Issue 1 (June)

This essay examines the claim that the Australian Constitution is too difficult to amend by comparing it with the German Constitution (Basic Law). The Australian Constitution, enacted in 1901, requires a double majority in both national and state referenda, making the amendment process complex and challenging. In contrast, Germany's Basic Law allows amendments through a two-thirds majority in both houses of Parliament, presenting a more flexible and efficient model. By evaluating both constitutional frameworks, the essay argues that while the Australian process ensures broad support for changes, it also limits the ability to adapt to evolving societal needs. On the other hand, Germany's amendment procedure offers a more responsive and dynamic approach, allowing for constitutional changes that reflect modern developments. The comparison underscores the potential benefits of a more adaptable amendment process, suggesting that the rigidity of the Australian Constitution may impede necessary reforms.

This paper delves into the distinctions between China's and the United States' tax systems, underscoring the pressing requirement for tax reform in China. It scrutinizes the potential of these reforms to propel the evolution of social civilization, emphasizing equity, efficiency, and the digital metamorphosis of tax governance.

Introduction: The tax systems of China and the United States are divergent, mirroring their economic frameworks and policy priorities. The U.S. tax system prioritizes direct taxes, focusing on individual taxation and income redistribution. Conversely, China's system, with its emphasis on indirect taxes, is predominantly geared towards fiscal revenue collection from businesses. This comparative analysis unveils the imperative for China's tax system to adapt in accordance with global benchmarks and the burgeoning digital economy, and imagines the future of taxation in the coming eras