Dan you also need to realise that an accountants job is only minimally about compliance with taxation laws (although there has certainly been a heavier burden since the introduction of GST). We advise people of business structuring (for both tax and asset protection), advise on business performance and ways to increase this and monitor the results of change programs put in place. We act as succession planners in family businesses. We advise on superannuation. There are all manners of things that a general accountant does, that are not related to tax, or have little relation to tax.

As far as tax goes, our job is to ensure that our clients pay no more tax than they legally have to, and to help plan ways to legally reduce tax. Eg whether a business asset sale is eligible for the small business CGT concessions. Our tax laws are extremely complex and convoluted and our job is to help people navigate that maze. As for depending on the system for our livelihood - negative! If all of our compliance work were removed tomorrow, we would still have enough general work for all accountants currently in the industry. It would actually free us up to do work that is far more productive and rewarding (few accountants like compliance work, and it is rarely enjoyable).

As for having a uni degree, yes I do. Have you got a chip on your shoulder because you dont?? Uni (or any other form of education) is no indicator of ability or intelligence (although sometimes grades can be). My father is one of the cleverest people I know and he only went to primary school for 2 years by distance ed. Big whoop. He has done just fine without uni. The only reason I need it was to get my professional qualifications. I now have a very expensive piece of paper that hangs on the wall and does nothing.

Totally agree.I would mind if the states spent it responsibly and decreased other taxes as promised but they just waste it and grow their bureaucracies.It has be made simpler.

The time it took you indicates that you have been totally indoctrinated as you fail to understand that you have only quoted the RULES to a civil contract of which requires the consent of both parties. You don’t appear to understand the difference between MAY and MUST as they require consent before they MAY require certain people to do anything.
The exercise of power by the Commissioner is only authorised with the other party's consent but this is only obtained by fraud as the commissioner relies on an individuals implied-consent or their acquiescence.
I don’t remember any of those alleged court cases and I will bet you are not aware of the citation numbers or what the arguments were that were presented to the pretend-courts by the defendant bottom-feeders. Were these matters dealt with in administrative hearings due to the implied consent of the defendants or in a properly constituted Court of Law compatible with Chapter 111 of the Aust Constitution with the SEAL of the COURT displayed on the face of the documents FILED by the Commissioner in the Registry of the Court as the copy of the originating process I have before me is not sealed with the seal of the Qld District Court but it does display the Registry stamp required under rule 978 but not the SEAL of the COURT required under rule 968.(3) & 969 (4) of the UCPR of the Queensland Supreme Court ?
Why did you not mention the Commissioner's latest complaints about 31 judges and 187 barristers not fulfilling their voluntary tax obligations ?
If you believe you should fund these vile thieving evil grubs who are paying themselves a $400,000 plus graft and tips, you go right ahead.
As for, there is your proof, I suggest that you read and understand the Commonwealth Evidence Act.
You just don’t get it do you I have not lodged anything for seven years and I don’t claim anything from any of your vile grubby mates in bureaucracy and the last people I would rely on for assistance are the very filth you have identified

cgal, are you sure arguing with youngdan can be productive?

on a more constructive note, the point of 'debit tax' (i prefer 'citizen subscription', as all taxation is selective looting) is to make the tax office obsolete.

variable taxation is unjust, and meant to be unjust.

DEMOS, you make a good point on more than one count. I think I will ignore Dans rantings - it just irks me that at a minimum he will be getting to his work on public roads that he should be helping to pay for.

Yes making the ATO obselete (or largely so), would be a massive saving in itself. A debits tax would also make it difficult for tax avoidance (but then provides a very big incentive for the further development of the cash society). It simplfies the tax system enormously. I still think that people with monthly debits of less than certain amounts should be exempt - otherwise you punish low-income earners (the same way that GST does and why they exempted food items).

I do see the merits in a tiered taxation system like we have, but also understand why so many struggle with it and dislike it too. The broadening of the tax brackets and the raising of the top tax bracket from $50,000 to $180,000 in the last 10 years has gone a long way towards reducing the effects of bracket creep and removing some of the disincentives to earn extra.

On further reflection, what are your thoughts on the potential of a debits tax for double-taxation?

Eg a company pays its employees, and has to pay debits tax on these payments. The employees then have to pay debits tax when they withdraw their wages.

There is also an incentive for companies to further boost profits and cut spending (less spending = less tax). Further incentive to cut jobs (less tax). Which I think is part of the justification for taxing of profits.

Our current system also helps to avoid double-taxation. An employer doesnt pay tax on the wages it pays. The only taxing point is in the hands of the employees (the employer on the other hand pays tax on its profits). Also in a company situation, the company pays tax on its profits, then when dividends are paid to shareholders, a tax credit comes attached with it. The only additional tax to pay is the difference between the 30% corporate rate and the individuals marginal rate. It makes the system more complex, but fairer too. Its hard to get a system that is both fair and simple.