Page 279 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 12 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I find some of them entirely inappropriate. For example, it seems to me that one of the things that we would need to know about changing the payroll tax threshold from $500,000 to $1m would be: Who benefits? How many employers would actually benefit from this and what would it cost the ACT Treasury? It is not the sort of decision that can be made without that kind of information. Obviously when Mr Kaine, as he pointed out earlier today, moved the threshold, as I recall, from $420,000 to $500,000 - - -
Mr Kaine: It was from $432,000 to $500,000.
MR MOORE: He corrects me; it was from $432,000 to $500,000. When he then readjusted the percentages, it seemed to me that he was taking into account what it would cost in the budget and was looking for a method of lifting the threshold in order to provide the sort of solution that Mrs Carnell was talking about.
There is no point in our being able to throw out these ideas and say, "There is the easiest solution". The easiest solution, if you really want to encourage businesses, is not to tax them at all. Then we would have a lot more businesses around the place. But at the same time we also would not have any money to do any other things. Most of us have listened to Mr Bill Mason on these issues. He would present for you the Henry George view, which should carry as much weight as cutting the payroll taxes, and that is to change our whole tax basis towards a land tax basis. There is some sense in that as well, and perhaps that would resolve the problem.
Mr De Domenico: Including residential land tax, Mr Moore? Is it residential land tax as well? Are you advocating residential land tax?
MR MOORE: I am saying that whilst each one of these ideas has merit - - -
Mr De Domenico: Just say so, if you are.
MR MOORE: Can you shut up the little voice in the corner, please, Madam Speaker. While each one of these ideas has merit in itself, the notions of a committee looking at these ideas and a government proceeding with some of them are not mutually exclusive. They could benefit not necessarily any individual or party in the Assembly but the unemployed youth. If that is the case, we ought to go for it and try it and not sit around doing nothing about it.
Mrs Carnell: And have committees.
Mr De Domenico: And have committees.
MR MOORE: I hear an interjection again from Mr De Domenico.
Mr De Domenico: And others.
MR MOORE: And others. His interjection is something along the lines that if we give it to a committee that will be the end of it. Committees do not have to work that way. The committees of this Assembly have, by and large over the last three years, worked very, very effectively. They do not have to bury issues for the time being. A number of committees in particular have not buried issues but have kept them running in many, many ways and have kept them on the agenda. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect from a committee and a perfectly reasonable thing that we should see come from a committee of this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .