Really simpler tax... Really!

Have you heard that Finland plans to pay everyone -- every Finnish citizen -- a regular living allowance ? No means test. Same amount for everyone. And no other social welfare payment.

Simple. Brilliantly simple.

And next: let's simplify taxation. And I mean, let's *really* simplify taxation. And, at the same time, let's make taxation absolutely fair.

Who should pay more tax ? Those with more money. How can you tell that they have more money ? Because they earn more money and they spend more money. Earning money and spending money involve the transfer of money.

Let's put a tax on the transfer of money.

For example: Let's say that you earn $100. So your employer pays you -- transfers to you -- $100. Your employer also pays the government a transfer tax of (say) 1%, that is, $1.

If you then spend $80 of your earnings on entertainment -- then you also pay 80c to the government as transfer tax. Awkward ? Tick the box which says to the business receiving your money, "Please charge me the extra 80c and pay that to the government as transfer tax." The business has accountants, it's easy for them.

But wait ! This is a "tax on the transfer of money". How is most money transferred ? Via a bank... Direct debit, EFT, credit card... The vast majority of transfers of money go via a bank. So banks are given the responsibility for skimming off -- and passing to the government -- the transfer tax.

The amount of the transfer tax is included in the agreed amount of payment. The payer pays the agreed amount. The bank pays the transfer tax. Whoever is being paid received the agreed amount -- less tax.

The transfer tax is on everything. Absolutely everything. On everyday essentials ? Yes ! The more "essentials" you can afford, the more tax you will be paying.

So everyone moves to cash payments ? No worries, there are two solutions: You want cash to make a cash payment ? As you withdraw the required cash from the bank... you will pay the transfer tax. People avoid using banks ? The banks will lower their charges, in order to bring back your business.

Why would the banks collect a government tax ? Because they are paid to do it... Paid a percentage of the transfer tax that they collect.

Will barter reduce the taxable transfer of money ? No more than it does at the moment... Barter may reduce the transfer of money -- but it is too awkward for most transactions. (If you will work 40 hours this week, I will give you a truckload of broad beans... As if.)

But wait ! What about tax deductions ? How are they used to offset taxes ? Simple: there are no tax deductions.

A tax deduction is a government subsidy for inefficient business. The more you spend on production, the less tax you pay. What ?! So a business which is efficient, which reduces its costs, will pay more tax ?! Forget it !

There are no tax deductions. If you want to make more money from your business -- you improve your business. It's that simple.

What about all those nasty corporations which hide their profits overseas ? Well, where do those profits come from ? From Australians who transfer money in payment... And those transfers of money are taxed. At the standard rate. For every single transaction.

What about payment in services rather than money ? For example, an employee accepting a reduced salary but getting a company car, and children's school fees paid by the employer ? Simple: When the company pays for the company car, they also pay the transfer tax. When they pay the school fees, they also pay the transfer tax. (Unless the school and the car yard will take payment in broad beans...)

Other taxes ? All scrapped.

What rate of tax will be required ? I'll leave that to the economists and the accountants. And to the politicians, as they decide how much they need, to buy the required popularity.

Any other problems ? Let me know. And I'll look for a simple solution.

====
Einstein's Theory of Intelligence: "It's very easy to be smart. Just think of something really dumb to say, then say the exact opposite." … per Pardon my Planet
   

Trees or People

City of Stirling -- Perth's biggest council -- is worried about loss of trees. What ?!

"Infill to rob Perth of 20ha in tree canopy", The West, 10 Dec15

So what do they expect ?! Allow larger houses on smaller blocks and of course the backyard trees will disappear. Our housing infill policies are fully intended to encourage the replacement of backyard space with brick and concrete and tile housing.

The state government wants Perth to become solid housing estate. And city of Stirling has only just noticed the effect on space for trees ?

I fully support their concern. I appreciate the council's tree planting in public spaces. Why is it only today that this is considered to be "news" ?

Could it be because of the visiting "expert" who recently commented that tree cover is important ? Again, the importance of tree cover is hardly "news". I guess the comments were reported because it was from a new -- in Perth -- " expert ".

Perhaps the reporter then tried a follow-up article, on the tree planting response of local councils. And received the obvious, exasperated response...

Well, with the government pushing for more and more buildings, what the hell do you think we can actually do ?!

====
Einstein's Theory of Intelligence: "It's very easy to be smart. Just think of something really dumb to say, then say the exact opposite." … per Pardon my Planet
   

Health costs: Truth or lies

Health costs: Truth or lies

It's great to see Gareth Parker supporting the Premier. Or is the political reporter for The West speaking with tongue firmly planted in cheek ? Or is it me that's skipping between irony and sarcasm...

