cgal, i take the view that whenever money changes hands, the payor gets a 'good' from society, and should subsidize the society that makes the transaction possible. i think impartial justice requires that every transaction be treated the same, so always x% clipped off the price into the social treasury, no favorites.

so the widow buys a loaf of bread for a dollar, 10 cents goes in the treasury, the media magnate buys a tele station for a billion, one hundred million goes in the treasury.

if you want to subsidize some people who cannot support them selves- do so. give them a wage for being alive. don't mix charity and functional transactions- it corrupts both.

best of all, no more tax bureaucracy, vastly fewer lawyers and accountants- business will flourish, and national leaders will have to manage and/or plan well, having no means to bribe their way to power.

I note that COUNTY GAL failed to respond to any of the particular issues I raised or defend the vile offensive conduct ( crimes) identified but there are many people who are perusing precisely these matters in the appropriate jurisdiction. If that fails then the general public will have to rely on the procedure spoken about in the High Court case Kable v The DPP NSW in paragraph 11 by Judge Dawson.

This Court observed, that view was rejected by Lord Reid in Pickin v British Railways Board (47). There he said: "The idea that a court is entitled to disregard a provision in an Act of Parliament on any ground must seem strange and startling to anyone with any knowledge of the history and law of our constitution ...
I must make it plain that there has been no attempt to question the general supremacy of Parliament. In earlier times many learned lawyers seem to have believed that an Act of Parliament could be disregarded in so far as it was contrary to the law of God or the law of nature or natural justice, but since the supremacy of Parliament was finally demonstrated by the REVOLUTION of 1688 any such idea has become obsolete."

The problem is not that the courts fails to take notice of the Parliament's requirements, it is the individuals, who are appointed as judges and judicial officers that refuse to provide the court of law which are compatible with Chapter 111 of the Australian Constitution. These judicial grubs are the criminals responsible for the failure to up hold our rights provided by the Parliament and hear all matters in dispute in these administrate hearings ( tribunals) surreptitiously created without our knowledge or our express consent.
DEMOS you are correct as it has not been too productive at all for the COUNTRY GAL.

DEMOS, perhaps the problem identified would be able to be addressed by re-writing the welfare system at the same time.

That said, dont hold your breath. They tried a re-write of the basic income tax act (although the basic is a misnomer) in 1997, but never finished the job, as we now have two concurrent income tax acts (1936 and 1997) just to confuse the situation even further. The big hoo-haa that was made after the 2006 budget about the deletion of several pages of the tax act only removed provisions that were out of date and had no further operation.

I am all for big taxation reform (apart from the prospect of losing my job), as the current system is far too complex and simplifaction attempts have done anything but. On a daily basis I stand to be sued for a misinterpretation (even where the law is ambiguous to start with), so removing the complexities is good for me. I have been very seriously considering a career change anyway in light of some of the things that accountants get sued for (and lose)!!

CountryGal. It is obvious that the bit of paper on the wall means absolutely nothing as you said and it does appear now that you were taking money off your clients under false pretences as you are not up to the task of answering my criticism and now you are looking to get out of the money stealing industry. I have no pieces of paper providing my clients with any false impressions of what I may be capable of and I don’t need any of this fraudulent rubbish that all of you so called university educated professionals just love to hang your hat on. Go and get yourself a real job or are they only reserved for the uneducated slaves that you bleed off. As for being sued in the pretend courts I would prefer that you got jailed for the money stealing scams that you are involved in with the parasites in the ATO.

We do remain one of the highest taxed nations on earth today and it is not going to improve anytime soon.

We in One Nation have been saying for ten years that the "Transaction Tax" (debit tax) was our only answer. We were attacked by just about everyone. Costello said we were mad!

I noted a comment that said "paying tax was a necessary evil, and that everyone had to pay" ( for our infrastructure) well, every one does not pay! Multi National foreign owned corporations are stealing billions of dollars from this nation annually. "The double tax agreement" only thing is that our nation is the only nation in the world partaking on this mad out of control system. 10% of the wealth of this nation is currently paying 90% of the tax bill, that's us! 90% of the wealth in this nation are currently paying 10% of the tax bill, that's the foreign owned corporations and the wealthy!

The other thing is, haven't you noticed that every government agency now has a "user pays" system! So where the bloody hell is all of our tax dollars really going? And accountants, suddenly very wealthy, mine has a million dollar mansion, and a new industry hatched overnight. 1st. July 2000. Why does small business have to carry out government tax collecting and pay these acountants $100 dollars an hour. There is absolutely no equity in this outrageous sytem

We have politicians that blatantly lie daily about this. Do you remember Howard saying on the introduction of the GST we would be paying 30% income tax, and all other taxes would be abolished? What garbage!

We know that our net disposable income from total tax receipts would more than double (our regressive current system) if we adopted a "transaction tax", forthwith. The mechanics would not be difficult to set up.

We have researched this for years, and eventually worked with the "Taxation Council of Australia"

Go and have a look at our website: http://www.onenation.com.au and check out our policies.

Ian J Nelson State Director One Nation Qld. Division

A debit tax is a really bad idea. It is easy to avoid because it is a tax on one system of transferring money. People will just switch to other systems.

This is a much better idea:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html