The only people with a reason to fear having their gross incomes and tax payments made public are those who aren't pulling their weight, writes Michael Janda.

$68,707. That's my salary at the ABC.

You can add in a little leave loading here and there, the (very) rare overtime payment for (very) common overtime, and an employer super contribution that's a bit ahead of the private sector standard (15.4 versus 9.25 per cent).

So far this financial year, including all overtime and extras but excluding super, I've earned a shade under $65,000 and had a bit over $18,000 in PAYG income tax taken out, pushed a bit higher than the usual rate because of HECS/HELP repayments.

Why do you need to know this?

Basically, because I don't want to be a hypocrite when I explain why publishing everyone's income and tax payments might be a good idea.

Shock. Horror. My friends will know what I earn and how much tax I pay. My neighbours. Most frightening of all, my colleagues.

The question that needs to be asked is, what do we have to fear?

If you think your remuneration is fair for your output, or that it is too little for the hard work you do, why would you be ashamed to own up to it?

Likewise, if you feel like you're paying too much tax, why wouldn't you want to advertise that fact to the world? You are doing your bit, and maybe more, to support community services.

Surely it is only those who feel they are overpaid and undertaxed, those who may use dubious deductions, superannuation concessions, trusts and other legal or semi-legal tax minimisation techniques who might be embarrassed if everyone else could see how much they take and how little they give back?

A couple of weeks ago, fellow economic journalist Peter Martin from Fairfax published an article about the 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paying no tax.

All of them, according to the ATO's statistics, made more than $1 million from investments and/or wages in 2011-12 - the average was $2.6 million - yet none paid any income tax, Medicare levy or Medicare surcharge.

The reason was that, through Australia's generous system of tax concessions and loopholes, these seven-figure earners managed to cut their taxable income to $82.

It's not just the ultra rich either - the same ATO figures showed that 1,095 Australians earned over $150,000 that financial year without paying tax.

While some of the company losses that helped offset many of these people's gross incomes might be legitimate results from the vagaries of commerce, the $162.4 million that these high and ultra-high earners spent on tax advice suggests that the bulk relate to schemes to minimise the amount of revenue flowing to the Commonwealth.

No doubt these practices reflect the famous Kerry Packer maxim on taxation:

I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now, of course, I am minimizing my tax, and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.

To his credit, the late Mr Packer was typically upfront about his tax philosophy.

However, most wealthy individuals are not subject to the same level of public scrutiny as the media mogul was, and, aside from a few high-profile individuals targeted by the ATO as part of its deterrence strategy, most can keep their tax details secret, especially if their minimisation techniques are legal.

The problem, of course, with Kerry Packer's attitude to tax is that those who can't or won't minimise their tax - i.e. the vast bulk of people who simply can't afford to get high-end tax advice and set up complex financial structures - end up footing the bill for the wealthy who do.

That is why it might be a good idea if the ATO published data on everyone's gross income and tax payments - with names and suburb of residence (but no other personal details) attached.

Given that the bulk of this tax minimisation is legal, penalties are clearly not a deterrent as they do not apply.

But perhaps public opprobrium for apparently upstanding members of society, doing well in that society but not giving their fair share back to it, could persuade some that extreme tax minimisation is not the way to go.

At the very least, it might awaken the public consciousness about exactly who is benefitting from tax concessions, such as superannuation.

As economist and former Liberal opposition leader John Hewson pointed out in a recent interview with ABC Radio's The World Today, super tax concessions are costing roughly as much as the aged pension, surely under-cutting the original policy rationale of private super reducing the government's pension liabilities.

The Treasury's latest tax expenditure statement estimates that the three biggest super concessions cost the Government $35 billion this financial year.

Dr Hewson argues that more than 36 per cent of these tax benefits go to the top 10 per cent of income earners, while the bottom 10 per cent are actually penalised by the tax system for putting money into super.

That is because someone on a top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent for every dollar they earn over $180,000 gets a much bigger discount through the 15 per cent tax rate on super contributions than someone earning under $37,000 who is only paying 19 per cent tax anyway.

If you earn under $18,200 in taxable income (the tax-free threshold) then you would actually pay more tax by putting money into super.

While this is a compelling abstract argument, it becomes even more so to the average voter if they see their manager earning twice their salary, but paying half as much tax.

Likewise, perhaps the average worker may not be so happy with the current sub-inflation wage rises prevalent in Australia if they saw their boss was doing a lot better.

Certainly, there has been a (perhaps spurious) argument raised by some opposed to the current system of senior executive pay disclosure in listed companies that it has actually pushed remuneration higher, as CEOs and other managers point to the bigger pay packets of those running similar companies when asking for raises.

With billions of dollars worth of the Coalition Government's spending cuts likely to stall in the Senate, its tax white paper may take on even more significance if the aim to return the budget to a sustainable surplus is to be fulfilled.

If Australians only knew how much tax their friends, neighbours and colleagues, as well as complete strangers, actually paid, we may all be better placed to make informed decisions about which taxes and concessions should rise and fall, be introduced and abolished.

Michael Janda has been the ABC's Online Business Reporter since 2009. View his full profile here.