# Tax innovations for the next federal budget?



## doogie_goes_off (15 April 2008)

I've been a bit sick and was pondering my next tax return at home. I'd really like to hear peoples ideas for tax reform for individuals (not companies unless you can justify how this will help individuals indirectly). 

IMO Australia has an overly complex tax system that is designed to provide equitable distrubution of wealth for national wellbeing, how can we simplify it to ensure it is equitable to individuals (or working familes if you prefer kruddisms)?

I reckon the tax free threshold has experienced too much bracket creep over the last few years and should be more like $10k to give young people a chance to save whilst studying and working part time. Are there huge consequences for this other than redistribution of tax brackets?

IMO The only thing our government should really be subsidising is education and this should not include foreign students, so money should be directed at reimbursment/reduction of the cost of education expenses to the individual, it doesn't work now because everyone claims a whole bunch of self education expenses (due to lack of requirement for reciepts) throught their tax return (this needs to be changed somehow).

Another one that struck me was the ability to claim the cost of preparing a tax return as a rebate (does this not just make accountants rich??). Maybe if the damned thing was not so complex then we would have a chance of doing it ourselves without the fear of the ATO fining us for not getting it right?

That's one of many tax rebates that are used every year by individuals, what innovations would you like to give individuals so they get a fair and equitable share of their hard earned tax?

PS: I am fully expecting rants about CGT and marginal tax rates.


----------



## professor_frink (15 April 2008)

It would be great to see some measures put in place to encourage savings/investment and also to discourage excessive consumption and debt.

Maybe making any income saved tax free(HA!) and increase tax on consumption to make up for it somewhat.

don't like my chances of that happening but!


----------



## Trembling Hand (15 April 2008)

Stop taking tax to give it back. Things like the baby bonus and giving out a computer to every student is ridiculuos. Why just not take that tax in the first place and let the individual decide what to do with it. Rather than taking it then setting up a whole system to redistribute it. If you are going to give it back why take it in the first place???


----------



## Shane Baker (15 April 2008)

Perhaps a base level living wage linked to the CPI as the lowest tax threshold....say $20,000pa. Given we give most tax paid for wages under $45000 back in the form of benefits of one sort and another...this would be revenue neutral.


----------



## Rainmaker2000 (15 April 2008)

Interesting you have a problem with current individual income tax initiatives cause they are the simplest part of the structure....

I'm a massive fan of the current lifting of tax thresholds, particularly the 15% threshold and think there is massive potential for smart users of franking credits......

You refer to raising the tax free threshold for young people.  That would be a bad move as the benefit goes to everybody.......I note that, with the low income earner offset, people will not effectively pay tax till over 20k next year....

So yeah, I think the individual tax system is now very simple and in good shape for lower income earners...........I do have very strong disagreements with all the middle class welfare programs like baby bonus, family payments


----------



## marklar (15 April 2008)

Put an end to middle class welfare!  I don't have the figures in front of me now, but the number of Australians that get some form of benefit or bonus from Centrelink is massive.  Then you have the administrative and compliance costs for managing all these handouts and repayments when somebody makes a mistake (as they invariably do.)  How about instead of taking their money in taxes and giving it back in benefits we just don't take it in the first place?

Why is the tax-free threshold so low? it's a disincentive for people to be in full time work.

Enough ranting, time for coffee!

m.


----------



## disarray (15 April 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> If you are going to give it back why take it in the first place???




because too many people can't be trusted to look after themselves and spend their money on stupid things so the government has to nanny them.


----------



## Trembling Hand (15 April 2008)

disarray said:


> because too many people can't be trusted to look after themselves and spend their money on stupid things so the government has to nanny them.




How does that work? Collect it in taxes, have it administrated by bureaucrats then give it back. Its just a VERY costly vote buying exercise and a very costly waste of $$'s on more gov desk jockeys.


----------



## Happy (15 April 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Collect it in taxes, have it administrated by bureaucrats then give it back. Its just a VERY costly vote buying exercise and a very costly waste of $$'s on more gov desk jockeys.




From a distance it looks like artificially increased employment.


----------



## son of baglimit (15 April 2008)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6372&highlight=budget

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3334&highlight=budget

take a look at these 2 threads - both started in the week leading up to the last 2 budgets - contains the usuals whinges, plus some good thoughts on tax.


----------



## reece55 (15 April 2008)

One of the things I think should happen, but it's more than just a tax reform, is to create a bond system like the muni's in the US.

For those not aware, Municipalities in the US (basically local councils) can issue bonds that pay a margin over the cash rate to the public and institutions. The income stream derived from the bonds is tax free and is therefore very attractive to high income earners...

That way we can tell Macquarie et al to stick up their jumper and fund the infrastructure we require..... New road required - sure, we will raise some bonds and get the work done. By all means consult Macquarie to do the float of the instruments themselves, but don't allow them to control the cash flow so they can make themselves ridiculously rich!

