GST rise who will benefit 15% GST proposed

switchtronics

Active Member
"THE top-level push to increase the GST could be undone by a row over who would pay extra, and who would benefit from the additional revenue.

The dispute boosts the prospects of a counter proposal a two percentage point increase in the Medicare levy on wages backed by Victoria, Queensland and the ACT.

Other options include an increase in property taxes or even payroll tax, usually considered to be an employment killer.

The tax matter will be debated today and tomorrow as Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the premiers address problems as broad as greater efficiency in service delivery and as narrow as halting the spread of the killer drug ice.

And even if tax were changes agreed to it is unlikely Prime Minister Abbott would implement them before the election scheduled late next year.

No substantial progress will be made on changes this week but the Council of Australian Governments talks will mark a critical move towards reshaping the tax system.

Influential state leaders are suggesting a rise in the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent with the bigger tax take being used to fund public hospitals which are adding crippling costs to their budgets each year.

Senior business figures want the same increase, but they want the extra revenue used to scrap state taxes they have to pay. They want to be the indirect beneficiaries of a change in the indirect tax.

"Australia's states and territories are responsible for some of the most harmful taxes levied by Australia's governments," head of the Australian Industry Group Innes Willox said today.

"What we've got is a tax system that's designed in the 20th century and we're operating in a 21st century economy."

Another claimant to extra money is Western Australia which insists its declining minerals industry means it needs a bigger share of the GST pot and other states deserve less.

Then there is the question of who should pay in the first place, a matter which is ensuring the federal Opposition and Labor premiers are opposing a GST strategy.

The opponents argue low income earners and those on welfare would pay more proportionally than the well off if the tax went up. Even with the GST exemptions, the additional costs would be significant for them.

The 20 per cent of households with the lowest income spend about nine per cent of their disposable income on GST- affected goods and services, according to Alan Duncan on Curtin University. The richest households spend just 3.5 per cent of disposable income on these purchases.

And opponents warn it would be difficult to compensate them, particularly if the disadvantaged don't pay income tax and so could not gain from reductions there.

One proposal is for the GST to be extended to financial services which Labor's South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill calculates could raise an additional $3.6 billion a year and not affect the poor. It is a proposal Mr Weatherill wants discussed"
news.com.au
 
I always have a sense of unreality reading these articles and seeing what politicians and their lackeys say.
 
Influential state leaders are suggesting a rise in the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent with the bigger tax take being used to fund public hospitals which are adding crippling costs to their budgets each year.

Anyone know what these crippling costs are? Wouldn't an alternative strategy be to identify these crippling costs and reduce them?

The 20 per cent of households with the lowest income spend about nine per cent of their disposable income on GST- affected goods and services, according to Alan Duncan on Curtin University. The richest households spend just 3.5 per cent of disposable income on these purchases.

And opponents warn it would be difficult to compensate them, particularly if the disadvantaged don't pay income tax and so could not gain from reductions there.

Simple solution, reduce the tax free threshold, then everyone would be able to benefit from any reduction in income tax. :D
 
My sentiments exactly. Analyze crippling expenditure,.adjust accordingly within allocated funds. I remember the original idea behind gst being to put in play a tax on goods and services, then remove unnucessary taxes and pay tax only for what you use. All that happened was gst came in and the lower earning mixed taxes on the sale of goods were replaced with this income generating giant. An increase in gst can only mean an increase in everything.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Simple solution, reduce the tax free threshold, then everyone would be able to benefit from any reduction in income tax. :D

Why not just eliminate income tax, then everyone would benefit.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Influential state leaders are suggesting a rise in the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent with the bigger tax take being used to fund public hospitals which are adding crippling costs to their budgets each year.

Anyone know what these crippling costs are? Wouldn't an alternative strategy be to identify these crippling costs and reduce them?

That would most likely mean reducing salaries of career bueracrats and/or firing many of them. Then it would be public sector union propaganda on TV.
 
willrocks said:
mmm....shiney! said:
Simple solution, reduce the tax free threshold, then everyone would be able to benefit from any reduction in income tax. :D

Why not just eliminate income tax, then everyone would benefit.

So we have a multi-layered tax system where after paying income tax, we then fork out additionally GST that one may or may not be entitled to claim back including an absolute raft of taxes relating to a multitude of different jurisdictions with governments tentacles. Look at fuel tax for example.

