Comments on: Economists tell: How I would trim the tax tree

By: Ian Kirkwood

Ian Kirkwood — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As a humble PAYE taxpayer, it has always bemused me that when workers drive their cars to work, and buy their lunch at lunchtime, and go on holidays at christmas - that’s simple expenditure of your after-tax earnings. When the boss buys a car for work, or feeds himself or buys a weekend retreat, it’s (in general terms) a cost of doing business and is therefore a tax deduction that cuts the cost by a real 20% to 30%. A tax system that taxes the same type of expenditure differently, according to whether labour or capital are doing the spending, is an inherently unfair tax system. That’s where the ”root and branch” reform should start - on tax deductions.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Use IT for what it’s good for - keeping track of things. I *really* don’t feel like keeping scraps of paper all year and reclaiming excess tax via them. I really don’t feel like keeping track of prescriptions and sticky labels for medications - I have a medicare card - store prescription details linked via that number centrally and send me a safety net card when I’ve spent that much, it’d stop overprescribing and undesirable drug interactions. I accept that doctors are going to charge more than I get back, but I’d rather they charge the government direct for their bit, and me for mine. Stuff privacy, this is the 21st century, there is none. What else? Store all of this on one card with a smart chip. My wallet is tired of storing 20+ cards in it.

By: Chris phillips

Chris phillips — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

There is always income and there is always expenditure. It always amuses me how commentators, and economists for that matter, always concentrate on the former expecting the latter to look after itself at the same time expecting all this government largesse. It is rare indeed for anyone I speak to even suggest social security, health, policing, defense, transport, roads, education, the arts,border security, pensions,………you name it, be reduced. Of course we should reduce duplication that is so rife in this country and and have a consensus on all the variety of laws. Perhaps the first step is to abolish the States and save billions of dollars. No one has really satisfied me over any advantage in retaining this anachronistic federation. All it seems to do is provide competition in sport.

By: Peter Samsa

Peter Samsa — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

A tax review in itself cannot by itself address the disincentives for peope on low income or welfare to return to work. The interactions between tax, social security payments, and other social support systems such as state-subsidised housing often result in a marginal tax rate of over 100%. Centrelink counts couples as 1 unit for income-test purposes, whilst the income tax system is based on individual assessment. All these contradictions make things really messy. For the individual, its a matter of how much comes in and goes out - they don’t care that its a different branch of government - maybe it all should be administered through 1 agency -and Govt welfare payments (of all forms) could be considered as negative income-tax