Pericles “money has to come from somewhere, it doesn't just magically appear".”

And it will come mostly from people and companies with big incomes and big expenses, much of which is not taxed now, thanks to deductions and avoidance/evasion.

Please explain how Mrs Meriwether's purchase of a new Rolls Royce is going to be paid by anyone *other than* herself.
The money comes from somewhere all right. From her.

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

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

The amount might be correct (prove it), but you know very well, it's not a “per capita” context.
The rich will pay more total tax than the poor (just like now), simply because they make more and larger transactions.
There is no “per capita” in this situation.

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

“Yes they do.”

Yes, Mrs Meriwether, sole heir of the Meriwether fortune, pays $14,000 tax.

So does Mrs Johnson, widowed pensioner. $14,000.
(Oddly paying $14,000 tax on an income of $18,000!).

So does Luke Goldsmith, 3-year old kindergarten enrollee. $14,000.
And he doesn't even have an income!
It's a “fact”!

“If you whack them a tax on those transactions, they will need to pass it on to their customers, or go out of business.”

The BANK is not being "whacked"!
The *customer* is being taxed, the bank is just the agent collecting it.
The bank would have no costs, the government paying for software installation.

“Can you now see how it inevitably will hit the poorest, hardest?”

No, because your argument is complete bull.

I challenged you to a declare your support for the Revolution, Monsieur Pericles.
I seek confirmation of your intentions regarding the King.

What government actions do you want to minimise or simplify?

If you do not declare your intentions, perhaps in a new thread, you will have revealed your true nature as a traitor to the Revolution and will be forever remembered as such.
Pistols at dawn, Pericles.

If you don't want to take this discussion seriously, Shockadelic, just say so and we can stop right now.

>>I challenged you to a declare your support for the Revolution, Monsieur Pericles.
I seek confirmation of your intentions regarding the King.<<

I am completely and utterly in favour of a new, simplified tax system, one that progressively taxes the well-off in our society and lessens the burden on the lower income folk.

The only point that I am trying to get across - spectacularly unsuccessfully, it would appear - is that a "transaction tax" of the kind spruiked here is absolutely not going to achieve that.

In the spirit of "follow the money", which is always the most revealing of methodologies, I suggest that you apply some real-world thinking to the following:

1. Who actually will be signing the cheque to the Australian Tax Office, and where does the money come from that allows them to do so. Following that particular money trail will itself be very revealing, particularly in the context of "who ultimately pays".

2. Consider for a moment the spending habits of the rich, and ask yourself exactly how far that would go towards filling the $300 billion hole in government revenues that has been created by the abolition of "all other taxes". If we assume a million fat cats each spending a million dollars a year on their Rolls Royces, their Cartiers and their Kristal, a 2% transaction tax would still only deliver 7% of the required revenue. Where is the other 93% coming from?

Incidentally, you can pick pretty much any number you like as far as a) fat cats and b) annual expenditure is concerned. You still won't arrive at a realistic contribution to the overall tax take.

Once you have worked through those numbers, you will have your answer to the question, "why don't we at least trial a transaction tax".

Ooh, how dare I show a glimpse of humour!

I have taken the discussion seriously.
You're the one making ridiculous, distorted claims.

"that a "transaction tax" of the kind spruiked here is absolutely not going to achieve that."

Actually, nobody advocating it has claimed it would tax in a tiered fashion, quite the opposite.
It is neutral.

The main "point that [you were] trying to get across" was a total lie, about *every* person paying the same AMOUNT of tax.
Complete bull.

"I suggest that you apply some real-world thinking to the following:"

I've already addressed your questions.

The *transactor* pays a fractional-percentage tax on all deposits and withdrawals.
The banks merely collect it using their internal computer systems.
It is not a "fee" they themselves are charging customers.

Every individual therefore doesn't need to "sign a cheque", just as with GST, every consumer doesn't pay directly, the *businesses* collect it and forward it to the tax office.
It's just easier that way.

"If we assume a million fat cats each spending a million dollars a year"

The rich don't just spend, they earn and gain interest and capital gains.
They also employ.

To spend a million, you first need to be *paid* a million.
And the business paying you would need to *earn* a million.
To earn a million, customers would have to *buy* a million's worth of product.
To buy a million, customers would need to *earn* a million.
To earn a million, businesses would have to *pay* workers a million.
And so on.

Every time that million changes hands it is taxed, AGAIN.
Not just one transaction, but all the transactions before that, and after that.

Has Mr Serious heard of the "circular flow of income"?
There are no "final" transactions in the "real world".

"I am completely and utterly in favour of a new, simplified tax system, one that progressively taxes the well-off in our society and lessens the burden on the lower income folk."

More information please.
What's being taxed? How are the taxes tiered?

Oh.

Is that what it was, Shockadelic.

>>Ooh, how dare I show a glimpse of humour!<<

Sorry.

Yes, the French Revolution reference was humour.
Have you ever encountered that before?
If you plan on being "Australian" I suggest you get used to it.
We joke about everything, even serious things.

The underlying meaning was not a joke, and you still haven't answered the question (for the THIRD time!)

What taxation reform are you actually advocating? Be specific.

Or is it that you are really a "reformist" fraud, and are instead a card-carrying member of His Majesty's Status Quo Committee.
(Oops! I did it again!)

Cooee!

Looks like Pericles got lost in the Bush.

Oh well, if we ever find his remains, we'll put up a metal plaque:

"Here lies Pericles.
Troll. Fraud. Traitor.
Defender of the Status Quo.
R.I.P."