Shadow Minister our current system in the end, places the wealth in very few hands, and even then those hands rort the tax system, not in my view near good enough

our current system in the end, places the wealth in very few hands,
Belly,
I wouldn't call the Public Servants "a very few" but yes, you're right.

Shadow,
>Businesses create jobs, not governments.
True, false respectively.

Businesses and governments both create jobs. But importantly, governments also create conditions that are (or aren't) conducive to businesses creating jobs.

>Lowering the taxes such as corporate tax and taxes on employees would be a great start to increase jobs.
That's one way of achieving that objective, but IMO it hardly rates as "a great start" because it's expensive for the government yet not particularly effective.

If more jobs is the objective, increasing government spending (without increasing the tax rate) is just as effective as cutting the tax rate. Indeed it could be more effective, because the spending could be directed to depressed regions where it's more effective at creating jobs and less inflationary. Or the government can spend on things like infrastructure and education which ultimately make businesses more productive.

Alternatively, the government could just cut interest rates. When the economy is going well, an interest rate cut is likely to be more effective (in terms of induced GDP for the same inflationary outcome) than a tax cut.

>This is not a matter of opinion. Anything that increases the profit of a company both increases the value of the shares and/or the dividend payout both of which benefit the shareholder. Considering that the largest shareholders are super funds, it is retirees that benefit most.
That would benefit existing shareholders, but new shareholders would have to pay those higher share prices, so whether they'd be any better off is far from certain. But more importantly, you're disregarding the opportunity cost.

>That overseas investors benefit encourages them to invest and create more jobs.
But why should we rely on overseas investment to create jobs when we could create them with domestic investment instead?

Aidan,
Could you please offer your opinion on the pros/cons of a Flat Tax for everyone, business included ?

Well individual maybe a public servant hurt you? stole the meat pie you had your eye on? if it was even remotely true they as you claim so often, are the reason for every bad thing that ever happens, lets get rid of them! doctors nurses teachers, police officers, ambo,s gone, all of them, now hopefully out there right now, some one who one day will convince the world a new system of tax, ending forever avoidance, funding the things we must have just to live a decent life, is putting his/her plan together

individual,
A flat tax for everyone, businesses included, is something I strongly oppose. Taxes should be on profits; any taxes on turnover make it harder to make a profit in the first place. If we have to tax turnover, a non-compounding GST (such as we have) is the best way to do it, but the tax reform I'd most like to see (in the short to medium term at least) is abolishing the GST.

If you're referring to Alan B's "unavoidable" tax, I think that would be easy to avoid (to Australia's detriment) by using foreign currency. And I also strongly oppose restricting our freedom to use cash.

I think a progressive rate of income tax is much better than a flat rate, because I think the cost of living should be taken into account, and high income earners have a much greater ability to pay.

In the long term I would like to see much more of the burden of tax shifted onto the unimproved value of land - that way we could keep interest rates low without having to worry about land price bubbles. As the cost of land including tax depends largely on what people can afford, such a land tax would not make land less affordable. Such a tax would of course have to be phased in over several decades to avoid unduly disadvantaging existing landowners.

Now regarding national service and freedom, you wrote:
>Unless of course, you mean the freedom for one to demand welfare but not for the other to expect some effort in return for it ?
The tax people pay should be sufficient compensation for the government. Most people pay far more in tax than they receive in welfare payments.

If, for the government, something is worth doing, it's worth paying a sufficient wage for that people will do it voluntarily. Failing to do so is not only an unreasonable theft of the freedom of those forced to do it, but could also be a false economy as it prevents those people engaging in higher value activities.