A problem with government, and most of the media coverage of it, is that it's more focused on political power plays than the business of governing.

The frequent treatment of government as a game is amply illustrated by the recent, but already largely forgotten, Henry tax review.

"Forgotten?" I hear you say. "But all we've heard about for the last few months is the resource tax!"

My point exactly. The tax labelled by the Government as the Resource Super Profits Tax was but one of 138 recommendations in the report, albeit one of the most important ones.

What has happened to the rest?

Well, the Federal Government rejected 26 of them out of hand, mostly because of their impact on politically-sensitive areas and powerful interest groups, including: home owners, property investors, pensioners, clubs, charities, defence personnel, the rich, and motorists, among others.

It did partially implement a few other recommendations using the revenue from the RSPT, such as: a cut in the company tax rate (but to 28, now 29, per cent instead of 25 per cent as recommended); an increase in the instant tax write-off on assets for small business from $1,000 to $5,000 (Henry recommended $10,000); and a 50 per cent tax discount on interest income of up to $1,000 (Henry wanted a 40 per cent discount on all investment income and losses, which I'll explain later).

The Government is also bringing in a standard work-related expenses deduction which should save the majority of taxpayers some time and/or money on tax agents, as well as providing a higher deduction for most employees.

As for the other 100-plus recommendations, some of them were for changes to the way tax is administered and for further inquiries into particular areas of reform. No doubt many of these recommendations will be carried out by the Treasury, the Tax Office and the Productivity Commission as time goes by.

But none of the other substantive reforms have really seen the light of day since the first week or two after Ken Henry's report hit the streets - it seems pretty much all the press gallery and financial media have been engrossed by the mining tax conflict, yours truly included.

In our defence, it's hard to ignore a story that's featuring on all your competitors' front pages every second day and that's dominating Parliament.

It's especially hard when neither the Government nor Opposition is talking about even the long-term potential for any of the other changes because they're too busy point scoring against each other on the mining tax, or dealing with one of the largest industry-run scare campaigns in decades.

However, with some agreement between Government and the mining industry on the resources tax (even if this agreement in a few days of negotiations with three companies decimated a model put forward after more than a year-and-a-half of research and consultation by the Henry review), surely the election provides an opportunity to examine what other tax changes could or should be put forward in the next Parliament.

There certainly are quite a few proposals that should be considered on economic efficiency and/or equity grounds.

One of these recommendations is an increase in the tax-free threshold.

The report flags a possible threshold of $25,000 accompanied by two bands taxed at 35 per cent (income between $25,000-180,000) and 45 per cent (for income over $180,000).

While the reduction in tax bands may be controversial by lowering the tax rate differential between middle and high income earners, the idea of replacing the myriad of low income offsets and rebates with a higher threshold is more universally attractive to anyone except tax accountants.

For many low income, particularly part-time, workers it means they may not need to have any tax taken out of their income in the first place, thus potentially reducing the number of people needing to complete tax returns.

Another recommendation not only ignored, but actively flouted in the Government's response, was a proposal to change the way superannuation is taxed.

The tax review noted that, under the current system, around 200,000 taxpayers who fall into the top tax bracket receive a tax concession on their superannuation contributions of 31.5 per cent, while 2.5 million low income workers receive little or no tax benefit on contributions.

"Why?" you ask. It's because super contributions are taxed at a discounted flat rate of 15 per cent, regardless of your income. So, if your highest marginal tax rate is 15 per cent you get no benefit, but if you're paying some tax at 46.5 per cent you're getting a huge discount.

Ken Henry suggested that super be counted as taxable income and therefore taxed at the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, with a uniform tax offset offered (up to a to-be-defined maximum amount) so that all taxpayers would receive a consistent concession regardless of their income.

Instead, the Government ignored the Henry review's suggestion and increased compulsory superannuation contributions to 12 per cent under the existing tax system that favours those on higher incomes.

It did offer a Government co-contribution of $500 for workers earning up to $37,000 from July 1 2012, meaning that they would pay no tax on their superannuation contributions, but did nothing to correct the favourable tax treatment received by those in the top tax bracket compared to the vast majority in the middle brackets.

Ken Henry also suggested changes, permanently ruled out by the Government (other than a heavily modified 50 per cent discount for some bank interest income), that would bring consistency to the tax treatment of investment income.

Currently, the various systems of dividend imputation, capital gains tax (and the associated 50 per cent discount for assets held longer than a year), negative gearing and income tax on interest earnings mean different forms of saving and investment are favoured over others.

So interest from bank savings, for example, can be taxed at effective marginal rates approaching 80 per cent, while negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount make income from property investment a lot more attractive.

That can distort investment decisions, potentially leading to too much investment housing being purchased in the wrong areas with too much debt as investors pursue negative gearing write-offs followed by capital gains that get taxed at a discounted rate.

Meanwhile, Australians are discouraged from saving in the bank, which forces banks to seek more expensive and less stable wholesale funding and can push mortgage interest rates higher.

While the Government's limited interest income discount will make holding a limited amount of bank savings (for example, $20,000 worth at a 5 per cent per annum interest rate) more attractive, it does little to correct the broader imbalance.

Ken Henry's solution was to propose a 40 per cent savings income discount to: net interest income (e.g. from bank savings); net residential rental income (still allowing the deduction of interest expenses); capital gains (and losses); and interest expenses related to shares held as non-business investments.

This would provide a 40 per cent tax discount on income from investments, but it would also cut the income tax benefit from loss-making investments by 40 per cent, reducing the attractiveness of negative gearing, and encouraging people to make investments that will earn income, rather than just looking for capital gains and income tax write-offs.

This is a different approach from the short-lived quarantining of negative gearing between 1985-1987, where investors were only allowed to offset interest payments against income earned from the investment the loan was for.

Ken Henry perhaps thought that his was a gentler approach, but it appears it was still too threatening for the Government to take away some tax benefits from a group of, generally high income, property investors who gain the most out of the current negative gearing arrangements.

The possibility of a 1 per cent land tax was also put permanently in the too hard basket by the Government, even though Ken Henry proposed using the revenue mainly to get rid of other property taxes, such as stamp duties which are universally criticised by economists as horribly distorting to the way people choose to live and invest.

Stamp duties are distorting because they're only charged when a property changes hands.

That discourages people from selling their home or investment, even when there are good reasons for them to do so, such as their kids have left home and the house is now bigger than they need. That means you get more one and two person households staying in four bedroom homes, while young families crowd into tiny flats.

It also discourages mobility in the workforce by imposing extra costs on people who need to move home frequently, and locks many workers who have geographically mobile careers into renting.

Land tax avoids this by charging a smaller annual amount based on land value, rather than a larger lump sum on each change of ownership.

There were many other suggestions worthy of further consideration for governments at all levels, including: congestion charges to ease traffic on busy roads at peak times; volumetric taxing of alcohol, making it more expensive to piss-up on cask wine (which is currently taxed at a much lower rate than spirits, bottled wine and beer); a bequests tax (why not combine the two certainties of life?); aligning the indexation of all pensions, rather than relying on ad hoc increases by the Government; increased childcare subsidies, particularly for low income earners, to boost women's workforce participation and counter the aging population; and many more...

However, it seems likely most of them will accumulate dust for years before consideration, given the current Federal Government has put many off-limits, while the Opposition seems determined to attack almost any change as a "great big new tax", even if it is replacing other, possibly less efficient, taxes.

Michael Janda is the ABC's online business reporter