bank's customers. Those customers will, in turn, pass on that cost to their customers, and so on until it reaches you in the form of a price rise.

So prices at the till will rise to the tune of $14,000 per individual Australian.

Now, while all that is happening, all those people who had been taxed on their income before, have extra cash to spend.

Except for those who did not earn enough to pay tax. They would have no additional money, but would be faced with higher prices.

The fact is that all of the taxes in this country are ultimately paid for by you and me.

To put it as clearly as I can, where do the companies get the money to pay their taxes today?

From revenue.

Where do they get that revenue?

From us.

Pericles “Not sure whether you are deliberately missing the point”

I'm sure that you're deliberately playing petty troll games just because it's *me* saying something.

“If you abolish these taxes, you still need to raise around $14,000 per man, woman and child”

Presenting the statistic as “per capita” is a deliberate distortion.
Is that what happens now?
Does *every* person pay $14,000 tax, directly or indirectly?
No. Some pay lots and some pay nothing.

Many businesses currently pay *no* tax, simply because they've never made a profit, but the current system lets them keep going for years, claiming all those costs as “deductions”.

“The few dollars that a transaction tax would cost you and me every year would not do that.”

And you are ignoring all those big business and trading transactions, that are *not* taxed now, as they are “deductions” or only taxed when “capital gain” happens.

“that cost will inevitably be passed on to the Bank's customers.”

Another lie.
Banks are the *agents* who conduct these transactions, only they have access to the data. Nobody else could do it.

Like the GST, the banks DO NOT PAY the tax themselves, they're merely the simplest means of *collecting* it.
You're the one who completely misunderstands the reality of taxation.

“So prices at the till will rise to the tune of $14,000 per individual Australian.”

How do you live with yourself?

“The fact is that all of the taxes in this country are ultimately paid for by you and me.”

Yes, but only in *proportion* to your income/expenditure, so this is no different. Just simpler.

The people who receive big incomes and pay big prices will pay more total tax than others.
And little old lady pensioners will pay, as you admit “a few dollars”.

For someone who claims they want minimalist government, you sure do have a way of defending the status quo.
In another thread, immigration was fine as is, now it's taxation.

What government actions do you actually want to minimise or simplify, or are you just a “radical” impostor?

Doesn't work like that, Shockadelic.

>>I'm sure that you're deliberately playing petty troll games just because it's *me* saying something.<<

I am merely trying to bring some perspective to the discussion. My starting point as always is "money has to come from somewhere, it doesn't just magically appear".

>>Presenting the statistic as “per capita” is a deliberate distortion.<<

Nope. It's fact. No distortion. You can do the sums for yourself.

>>Does *every* person pay $14,000 tax, directly or indirectly?<<

Yes they do. They have to. Some of it directly, as in PAYG and GST, the rest indirectly, through company taxation etc. The tax that businesses pay also comes from you and me, don't forget. If you don't believe me, try to think of a tax that we don't ultimately pay for.

I say again, we pay all of it, despite your vehement...

>>Another lie. Banks are the *agents* who conduct these transactions<<

Exactly. Right now, they make money on the other transactions they perform - investments, mostly - and charge very little by way of fees. If you whack them a tax on those transactions, they will need to pass it on to their customers, or go out of business.

Or stop performing the transactions. Which will not do much for the tax collector.

>>Like the GST, the banks DO NOT PAY the tax themselves<<

Are you suggesting that banks do not perform financial transactions on their own behalf? Oh well, makes no difference. If they perform them on someone else's behalf, those customers will pay, won't they. Like, the businesses that will pass on the charges to the consumer...?

>>Yes, but only in *proportion* to your income/expenditure<<

After all that, you finally agree that we pay the tax. Directly or indirectly. Just like I said before.

Having seen the light on that inescapable truth, can you now see how it inevitably will hit the poorest, hardest?