GST rise who will benefit 15% GST proposed

[col0016]

If we could ever get stop falling into the trap of these dualistic arguments we might actually have a chance at properly improving things.

Not until we stop dictating to others how they should live and what to do with their property.

Not until we stop dictating to others.

Not until we stop.

 

[col0016]

smk I can't tell if you were serious about abolishing all taxes and creating a welfare state where everybody gets a "living wage" from the government.
If there were no taxes where would they get it from? Or are you suggesting we go Zimbabwe style and hyperinflate?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

smk I can't tell if you were serious about abolishing all taxes and creating a welfare state where everybody gets a "living wage" from the government.

More like a pension, you could call it the BCF wage because "THAT'S not living".

 

[col0016]

"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

While the whole article is obviously silly, the thing I'm really trying to understand is why the author is complaining about the fact we don't tax people's savings... Income is taxed, spending is taxed, interest earned on savings is taxed... But now they want to tax money people don't have invested as well?

 

[willrocks]

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.

So a higher standard of living includes: much lower household wealth, living at home longer, staying in UNI, having both partners working full time, and not having kids until it's almost too late?

The report does not measure household wealth
...
This could be attributed to reasons such as higher educational attainment, higher female workforce participation, and people delaying having kids, he said.

 

[col0016]

For gen y's it might be less people can afford to buy houses so they are renting and using their higher expendable income to enjoy their lives more?

 

[precious roar]

that the top end of town pay their fair share.

Fairness, there's a concept open to eternal debate - especially if you want to ignore that the only fair way to treat everyone is to treat them equally.

Exactly. Which is why everybody needs to pay the tax they owe. One can argue whether the rates should be lower or higher but that is a separate discussion to avoiding tax because of financial status.

 

[smk762]

smk I can't tell if you were serious about abolishing all taxes and creating a welfare state where everybody gets a "living wage" from the government.
If there were no taxes where would they get it from? Or are you suggesting we go Zimbabwe style and hyperinflate?

Do we really need taxes if money can be created out of thin air? It's all pretend, so why not pretend we're capable of securing the necessities for everyone?

There shouldn't be any hyperinflation if the rate of currency creation is capped, stable, and predictable. Every year we already print more money, and taxes don't remove it from the system, it just moves it into the pockets of those with the best lobbyists.

Theoretically, interest paid on debt destroys excess capital in the system, but if the lender counts this as income, does it really?

At the moment, the government is free to swipe it's RBA credit card for whatever reason, the RBA pretends more money exists to make the purchase, and then the taxpayer is fleeced to pay the both the interest and the capital. Anyone who thinks this is conducive to fair and equitable treatment is mistaken.

Why not give everyone a standard dole payment, including the government? Why not lay the foundation for a life without poverty in the form of the BCF wage, and maybe throw in a free tent and fishing pole every 3 years? Why not allow the motivated to prosper unmolested by taxation and (mis)representation of policies beyond simple governance, unless they decide to make voluntary contributions toward specific initiatives?

 

[mmm....shiney!]

that the top end of town pay their fair share.

Fairness, there's a concept open to eternal debate - especially if you want to ignore that the only fair way to treat everyone is to treat them equally.

Exactly. Which is why everybody needs to pay the tax they owe.

Any system that is based upon a progressive tax rate is unfair as it treats everyone unequally.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

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.

So a higher standard of living includes: much lower household wealth, living at home longer, staying in UNI, having both partners working full time, and not having kids until it's almost too late?

The report does not measure household wealth
...
This could be attributed to reasons such as higher educational attainment, higher female workforce participation, and people delaying having kids, he said.

Yep, it is based upon disposable income. They've got more money to spend so they live better lives.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Why not give everyone a standard dole payment, including the government? Why not lay the foundation for a life without poverty in the form of the BCF wage, and maybe throw in a free tent and fishing pole every 3 years? Why not allow the motivated to prosper unmolested by taxation and (mis)representation of policies beyond simple governance, unless they decide to make voluntary contributions toward specific initiatives?

Problem when you start giving things to people for nothing is that they don't value it.

Spend a few weeks with the recipients of welfare and see what they actually spend their money on. :/

Not that we should complain.

 

[JulieW]

Fairness, there's a concept open to eternal debate - especially if you want to ignore that the only fair way to treat everyone is to treat them equally.

Exactly. Which is why everybody needs to pay the tax they owe.

Any system that is based upon a progressive tax rate is unfair as it treats everyone unequally.

Agree. Thanks for being succinct.

