Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Real tax reform: a love letter to Ken Henry

By John Passant - posted Monday, 7 December 2009


With that in mind I would suggest you look at the following.

Accepting that labour creates the wealth of the country, there should be a distinction between taxes on labour (earned income) and capital (unearned income.) Tax capital heavily and labour lightly.

A salary greater than double the average wage - the average weekly wage was $1,217 per week for the December 2008 quarter - would seem an approximation for all class divisions. Capital and those who are its managers are on one side and workers on the other.

Advertisement

Those with salary and wages below double the average wage are workers. Those with salary and wages greater than this are managers for capital. Tax salary and wages up to double the average wage lightly and all other income (salary and wages greater than that amount, unearned income like dividends and interest) and gains, heavily.

There are some further suggestions which would assist in implementing such a major shift in taxation.

First, think about some sort of Haig-Simons base for taxing income. This would treat all gains as income.

The tax value method was a half way house to that and could be re-examined despite the objections of big business and the parasites who feed off them like large accountancy and law firms and peak bodies.

Second, abolish all tax expenditures.

Your own department estimates that these cost at a minimum about $73 billion year. Let all such expenditures (if justified) be delivered as direct grants and subject to the usual scrutiny of such programs.

Advertisement

Tax expenditures include benefits of about $30 billion a year to superannuation funds and superannuants (future and present) in various guises.

Capping those benefits (for example somehow limiting it to those earning salary and wages up to double the average wage) so they remove the rich from the equation would save billions. In reality the rich are likely to invest in their retirement in any event, irrespective of whether tax concessions exist or not.

Other tax benefits to go could include the outrageous capital gains concession which provides billions in benefits to the holders of capital, in the main those who are very very well off.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

First published in the author's blog, En Passant, on April 26, 2009



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

John Passant is a Canberra writer (www.enpassant.com.au) and member of Socialist Alternative.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John Passant

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of John Passant
Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy