Tax on foreign exchange dealings would help build a better Australia A Tobin tax in Australia could collect $1 billion annually.
Thank you, Richard Denniss ("Surplus to requirements", Forum,   April 23, p8) for a timely commentary on the long-term problems from the short-term mantra of "a balanced budget". Such claims reduce government to an accountant's exercise of numbers in and out.
Government is about providing services to the people of Australia and finding the revenue to do this. Not ignoring multinationals shifting their profits overseas through transfer pricing, nor other innovative sources of income like a (Tobin) tax on those foreign exchange dealings. 
The Reserve Bank estimated foreign exchange turnover in   April 2013 averaged $US182 billion a day. By contrast, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported that Australia's two-way trade in 2012 was $623.8 billion, or about 3 days forex trading.
Last year, your organisation estimated that a Tobin tax in Australia could collect $1 billion annually. That's the revenue needed: for our education, aged care, health and foreign aid. Taxes help build a better Australia.
Peter Graves, Curtin Let big money run I would so love to know why the banks will cop paying $120 million for an ASIC investigation, while a royal commission, with less powers, paid for by the taxpayer has them snorting with rage and threatening to spend millions of their customers' dosh to stop it.
As for their reputations, and the threat that global big money will run away at the slightest hint of shonkiness; I would have thought exactly the opposite. Big money runs away from tight regulation and high standards of probity.
Big money will run away, from the threat of having to be honest and accountable.
S.W. Davey, Torrens Ban negative gearing I was gobsmacked when I heard Malcolm Turnbull, with absolutely no shame, criticise Labor's stance on negative gearing on the grounds that it will lead to house prices falling.
Isn't that exactly what we want, or does he despise our young, most of whom, unlike persons of his generation, will never be able to afford a house if prices do not drop drastically?I paid $40,000 for my three- bedroom house on a 820-square-metre block in 1980, and according to the Reserve Bank inflation calculator that was only the equivalent today to about $164,000.
The same house would cost at least $500,000 today. If a political party wants my vote it will abolish all forms of negative gearing, prohibit foreigners buying Australian houses and cease immigration entirely.
That may make housing affordable again, and for that reason I ask all persons who love their children and grandchildren to, before casting your votes, think about their quality of life rather than the value of your property.
Nancy Tidfy, Chisholm Bawdy song canon Oh dear. H. Ronald is under heavy fire again. D. J. Taylor (Letters,   April 22) objects to his/her "insulting terms" such as "intellectually fragile feminists" and David Grant (Letters,   April 22) says H encourages the singing of songs promoting the subjugation of women for carnal purposes. If the prissy pair got around a bit more, they would know that the bawdy song canon contains more songs and monologues deriding sexually active males than it does women.
At its head would be Eskimo Nell, an epic ribald poem somewhat less nuanced than those of English literature's 17th century metaphysical poets who enjoyed discussing their paramour's fleas and private parts.
It was written by the late great novelist, satirist, playwright, champion of women's rights and MP for Oxford University A.P. Herbert, who was instrumental in the passing of the 1937 Matrimonial Causes Act that put men and women on an equal footing in divorce cases.
And claiming profane songs promote the subjugation of women is as dumb as saying singing Onward Christian Soldiers makes one want to kill a Muslim.
The only thing a rousing bawdy song - or any lustily sung song for that matter - encourages is a therapeutic feeling of companionship with one's fellow singers. Ask any member of a choir, congregation or rugby club.
Bill Deane, Chapman Loose fiscal policy As the politicians have gone into election mode, it is appropriate to recall these words by Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor in 1887: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."
Bruce A. Peterson, Kambah Stable population I couldn't agree more with Rod Holesgrove (Letters,   April 25) who argued that the future is looking grim if we don't act now on climate change. Likewise, Stuart Walkley (Letters,   April 25) was right to argue that the election should not be about the ABCC but about the environment. He wanted restoration of our land to be the priority but other environmental issues such as climate change could also take precedence.
Underlying all our environmental problems is overpopulation, that is, too many people for the resources available or too little land, water and air to absorb our wastes. Any increase in population now comes at a cost, particularly habitat for other species. And the more people there are, the more greenhouse emissions and the greater the difficulty in achieving our emission reduction targets.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt has just been to New York to sign the Paris Agreement.
He was excluded, however, from meetings of the "high ambition coalition", presumably because our ambition was too low. As Holesgrove said, we have to act on climate change.
In the coming election, my preferences will go according to the strength of a party's or individual candidate's climate policies. If they can also offer a policy of population stabilisation, they really will be assured of my vote.
Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW