Here is a transcript of the audio file.

Host: This week we have Jonar Nader. Officially Jonar is into technology and he talks to Kevin Norton each weekend on that topic. He is also into issues of leadership and that is one we might explore in the future along with customer service and guns, just to name a couple. But today his hot topic is ‘Tax Reform’ and Jonar Nader thanks for joining us. Let’s have a look at tax reform and it is very topical this week with all sorts of talk about a plebiscites on the issue but I suppose we have to look at what the meaning is of ‘reform’.

Jonar Nader: Yes although it is a bit rude that word ‘plebiscite’. Sounds rather saucy doesn’t it?

Host: It does a bit.

Jonar Nader: Now reform; look I must say that I really want definition on everything. Can someone tell me what reform means? I did a quick survey just before coming in here to talk with you. People seem to think that to reform means to make things better, to refresh, to improve, but you know, in truth, I do not believe that is the case. I think the word ‘reform’ just means what it means, to reshape, to give something a new form, a new structure, a new set of rules. My fear is, who are these people who are going to give us this new set of rules? The old people who gave us the old set of rules?

Host: So it may well be that we do not end up with something better. We just end up with something different.

Jonar Nader: Yes, I want that articulated. What does it mean when we want Tax Reform? I would much rather a statement that is definitive that says we need to raise 5 billion dollars, therefore let us set out to raise it fairly. What does it mean? How much money are we looking for? Who is going to be better off? Who is going to be worse off? Who is going to have to dig deeper in their pockets? I think that the government must articulate its meaning, its objective, and its desires, or else this notion of tax reform is such a slippery subject like any other subject in the public arena.

Host: Because at the moment everyone is going gripe, gripe, gripe about tax, and the government is going well we’ll change it, and that is basically the depth of the argument.

Jonar Nader: Yes, although I think there is something deeper to it than that. I think the government does not have enough money to spend on the things it wants to spend on. Part of the reason it does not have enough money is that it is spending through the roof, and the other reason is that we are told by learned economists that the tax that was generally raised through say sales tax (that is called indirect tax) is slowly diminishing. This is because people are not buying many goods, but more services, and a lot of services do not have taxes attached to them. This is a curious position to be in because the question of GST (the goods and services tax) always comes up. The GST supposedly says that the user pays therefore the user decides, and (before I go into my definition on GST) the predicament we are in today is because the user decided. The public decided to buy less goods and more services, and as a result of their decision, we are now having to penalise everybody again, and say hang on a minute we are not raising enough money!

Host: Changed the ground rules.

Jonar Nader: Yes, so the GST is in the papers this week

Host: Yes with this plebiscite, that rude word, so how do you define a GST?

Jonar Nader: I think that any word should only be acceptable to us if its converse is also true. The GST currently seems to imply that the user will pay and it seems to be a fine and dandy notion. Well, let’s test the theory. Is the converse true. Is a non-user someone therefore who does not pay. But there are social services they’ll say. What about hospitals, kidney machines, you know all the things we must have? Okay, then we will agree that we should all, as a community, share and pay for things that are called essential services. Well, what will happen to things that aren’t essential services? That therefore, still needs to be articulated by the government. Can you please tell us? Don’t go into long economic statements that no-one understands and throw in the word ‘fiscal’. Let’s start counting how many times the word ‘fiscal’ will come up between now and the end of this debate.

Here is a transcript of the audio file.

Jonar Nader: How about we have a business plan. Now in business we have a business plan for 3 years and the CEOs are expected to put that to the board. Well lets have a country plan. A country plan will tell us what you mean by what. A lot of people may not be interested but let’s leave it in simple English. What do you plan to do as a government? Not this motherhood statement you know, health, education, kidney machines. Tell us specifically. That, therefore, I think is an important part of anything that we do in government, of anything that we do with work and tax reform etc.

Host: I suppose a tricky thing there though is a company has a very simple aim which is to provide its shareholders with the best gains and the bottom line is the important thing as long as you can provide the best dividends for the shareholders and their interests are always paramount, you know you are on the right track. There isn’t such a simple statement of goal for a country.

Jonar Nader: Well I’ll give you one. I’m glad you asked me. How about, ‘for the people’. This country is so rich in resources, we haven’t got a clue that we are sitting on, gold mines left right and centre, in every respect, metaphysically speaking and metaphorically speaking. We are such a rich wonderful country. We have such wonderful systems, and anybody who travels will come back and kiss the ground we are sitting on, but you know what, it hurts to see such things just sold away. Oh, a telecommunication company is doing well, let’s sell it off. Ok, well that makes sense! What are you going to end up with at the end of the day? You should only sell what you produce. If you make apples and you sell the apples away that’s great because you make more apples next year. What are we doing selling off a telecommunications company? What’s happening next?

Host: Continuing the parallel, would that mean we are selling off the apple trees or the tractor?

Jonar Nader: Absolutely. So what more do we have to generate? Now if a company is doing well, then we should support it to continue to do well and reap from it. When we sell it off, it goes into the ether. Let’s just be sensible with the farm. Let’s not sell off the farm. You were saying, ‘what is the common purpose?’ The common purpose is to look after our people. No matter what nationality or race they are. If they live in this country, we are a community. It doesn’t mean that we become naval gazers because we are a global player, but a global player must have something up his sleeves. Our wealth, whether it be intellectual or physical, must not be sold off.

Here is a transcript of the audio file.

Jonar Nader: When I argue about $70,000 or $100,000 they are absolutely vital because they will soon add up to tip us into a deficit nation. I don’t believe this budget anyway because, as I said before, we are expecting to raise 9 billion dollars in asset sales. That is a huge jump, that is a 134% jump on selling things off, so that is one area. Consider what you need to spend. Consider what you don’t need to spend. Consider too the change in attitude. I am not going to suggest a wholesale reform on law but I am going to suggest that the whole notion of an ‘opposition’. Now for anybody in opposition, hear this: I would redefine your title, and I would call you the ‘competition’. I am sick and tired of people opposing things like it is their God-given right to just obfuscate and obstruct and block anything that makes sense. Riddle me this, an opposition is vital for any country, democracy must have healthy opposition, but what is the single most important function of an opposition? Is it to run the country better? To help the country be run better by the existing government? Or to tear down the government and get into power?

Host: Well hopefully everyone is working towards a better country, but it doesn’t seem to come out that way when you look at what goes on in Canberra.

Jonar Nader: I imagine that anybody in opposition would be single mindedly out there to get the government down and get themselves in power.

Host: It is a sort of a parallel to an argument that is going on in the court system that we are too adversarial in our court system and we should be working more co-operatively to work out what the truth of the matter is.

Jonar Nader: So I would like our ‘opposition’ to become a ‘competition’. If I make toothbrushes and I bring out a good toothbrush, my competitor is going to go out there and make one even better, so let’s see what the government is going to do and let’s see how our opposition can do better, not just tear it down like kids in a playground.