Similarly; GST is regressive. The politicians et al keep playing with the tax system for a reason, and making it more equitable is not one of them.

 

[mmm....shiney!]

Similarly; GST is regressive. The politicians et al keep playing with the tax system for a reason, and making it more equitable is not one of them.

Generally income tax harms earners and consumption taxes harm producers. So no matter which way you look at it, someone is getting shafted. :/

 

[smk762]

Why not give everyone a standard dole payment, including the government? Why not lay the foundation for a life without poverty in the form of the BCF wage, and maybe throw in a free tent and fishing pole every 3 years? Why not allow the motivated to prosper unmolested by taxation and (mis)representation of policies beyond simple governance, unless they decide to make voluntary contributions toward specific initiatives?

Problem when you start giving things to people for nothing is that they don't value it.

Spend a few weeks with the recipients of welfare and see what they actually spend their money on. :/

This applies not only to welfare recipients, but also reserve banks and governments.

Long term welfare recipients suffer from learned helplessness, which helps keep wages down and archons in power. Their expenses tend to favor items which offer an escape from the situation they perceive themselves to be stuck in, ranging from intoxicants to materialist trinkets (ironically, many people not on welfare also spend money on this escapism). If this perceived helplessness is reduced to the point they feel empowered rather than demonised, I'm sure it would reduce the waste of life and resources that the welfare stereotype portrays.

If no-one pays taxes, who cares what people do with their BCF payment apart from those who seek to offer goods and services in exchange for it? If all receive payment equally, how will the government divide and conquer the people?

Most welfare recipients lack faith in the system, and withdraw rather than play along. In a world where house prices are largely unattainable, education costs a fortune, jobs are no longer secure, governmental representation is biased in favor of the wealthy and government fiscal management bankrupts the future, can you blame those who benefit least from questioning the point of contributing?

I also lack faith in the system. I only play along and contribute because... shit, I have no idea, I just do. But I'd sure as hell prefer not to.

 

[willrocks]

On the other hand:

So a higher standard of living includes: much lower household wealth, living at home longer, staying in UNI, having both partners working full time, and not having kids until it's almost too late?

The report does not measure household wealth
...
This could be attributed to reasons such as higher educational attainment, higher female workforce participation, and people delaying having kids, he said.

Yep, it is based upon disposable income. They've got more money to spend so they live better lives.

At best, it's highly questionable whether Gen X & Y do actually have more disposable income than baby boomers did back in the day.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...the-young-poorer/story-e6frg6zo-1227150415653

 

[col0016]

I could be wrong, but I think that if we stopped taxing people and started just printing money for whatever politicians wanted to waste it on then other countries might lose faith in it (like most people think should happen to the US) and the value of our dollar would plummet? I assume it wouldn't take long for that living wage to be paid in worthless dollars while people pay premiums to get US (or other) dollars like in other countries that have similar ideas to yours (think Argentina etc).

 

[hawkeye]

Exactly. Which is why everybody needs to pay the tax they owe.

I have real problems with this statement. Who decides who owes what? A bunch of politicians. This hardly an objective way of going about things. And the amounts are constantly changing, mostly overall increasing.

And that's not even getting into the discussion of why exactly a person owes the government anything at all... I don't remember signing a contract with the government. They just decide I owe them and send their mercenaries around if I don't pay. I think it's called the Tony Soprano "business model".

 

[-j-p-shmorgan]

Exactly. Which is why everybody needs to pay the tax they owe.

I have real problems with this statement. Who decides who owes what? A bunch of politicians. This hardly an objective way of going about things. And the amounts are constantly changing, mostly overall increasing.

And that's not even getting into the discussion of why exactly a person owes the government anything at all... I don't remember signing a contract with the government. They just decide I owe them and send their mercenaries around if I don't pay. I think it's called the Tony Soprano "business model".

A little dramatic yeah? lol

 

[mmm....shiney!]

If no-one pays taxes, who cares what people do with their BCF payment apart from those who seek to offer goods and services in exchange for it? If all receive payment equally, how will the government divide and conquer the people?

I think you'd find inflation would be absolutely rampant as the market participants attempt to outcompete each other with their toy money for available resources buying items with a currency that has no current or future value. There would be no effective price controls, capital would be destroyed as there would be no incentive to save, it would be a nightmare for businesses trying to set prices for goods as the market would shift very rapidly and the living wage would have to be constantly increased in order to deal with all the problems which in turn would increase monetary inflation.

One hugely vicious circle.

 

[Golden Retriever]

Sounds about the same to me. :\