Making a Tax system simple makes sense but that logic is not in the interest to those that like it complex where it is more likely of unknowingly breaching a clause deep within.
This leads to addition noncompliance fees and hence more tax takings, for loop holes to hide in and employment for a raft of accountants feeding off the system. it appears to be by design to be inherently complex with all of the liability directed at the Taxpayer as per your declaration of compliance.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Influential state leaders are suggesting a rise in the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent with the bigger tax take being used to fund public hospitals which are adding crippling costs to their budgets each year.

Anyone know what these crippling costs are? Wouldn't an alternative strategy be to identify these crippling costs and reduce them?

The 20 per cent of households with the lowest income spend about nine per cent of their disposable income on GST- affected goods and services, according to Alan Duncan on Curtin University. The richest households spend just 3.5 per cent of disposable income on these purchases.

And opponents warn it would be difficult to compensate them, particularly if the disadvantaged don't pay income tax and so could not gain from reductions there.

Simple solution, reduce the tax free threshold, then everyone would be able to benefit from any reduction in income tax. :D

I don't know the minute details but I'd hazard a guess that the crippling costs have a lot to do with a runaway big pharma industry and the script-happy doctors that they churn out. Charging taxpayers an arm and a leg to provide people with "medicines" with dubious efficacy and a shopping list of side effects is starting to add up to more than the system can handle.

Perhaps taxing these companies more than 6% would be a good place to start?
http://www.afr.com/news/policy/tax/...-million-on-8-billion-revenue-20150701-gi25qb
 
Golden Retriever said:
I don't know the minute details but I'd hazard a guess that the crippling costs have a lot to do with a runaway big pharma industry and the script-happy doctors that they churn out. Charging taxpayers an arm and a leg to provide people with "medicines" with dubious efficacy and a shopping list of side effects is starting to add up to more than the system can handle.

Unfortunately it's a side effect of the 'Grey Tsunami'. There's about 5000 new pensioners joining the ranks each week. Most of them eligible for heavily subsidised "medicines" among other things.

They also stop paying taxes, and require income support. It's changing the dependency ratio (pensioner:tax payers).

Number of workingage individuals per individual aged 65 years or older
retirement_incomes_consultation_paper-3.gif


Aust-pop-turning-65-300x182.jpg
 
switchtronics said:
One proposal is for the GST to be extended to financial services which Labor's South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill calculates could raise an additional $3.6 billion a year and not affect the poor. It is a proposal Mr Weatherill wants discussed"
news.com.au

Just in case you missed this part.
This is huge, not to mention stupid, only a fool who has no understanding of how things work in this sector would utter those words. Its a very broad area, however one example is a bank currently works on input credits.This would change if they charged GST on accounts and transactions and any GST profits from bank to state would be negated by the bank claiming back.
Also Finacial services could well include precious metals.
 
mmm....shiney! said:
Influential state leaders are suggesting a rise in the GST from 10 per cent to 15 per cent with the bigger tax take being used to fund public hospitals which are adding crippling costs to their budgets each year.

Anyone know what these crippling costs are? Wouldn't an alternative strategy be to identify these crippling costs and reduce them?

I thought it'd be unlikely that I found myself agreeing with you, but I do on this.
For years we've heard about the the massive costs of health care. And always about how and by whom it will be paid. Never, ever about how to make the greedy, over-charging, over-servicing, rorting, thieving pigs get their snouts out of the trough!

mmm....shiney! said:
Simple solution, reduce the tax free threshold, then everyone would be able to benefit from any reduction in income tax. :D

Ah, normal programming has resumed.

I'm already too poor to pay income tax, and I'm struggling as it is.
Your "solution" would disadvantage me even more. Well probably not, as the threshold would have to be lowered *a lot*, much more than would come from any "compensation" arrangement for the proposed 15% GST.
So I'd just be much deeper in the shit. Everything would cost me 5% more, except essentials like water and food, which would cost me 15% more.
And all without any f#$king compensation whatsoever.

And then the next time the incompetent, corrupt, self-serving, clueless, mongrel dogs that "govern" us completely screw things up again, and need more money?

"Beer Up, Cigs Up, GST Up..."

