I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying it takes a lot more thought than we can afford it.
For example the land tax, superannuation pension tax, could be replaced with a death tax, as the U.K does. It would be much more efficient, than trying to guess what level of tax needs to be applied.
Just apply a % estate tax on the death of the individual, then the person isn't disadvantaged on their efforts to save and can enjoy the fruits of their labour.
How would a death tax work when most wealthy people have various trust structures? In a discretionary trust just how much does the dearly departed actually own?
Considering how the issue surrounding trusts and legalised tax avoidance, I doubt any Govt would have the ticker to sort that mess out.
I'd also say that even if a death tax was brought in tomorrow, it would take a considerable amount of time to generate much in the way of revenue. You'd also have the same complaints you're making where people made their plans under the old rule sand it's not fair to be taxing them any more, though what they really mean in I don't like my inheritance being reduced by tax.
If the ATO came to you and said, based on your income level and proposed government spending you're tax bill is $10000 for the year. We have various taxation methods to use that determines how much tax you need to remit to us.
For example, if paid via a land tax you will need to pay $10000
You could pay it via stamp duty, but due to the inefficiency of the tax you will need to pay $17,000 for the Govt to receive the $10000 in revenue.
A cheaper option would be to tax you via the GST, meaning you'd need to remit just $12,000.
Which option would you like to choose?
I'd prefer the tax system to be made a lot simpler and especially a lot more efficient. The latest tax white paper has recommended removing CGT concessions. Various policy groups have recommended major NG reforms, with debate on totally removing it to quarantining it to the asset income and new housing builds.
There has been much analysis and thought on this. I am not plucking ideas out of my ass so to speak, but thoughtfully reading what those smarter than mean in this area have proposed and weighed up the various option proposed. Simplicity, efficiency seems the best way forward. It takes half a forest to print out our tax code these days. Crazy.
Over the 2012-13 financial year $12.8B was collected in stamp duty, the ABS estimates that as at June 2013 there were 9,226,900 residential dwellings.
Based on this dwelling count, land tax of ~$1400 annually per residential dwelling would cover the cost of this foregone revenue. Keep in mind that stamp duty is collected from any property transaction so revenue would be higher when you include land sales and sales of other property types. This would potentially allow for a reduction in the overall land tax rate per household.
I don't think $1400 is an onerous tax to be paid, especially if it was raising extra revenue so that income and corporate taxes could be cut, and some of the extra revenue used to fund increase benefits for the poor and pensioners. I'd prefer a tiered system. Provide a tax free limit - say the bottom 15% of land valuations are tax free. Then have a rate for next 16-80%, with a slightly higher rate for any value over that. Should help to alleviate the tax minimisation of the ultra wealthy.
Due to the efficiency of the land tax compared to SD, that $12.8B of SD converts into just $7.52, but would increase to 14.22B via land tax. It's the closest thing to free money we have.
Fairness is in many ways a political issue, and can be handled via the tax and transfer systems, as it has been in the past with the GST and Carbon tax. taxing land and consumption, while lightly taxing profits and income, seems to match your argument for rewarding hard work and risk taking.