Andrew Bartlett has been covering the possible tax reforms that Australia could benefit from . Craig Emerson also weighed in on the issue . But Emerson's website sucks and I can't find more information on what he is proposing. So I cannot be bothered discussing his policy ....

There is no polite way to say this. But compare Andrew Bartlett's website to Craig Emerson's . Andrew's is readable and accessible. Craig's is a rats arse. I wanted to get more info on what Emerson was proposing in terms of bracket creep. But on his website I can find nothing of use. Worse, his media releases are in PDFs.

Emerson got on the ABC feed, so congratulations, but I can't go into any more detail in his tax reform proposals because the information is not there. I don't live in Queensland, but my experiences here would influence my vote.

Bracket creep is an issue in the Federal taxation system, 30c on the dollar is taken after the 21K mark. In my opinion, any tax reform should occur at the lower tax brackets. Greater Sydney and Melbourne comprise about eight million people. Tack on Brisbane's two million and suddenly half the country lives in three cities. None of these cities are cheap to live in, and wages aren't appreciating at the same rate they were during the tech boom. Time to stop the bracket creep.

I also made a novel suggestion in trying to derive from first principles social organisation and an equitable means to pay for sustaining government (the dispossesive) ;

The goal of any social organisation is to foment prosperity. This can be taken as the starting point for an equitable system of taxation. Those that have prospered from economic liberty have a moral responsibility to not only maintain the present system of maximum liberty, but also to ensure those that have not prospered by it, are given every opportunity to achieve in this environment. It can be derived from this principle, that taxation should not begin until after the point of prosperity.

I took the point of prosperity as being;

I find using those that have half of the taxable income is a more equitable system of taxation. This would have the added advantage of removing the highly regressive nature of the current Australian taxation brackets. Those that have prospered carry an equal burden in ensuring not only maximum liberty remains, but also that those who have not prospered in such a system, get every opportunity to do so. This equal burden should be carried through to the taxation system. I recommend that;

A personal tax rate of 30% for those who earn income that is in the top half of all income. This would be adjusted every year. Currently this point is ~ $60,000

So basically no income tax until an individual earns over $60,000. The tax rate would be 30c in every dollar earnt over 60K.

More on Tax

• Unprogressive Australian Tax Brackets
• Emerson's Tax Reform
• Constantly Increasing Tax as Percent of GDP
• Government Expenditures and Taxation Levels
• Governments don't let other Governments tax for them
• The crippling cost to the Government.

Meh on the debate between John Howard and Kevin Rudd. I would rather see Malcolm Turnball and Craig Emerson debate. Those two wouldn't be able to help themselves and we would end up with genuine debate and deliberation over policy.

The worst thing that happened to Turnball was getting muzzled under executive discipline as the Secretary for Water. He was better as a quasi-independent back-bencher. Emerson is the policy star in the Labor Party. He is totally unafraid to face policy issues. If we had a separate executive I would love to see those two go head to head in an election.