MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128683362 · doi:10.26180/4680604

A Model for a State Income Tax in Australia: Historical Considerations, Key Design Issues and Recommendations

2017· dissertation· W7128683362 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMonash University · 2017
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational taxationCommonwealthLegislationState (computer science)PoliticsIncome taxState income taxComprehensive incomeGross incomeDouble taxation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis addresses the question, would the reintroduction of income taxation at the State level in Australia be feasible at the present time? The States levied income taxes from the late nineteenth century until 1942, when the Commonwealth unilaterally enacted legislation for its ‘uniform tax’ scheme for centralised income taxation which made it effectively impossible for State income taxation to continue. As the States also face a significant constitutional restrictions on their ability to levy major forms of indirect taxation, the Australian federation is characterised by a very high degree of vertical fiscal imbalance and the payment by the Commonwealth of very significant amounts of grants to the States to enable them to meet their major spending responsibilities, with associated efficiency and governmental accountability costs. <br> <br> As a matter of law, however, the States retain the constitutional power to impose income taxation, and the possibility of resumption of income taxation by the States has been a focus of political and tax policy discussion on many occasions. In this context, Australia’s historical experience with State income taxation from its first introduction in Tasmania in 1880 to 1942 is examined in depth to determine whether there may have been administrative problems in the Australian experience of State income taxation, or ongoing practical or political factors in the country's economy or system of government, which may make reintroduction of State income taxation impracticable. The contrast on this issue with the Canadian experience is also relevant, where provincial income taxation was centralised during the War but resumed in the years thereafter. <br> <br> As part of this historical study, the thesis also looks to the developments outside the specific sphere of taxation which have occurred since Federation to limit the direct constitutional powers of the Commonwealth government to exercise macroeconomic management and control over the Australian economy. The thesis concludes that centralisation of financial resources at the Commonwealth level since Federation was important as an alternative means of facilitating central management of the economy by the Commonwealth, and accordingly that on balance reintroduction of State income taxation would be feasible and is not precluded by administrative or practical considerations. <br> <br> In conclusion, the thesis considers the key design issues which a State income tax in the present day would need to resolve, particularly in relation to the allocation of income of multi-State businesses between the States for tax purposes, and makes recommendations on these issues in order to develop a model for a State income tax. Australia’s experience with the allocation of income issue is reviewed, along with the current practice in the US and Canada under their subnational income taxes and the current reform debate in the European Union and internationally. The thesis concludes in favour of a system of formula apportionment over separate accounting as the recommended method of allocation of income. <br> <br> The research in this thesis is current to 24 September 2016.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it