"Time for health workers to take a dose of reality", The West, 5 Dec 2015

Parker writes, "Wild claims by the AMA... of 1500 job cuts were exposed as scaremongering this week when the Premier said there would be only about 200 voluntary redundancies."

So Parker trusts the Premier -- notorious for broken promises, backflips, unjustified decisions and wild statements which severely test the bounds of truth. Did Parker consider asking the Minister for Health ? You know, the man who supposedly is in charge of matters such as job cuts in Health ? Or is that like asking the dog, when the owner has already spoken...

And Parker does not trust the AMA, with their "wild claims". Well, okay, the AMA are also notorious, for defending their own turf. Mind you, "their own turf" does happen to be the health system. But what would they know ? They just work there.

I think that a serious journalist would ask questions before believing -- selectively believing -- biassed public statements. One claim may be more accurate than the other. A serious journalist would justify his decision to support -- with emotive language -- one claim over the other.

Or -- in the most positive interpretation -- perhaps he should leave the attempts at ironic humour to the cartoonist.

====

On a separate issue, from the same article:

"One wonders what [Fiona Stanley] thinks" ... of having a disaster-prone hospital named after her.

It doesn't really matter what Fiona Stanley thinks. The hospital was not named for Fiona Stanley. It was named for the potential positive PR spin. Just like the Polly Pipe...

Take a piece of major public infrastructure. One which generates a lot of public antipathy. The public don't like it. The political opposition attack it. So what to do ?!

Name it after a popular folk hero !

Name the tunnel after Polly Farmer... no one would say anything nasty about such a popular ex-footballer. Name the super-expensive hospital after a popular medical person... no one would say anything nasty about such a dedicated and successful medical researcher.

Mind you... Fiona Stanley is a paediatrician. I bet the politicians are wishing they'd spotted the link and saved her name for the still-under-construction children's hospital. It's looking as though that one will also need a popular name to deflect criticism...

But Fiona needn't worry, not with me, anyway. I like to think of our brand new hospital as simply, The Big Fi.

====

Why don't we just cut costs ?!

Parker states that, "Health is a chronic over-spender." He lists a couple of expensive failures, including the expensive IT system. So what to do ?!

A few years ago there was a well known management consultant with the nickname Chainsaw. He saved several companies by the simple expedient of cutting costs -- including staff costs -- to the bone. When the same techniques were tried on an Australian medical services company -- it failed. Miserably.

Medical services -- health -- are not cut and dried processes. Even the "evidence based medicine" advocates admit that. A disease does not stand alone, it is just one aspect of an individual's being. And each individual is... well... an individual. Medical treatment must make allowance for the individual.

The health system must deal with large numbers of individual -- unique -- patients. This requires a lot of individual attention. This all takes time, staff time.

And when it comes to treatment... There are now more options, more possible treatments for a wider range of health issues. And the treatments cost money... If perfect health is the target then the cost is perfectly enormous.

So... Is perfect health the target ? If yes, then health care will be very, very expensive. If no, then that needs to be stated. And we need to know just what the target is.

====

On a more practical issue: what can be done to save our health system ?

Health care has, traditionally, an in-built conflict between administration wanting to save money, and health care staff wanting to save lives. Or possibly between administration wanting a more effective use of available finds, and medical staff wanting more money and power for themselves. This is a management issue.

Effective management would attempt to build a positive working relationship. Perhaps offer compromises, so both sides can satisfy their professional imperatives. Certainly, effective management would try to solve rather than to create problems.

There are plenty of textbooks offering good management techniques. Some of these techniques could possibly work in our own health system. If only someone would make the effort.

What we see, are unilateral statements from each of the conflicting parties. Making demands doesn't work. Giving orders doesn't work. Denials and sudden changes are not much good, either.

The various parties need to actually talk with each other.

First, agree on some targets for our health care. Real targets. Targets which can be put to the public -- supported by all major players -- and which will show some long term direction. Something reassuring. As though our health system were intended to do more than just spend or save money.

Identify problems. Is there really, to use Parker's words, "a revolt led by unions" ? Are there really "modest attempts at cost discipline" ? Avoid the emotion and bias. Find an acceptable compromise that clearly states the actual problems.

And yes, there may be actual problems which contradict each other. State them. Accept them as being real problems.

Then work together to try to solve some of those problems.

Okay, that's not as practical as I hoped :-) "Try to solve some of those problems" !

First, the various parties need to "work together". Which requires someone who is able to talk to all parties.

And, to listen.

====
"A city without trees is not fit for a dog"... per Ginger Meggs