No matter how hard it is in the future, whether through cutbacks or not to spending, there should always be a need for taxation reform to both reduce unecessary complexity and ensure fairness.

Dear Belly,

Increase the GST?

Definitely not.

Taxes are paid by people with an income as a set
percentage of that income. GST is paid as a fixed
percentage on all goods and services other then
essentials required to survive such as food and
medicine.

Increasing the GST will only penalise
the vunerable in our society even more.

The rich don't want to increase taxes but they do want
to increase the GST so that the poor further support
their ever increasing wealth.

Now which do you think is fair - increasing taxes on
the rich, or increasing the GST for everybody?

Which option do the two major parties support?

spindoc,

"Wouldn't it be nice to have the current generation suffer the austerity consequences of their own actions rather than saddle someone in the future with them?"

I wonder.....what if you replaced "austerity" with "climatic"...it's what we've been saying all along.

I wonder what will occur tax-wise if Abbott's about-face eventuates?

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

(sorry for slight deviation, Belly...but in the end it's all tax related)

Anyone who is not supporting national service & flat tax is not supporting a level playing field full stop.
No ifs no buts.
Give people the right to compete at their optimum & they will produce & reward to the optimum. Hanging off the country's apron is not economic sense. it's nothing short of bludging.

Poirot,

If you could measure and quantify the inputs, outputs, balance on hand, assumptions and forward commitments of CO2 in the CAGW debate in the same way we can with national finances, you might be on a winner.

All you have to do is produce a CAGW Budget.

Your problem is that not one single scientist anywhere on the planet has yet balanced the CO2 budget. Like poor Wayne, you can't find the "surplus".

There is always some prediction missing, lost warming, lost CO2, lost sea level rises, increased polar bear population, lost and regained polar ice, shrinking or growing glaciers, snow where it shouldn’t be and severe weather ending up as, well, just severe weather.

I do have a suggestion for you though. Why don’t you apply “WayneOmics” to your CO2 budget problem? I’m convinced that with his talent for getting it wrong and your talent for finding obscure links, the two of you could work it all out?

If you have any difficulty there is a new "Denial Hotline" I can point you to.

Thank you, spindoc,

But, pray tell, what do you think of Abbott's plans, considering you've written off the whole carbon trading/tax thingy in general?

(Here is the same issue from Jo, if you prefer it from a "skeptic source)

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/australian-conservatives-going-labor-lite-pandering-to-the-green-vote-or-just-confused/