Any so on, and on, and on, until GST is over 25%

The 10% was supposed to be SET IN STONE, and must remain so.
ANY change will be the thin edge of the wedge... (as if 10% wasn't already)
 
FortySeven said:
I thought it'd be unlikely that I found myself agreeing with you, but I do on this.

;)


FortySeven said:
Ah, normal programming has resumed.

I'm already too poor to pay income tax, and I'm struggling as it is.
Your "solution" would disadvantage me even more.

Maybe I should have included a <sarcasm> in my post. :D
 
The usual political rules will probably apply:

1. Never cut costs when you can increase taxes
2. If introducing a new tax, neglect to remove the old taxes.
3. Respond to all vociferous special interests and ignore the quiet majority.
4. Rule out sufficient coverage to make the solution meaningful.
5. Always ensure that the net bureaucracy to deal with the taxes increases.
6. Never be afraid to dumb down a problem until it can be fitted up with a simple 'Pro' an 'Anti' soundbite for the partisans.

Or am I being cynical?
 
willrocks said:
Unfortunately it's a side effect of the 'Grey Tsunami'. There's about 5000 new pensioners joining the ranks each week. Most of them eligible for heavily subsidised "medicines" among other things.

They also stop paying taxes, and require income support. It's changing the dependency ratio (pensioner:tax payers).
]

On the other hand:

Gen Ys and Gen Xers live better than baby boomers: NATSEM

Younger people aged between 18 to 35 have seen their living standards grow more strongly than older generations, new research shows.

The SAS and National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling Household Budget Report looks at the standard of living for a range of different household types by measuring various costs less expenses.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-...than-baby-boomers-natsem-20150721-gihacq.html
 
"We need to have a mature debate about tax. Well, not about bracket creep, obviously. Or company tax avoidance. Or negative gearing, or superannu OK, fine: we need a mature debate about the greatness of the only option about which I'm permitting discussion. Now, how about lunch?" Photo: Josh Robenstone

The whole "fairness" thing

Say, how rich do you realistically expect to get?

It's a rhetorical question worth asking oneself every so often, especially when questions of tax reform are being discussed. Especially since the notion of "fairness" has been cunningly altered from "do all Australians deserve social services?" to "why should you personally have to pay to help a bunch of strangers, huh?"

And it seems that most Australians mistakenly believe that they're going to be freakin' loaded any old time now and must therefore avoid any uptick in the higher income tax brackets.

See, otherwise they'd be responding to the current talk of increasing the GST - about which the state treasurers are currently meeting - with statements like "what? A GST rise? But that's a regressive tax that badly hurts people without money who therefore spend most of what they earn, and gives a free ride to the rich, whose unspent money is therefore taxed insufficiently if at all."

Of course, the potential increase is being sold as a hard but gosh-darn necessary decision because states can't afford their expenditures on health and education - as though this was a bleak and unavoidable reality and not a specific tactic by the government achieved by withholding promised grants to the states in order to create the budget shortfall in order to get the states to agree to a GST increase.

Because when there's no actual budget crisis, sometimes you have to invent one. Heck, it's worked before!

Let's talk about tax, baby!

And look: we are going to have to raise taxes in Australia if we're to keep the sort of social safety net that's made us peaceful and prosperous.

Stuff gets more expensive to provide, and Coalition and Labor governments have spent much of the last quarter century cutting income taxes in order to buy popularity, and hoping that population increase and bracket creep will make up the shortfall.

There are other options, though. Like, y'know, taxing the rich.

When this comes up the consensus appears to be that sure, we could do something about increasing company and top-tier income taxes, but they avoid it with their clever accountants and wealth-sorcery.

Now, you might reasonably think it is the responsibility of the government and the Australian Taxation Office to address this. Since it is.

So the fact that the ATO now have fewer resources than ever to investigate tax avoidance and fraud after having their funding slashed in the last two budgets - losing 4400 jobs in the process - might give you a clue as to just how interested the government is in ensuring that the top end of town pay their fair share.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/com...ust-tax-poor-people-more-20150722-gii8w6.html
 
precious roar said:
^^ So insuring the top end of town pays its share is a "socialist theory"? I would have thought it was just good sense.

Yes it is a socialist theory, and if you're not from the top end of town, I suppose you could argue it makes good sense, especially if you are getting something for nothing or making another pay more than you. But that doesn't make it morally right, all it makes it is appealing and rewarding to certain groups of people - in other words it is far from fair.
 
Back
Top