« profile & posts archive

This author has written 2362 posts for Larvatus Prodeo.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

5 responses to “Death, taxes and the Henry Review”

  1. Razor

    Nice touchy feely article Mark. Would have gone down a treat at the 2020 hug-in.

  2. Simon During

    Mark: As someone who lives in the States after years of living in Australia, I’d have to say that some of your remarks in this piece ring less than true. Australian’s fearful of government? Australia not a homogeneous society? Australians resistant to high taxation? No on all three counts, at least in relation to the States which really is fearful of government, really is not a homogeneous society and really is resistant to high taxes. Is Australia closer to Sweden than to the US in these terms? It’s pretty much a meaningless question but if someone insists on asking it the answer is Sweden

  3. Laura

    Is Australia closer to Sweden than to the US in these terms? It’s pretty much a meaningless question but if someone insists on asking it the answer is Sweden

    Wouldn’t the answer to that question be ‘yes’?

  4. Patricia WA

    “Henry might himself be providing some of the leadership in the tax debate lacking from the politicians.”

    Liked your article, Mark, but surely Ken Henry has none of the constraints which politicians have in practising the art of the possible? He doesn’t need to win an election, or get crucial legislation through an impossibly constituted Senate. Which is just as well because we need the fearless advice which he and others like him can give. He can certainly shape the national debate though.

    Am I imagining that there seems to be a particular empathy between this Head of Treasury and the current government? Does having as Prime Minister a former public servant with a zeal for reform who understands process help a senior bureaucrat like Henry with “interesting” social understandings promote a new agenda for public administration?

  5. John Passant

    I think the Henry Tax Review will basically lower taxes on capital and increase (or not cut) them on labour, which if Marx is right about labour creating value, will actually contribute to future great recessions and perhaps worsen the present one. I tried to argue that in my submission to the review. The logic of my position was to tax labour lightly and capital heavily.