1. This number was touted in the media in 2014 in many places, this article provides a good summary of the thought and sources: https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2014/12/20/how-john-howards-tax-cuts-undid-his-protege-tony-abbott/14189940001389

Here’s another that also references a model developed at the University of Canberra
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/16/to-get-the-australian-budget-on-track-its-time-to-wind-those-tax-cuts-back

The IMF report that condemned Howard as the most profiligate spending living Prime Minister and the Henry Report also draw attention to this problem, but dont necessarily put a value on it.

However, both these reports put the current shortfall closer to $30 billion per annum, so I will revise the article from $40 billion to align to this number. The original estimate would have come from another source, but these sources are more current.

2. I am referring to the earlier one with the top tax rate arriving at $95K. I have made an edit to clarify

3. It’s more progressive in the sense that far more high wage earners are subject to the top tax rate. I agree that the tax free range should remain around 20K where it is and evolve up from there. The point is at the top end of the range, the wealthy are not being taxed nearly enough to cover expenses. You can’t look at income tax alone to determine how people benefit, what goes in income tax routinely comes back in other benefits to low income earners. I can’t find a study that actually proposes a new tax threshold range that would raise the right revenue, that is what we need to see. The bottom line is everyone needs to pay more tax if we’re all going to enjoy our benefits. This is going to hit the rich a lot more in volume, but needs to be balanced and phased in to avoid sudden shock changes.

1) How did you work out how much more would be taxed? This, I mean -> “Addition to revenue: $40,000,000,000”
Something to do with the Australian Bureau of Statistics? Journalistic articles? Actual academic articles?
I’d love to be test how total tax from income taxes would change if there’s something for that, say on the internet, but I don’t see how it would work unless there was a database that had all of the reported income from every individual.

2) You mentioned using the 2006 tax system. Did you mean the 2005–06 system or the 2006-2007 system?

2005-06
$0–$6,000: Nil
$6,001–$21,600: 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$21,601–$63,000: $2,340 plus 30c for each $1 over $21,600
$63,001–$95,000: $14,760 plus 42c for each $1 over $63,000
Over $95,000: $28,200 plus 47c for each $1 over $95,000

2006–07
$0–$6,000 Nil
$6,001–$25,000: 15c for each $1 over $6,000
$25,001–$75,000: $2,850 plus 30c for each $1 over $25,000
$75,001–$150,000: $17,850 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000
$150,001 and over: $47,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000

3) Why do you say it is more progressive? These both actually tax low income earners a lot more than the current system does and what’s more, the 2006-2007 system only taxes wealthier people about the same amount…very little extra when you look at how small the additional portion is compared to their total income and then look at the size of the extra tax you’re taking out of those on low income.
You would be taking 80% more tax out of someone on $37000/yr, that is $2878 more and yet you would be taking just $2053 more out of someone on $70000/yr! Not only is that a lower absolute value, but that’s only 14.36% more tax from them! Just how exactly do you figure this to be more progressive?
Perhaps you weren’t using 2006-2007, but rather 2005-2006. That would change things so that those on $37000/yr pay $3388 more, which is 94.85% more tax! The person on $70000/yr would pay $2563 more now, but that is AGAIN a lower absolute number than the increase in tax for the person on $37000/yr! This equates to a 17.93% increase in tax.
So again, how on Earth do you manage to convince yourself that either of these would be more progressive? They would raise more taxes overall.

Now those taxes could POTENTIALLY be put into public programs, but there’s no guarantee it would be put to good use.
That is an unnecessary argument anyway, because it is not as if you claimed only that the changes overall were progressive, but rather this:
“More progressive income taxes. The real causes of the structural deficit are cuts to income tax, pushing tax thresholds too high and the disappearance of a more progressive taxation system. If 2006 taxation rates were still used, there would be an additional $40bn of revenue this year – let’s restore them. Addition to revenue: $40,000,000,000”

Please share with your friends and join us on facebook as we expand the content over time…..

Australia has to think harder about this, we have the ability to produce more than enough food to feed everyone in the country with some spare…but we don’t. We sell vast amounts on the global market for profit without consideration. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do that either, I’m saying there is a lot more to consider than the ‘free trade agreements are good because cheap’ argument we’re given. This false philosophy has already wrecked countries and is wrecking more. We need global trade and we need to protect national interests too. I do not believe for one moment that larger economic powers will somehow refrain from exploitation because ‘it isn’t right’…evidence shows the reverse, they will exploit until the blood runs dry, then they will find a new victim.

Its not as simple as you say ‘we can just return to manufacturing our own’. Once skills are lost and the economy is tied up with international agreements in every direction it really isn’t easy to change. Ask the caribbean and south american nations who got crippled by this already. They face a choice of starvation or destitution AND starvation. An easily avoided circumstance by thinking about our own future instead of putting the slightest faith in an utterly amoral global corporatocracy.

I agree, Australia’s strengths have been a combination of primary production and tech/education/service … but that is shifting…we need to change our focus from manufacturing poorly for foreign companies who don’t really want to operate here to researching, designing and building the best electric vehicles here with a focus on the domestic market. Export is more likely to work better under licensing/service agreements, but always keeping the best onshore and preventing leakage. That requires a new way of thinking for an Australian government that always sees itself as a vassal state. We dont need to be and certainly need to be more independent now as the next global financial crisis approaches. We should be designing for our own future, not waiting to be told what to do like some errant schoolboy.

you discuss internal food security like its undeniably required. i disagree. developing economies do it better due to cheap labour and even with a cartel controlling prices its still worth our while acquiring food from them cus its still cheaper. if it does one day get to the point where they are exploiting us we can return to manafacturing our own. food production isnt exactly difficult, its just costly. Australia’s strengths are education and technology not manafacturing

i agree with a lot of your other points though
the aus industry for the next century article was a good read

This website does not suck.
This website makes constructive arguments backed up with references.
Anti vaccination nutters and conspiracy theorists take note.
This is how you argue in such a manner as to be not pointed and laughed at. This is how you science.

The problem is hollowing out a small economy to make it entirely servile to the larger one. Absolute advantage sounds like a good idea, but breaks down very quickly in reality.

There are very real problems of food security caused by this unfettered greed with corporations and the governments of the largest economies banding together to enforce practices that are neither sustainable nor in the interests of the individual country. ‘Free Trade’ agreements have sent farmers in many countries into poverty because another country has its government subsidise production to artificially reduce prices (US is very guilty of this). More here: http://firestick.org.au/global-food-production-and-distribution/

What actually happened when neoliberal ideas were forced on the world via conditions on IMF and World Bank loans was countries lost the ability to support their own populations and became completely vulnerable to their suppliers. Products that were initially cheaper now had prices determined primarily by the country that produces that commodity. Countries like the UK that almost completely dismantled its manufacturing industry realised later what a terrible idea that was when it became clear that Asian countries would determine the price of vehicles by forming a cartel. Not that they could complain much, they were part of the US led banking cartel underpinning the neoliberal takeover. When they realised how important the auto manufacturing business was to all their advanced tech industries, they changed their minds. As did Germany and a lot of Eastern European countries…those who could afford to anyway.

Absolute advantage is only an advantage if you are a superpower economy. In that case it allows you to hollow out other countries and make them dependent on you for essential food and services. This is not in the interests of the majority of the population of any country or indeed the world.

There is a balance to be made between ensuring internal food security and a stable economic future for your country and the need to trade globally. When every large economy is gaming the system by entering ‘free trade’ agreements and then excluding industries from the deal and subsidising their own industries to make them artificially cheaper, we do not end up with a global net benefit. We end up with an economic empire. Also not in the interest of the majority of people.

Australia losing its auto manufacturing industry is an incredibly backwards step when we should be rebooting it as an electric vehicle design and manufacturing industry that should be one of three main parts of Australia’s service economy in 30-50 years. http://firestick.org.au/australias-industry-trio-for-the-next-century-renewable-energy-electric-vehicles-and-3d-printing/