Acknowledge that land values are created by public investment, not by anything done by title holders.

Therefore, for the public good we need to tax land values, not earned incomes nor goods and services, because unlike charges on land values these taxes simply cascade into the price of all goods and services. (So, it is the price of all goods and services that are impossibly high, not wages.)

Stop repeating “There’s not enough land rent!” to be taxed out of the system because in accordance with Joseph Stiglitz’s Henry George Theorem there is always enough rent. Viz, Production minus rent leaves wages and profits untaxed. (P – R = W + I)

Then, we should spend the surplus product/economic rent generated by these reforms, some $30,000+ pa or 34% of the economy, as a universal income to (a) abolish poverty (b) assist women who are usually ill-served by superannuation (c) reduce the tax-inflated price of all goods and services, and (d) reduce the cost of wages for businesses. i.e. Businesses will only have to pay a wage additional to the universal income to be able to attract or retain employees.

Ergo, No taxes and a pension for everybody: what’s wrong with that? Nothing? OK, let’s go! And a universal income is certainly more efficient than “Job Keeper” and all existing pensions.

Anybody out there looking for fiscal logic …………..?

The following chart is based on that in “Trickle-Up Economics” and explains the workable rationale:-