To Ttbn

Your right. Regardless of the response to the Covid virus and all of that, having a close eye on China is probabley a very wise concern. Expecially while the world is distracted by the virus.

Though the chances are that China will be recoiling from the virus as well, so they might be leveled on a more even playing ground when the chips thrown in the pot are all accounted for. But for now they are making moves while no one is looking. Thanks for the spotlight on it.

Not_Now.Soon,
Thank you for your input. Of course any of the points I suggested would need to be fine-tuned but the basic idea is to change status quo because status quo is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Difficult economically & even more difficult socially.
As for barbed fish hooks, my view is after watching countless times hooks being torn out & all but ripping the animal's insides out before "releasing" it. In most cases the fish do not recover despite popular claims that it doesn't harm them. The "S" shaped hook is easily removed with minimal damage/injury to the animal as the removal does not tear. Many countries are more civilised & banned the use of barbed hooks. The only "threat" I envisage from barbed hooks is the possible deceases an injured fish could spread but the real point I'm trying to make is, are people of such poor mentality that they see nothing wrong with tearing an animal to shreds when they could easily refrain from using barbed hooks. I suppose one way of getting my point across would be to give them the choice of having a barbed hook pulled out of their finger instead of an "S" shaped one ! The other practise that gripes me is leaving fish flapping on a hot jetty until they succumb ! It's about caring ! why am I so passionate about this ? Well, I love scuba diving & watching these colourful animals in their environment but over the years this pleasure has been dimmed by seeing fewer & fewer fish & many with hooks & line trailing !

A win for Indy, barbed hooks for fish should go, but I dare say Indy with his vindictiveness against public servants would be over joyed if we used such hooks on those public servants.

NNS as Indy was too cowardly to answer my simple questions, maybe you can give an opinion. The fact is Indy's proposals have nothing to do with economics, or social justice, but a lot to do with his spiteful attitude to some within the community, young people, low paid workers and public servants. You should note, none of his ideas would impact on him personally as he swings off the govvy teat with his undeserving aged welfare largesse, which he has been collecting for possibly 20 years.

Try this 15% flat tax;

A wager earner with a taxable income of $38,000 presently pays $3900 in tax, under a flat 15% tax that would increase by $1800 to $5700. Where as a wage earner on a taxable income of $380,000 pays $144,000, with a flat tax of 15% that would reduce by $87,000, down to $57,000. REMARKABLE, there's nothing out of the box. Indy did try and hide the $18,200 tax free threshold, but he was soon exposed for that clumsy action.

A part time worker earning $24550 would see their income reduce by 15%, $3,700 down to $20,850. The single aged welfare payment is also $24,550 I asked if that would also reduce by 15%, no response from Indy, as that would impact on himself.

A public servant on $200k would see his income reduce to between $140k-$150k, however a PS on $190k would see no change. Indy admits he was once a PS himself in a menial position, looks like he was jealous of his superiors, and wants to get back at them in some way. Nothing to do with economics or social justice.

taxable income of $38,000 presently pays $3900 in tax, under a flat 15% tax that would increase by $1800 to $5700.
vs now
$37,001 – $90,000 $3,572 + 32.5% for amounts over $37,000
Paul1405,
How many services such as Pension, Dental care, Medicare are included in Tax at present ?
Besides, didn't you read that I actually said that the proposals I put forward will need fine-tuning. It doesn't necessarily have to be exactly 15 % but if some vital services are accommodated then 15% is not excessive in my book. All I am advocating is change from the present system & we all have to contribute, it's as simple as that ! Superannuation should be voluntary, not compulsory & propped up by Tax payers.
CHANGE is the operative word here !

Look at this bullcrap they try to pass off as news:
Why do they lie?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/now-is-the-worst-time-to-cut-world-health-organisation-funding-20200417-p54kwb.html

"In any case, whatever the WHO's failings, by the end of January it had issued a clear warning. Governments in the US and Europe must shoulder much of the blame for failing to take it seriously enough."

WTF are they on about?
WHO didn't declare a COVID-19 a pandemic until March 11.

Do they expect me to pay for this crap?
In digital form I can't even wipe my backside with it.
What's the point of today's news?
It's not good for anything except confusing people.

To Paul.

I haven't seen anything from Individual that says he's against young people. Would this tax have a negitive effect on the lower income workers? Probabley, because they have less of an income to start with so any loss would be a bigger deal then those who have more money.

However if I'm reading Individual's suggestion correctly it's about having a universal standard for everyone instead of how some people use tax loopholes and money management schemes to get out of giving their share. This goes to the rich doing this more then the poor. If you have a better suggestion, then state it.

Personally I think taxes should be looked at more carefully. Having them used casually to pay for politician's travel costs, or their expenses without care, just encourages them to use up more of the taxes. Tax programs that work versus the ones that just collect money (later to quietly get resourced for other funds) should be weighted and measured and if the tax program has merit, great. If not and the funds going into it either have no benifit noticed for 2 years (or the funding get routed to other government programs regularly) then chop that tax so it's less of a burden on the people that pay for it.

But for paying for older people who've retired. That is a program worth keeping. Respect the older generation, if you want the same when you are older as well.