Cheers


----------



## Rainmaker2000 (16 April 2008)

Reece, I've heard others champion this and I have to say its a bloody good idea........I think its a national f***** disgrace that we keep building infrastructure and selling it with farcical public/private arrangments...QLD is about to sell off Cairns and Townsville Airports........why can't the gov use its balance sheet to raise cheap debt rather than Mac and its wannabees have local monopolies?


----------



## doogie_goes_off (20 April 2008)

Macquarie is what happens when you leave things up to competition, the leader always has the advantage. You nead to lead to get ahead, but the idea of socialist government is to make sure that lead is not dis-equitable to the point of monopoly etc.

So in response, to be come the best nation on the planet we need reform first and not look for existing ideas, where are the innovations or should we be listening to the 2020 self flagellators.

I take the point RE: dis-incentive to work full time, but why is it important that people work full time??

Things that are open to corruption at the individual level are a problem - for example the old 'means test' whereby smart rich people hid their assets for the benifit of their family etc.

My biggest fear with the baby bonus scheme is empowerment of paticular generations etc. Now that one generation has been paid it, it would be equitable for the next generation of breeders to enjoy the same incentive, the bonus could well be gone by the time I have kids.

So what other kinds of rebates/dicounts will work, what about tax incentives for apprentices as a tax free loan eg: The tax rate is 15% to their income level, if they are learning a trade, how about discounting their tax to 10% if learning a new trade (whether it's a change of occupation or your first apprenticeship). The skills shortage needs to be addressed somehow.

The GST is a great theoretical concept because it's simple, so what other taxes are we paying that we should not and does anyone know of a list of all taxes the federal government administers?

Thanks for all your responses, lots of food for thought.


----------



## wildkactus (21 April 2008)

I like the idea of a flat tax, with say everyone earnng over 10Kpa paying 10%, plus make it just apply to income earned in Australia, any OS income would be earned tax free or taxed in the country that it was earned in. 

I think something like this would see a lot of personal money flow back into the OZ economy, there must be Millions if not billions of dollars OS that never finds its way back into the OZ economy.

Also this would stop a lot of HNW individuals using companies and trusts to reduce tax.

Another thing would be to reduce the size of government, this way less money is need to run the country, as this is the basic reason for tax right.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (21 April 2008)

Hi there spiky wild one. The other cost other than "size of government" is infrastructure and both the individual and private industry can benefit from this. There was significant money for infrastructure in the last election campaign.

KRUDD's razor gang was meant to cut ouy govt services that were inappropriate/inefficient. The budget will only tell.

I like part of your tax strategy for people O/S, but if people find that they can stay in a better tax regieme won't they take off, work and just retire in Australia? It is possible this would have some negative effects, but worth giving some thought.


----------



## reece55 (21 April 2008)

wildkactus said:


> I like the idea of a flat tax, with say everyone earnng over 10Kpa paying 10%, plus make it just apply to income earned in Australia, any OS income would be earned tax free or taxed in the country that it was earned in.
> 
> I think something like this would see a lot of personal money flow back into the OZ economy, there must be Millions if not billions of dollars OS that never finds its way back into the OZ economy.
> 
> ...




Yeah, right, a flat tax is going to reduce the rich from using tax effective scheme's like trusts and companies. Lets face the facts, the Government will never remove the tax benefits afforded to trusts because there would be too many influential people that would kick up a stink....

Plus, essentially what you propose would widen the gap between the rich and the poor and put pressure on those we need to be benefited the most - middle Australia to encourage them to have more than 1.7 kids. The biggest issue that Australia will be faced with in the next little while is exactly that of what the US has - we will have a whole pile of old people living 20 years longer than we expect, placing stress on our health and investment systems, with less people to pay for it! What you propose would make the equation worse....

Cheers


----------



## wildkactus (22 April 2008)

Reece,
   You are 100% correct when you say that the government will not change the tax system.
It was just what I like as a tax system. (Have send it at work first hand).
But the only way a flat tax could work in OZ is a complete rewrite of our tax code it would need to be done from scratch and it will not Happen in OZ as to many people make money of the current tax system.

the rich poor gap will always be there no mater what tax system is in place, unless you want to be a commie country and share everthing equally, Oh hang on even then they had a rich poor gap But only bigger.

As for middle australia I can't see how they would be worse off with a flat tax based tax system.
The aging population bit though is a real worry for this country and that matter any western country at present.


----------



## wildkactus (22 April 2008)

Doogie,
    yes the infrustrcutre part of government will always be there, especially with this big country, but the over size part I was refering to is the 3 people doing the job of two or one, and the general waste on the little things that in a large govenment build up, clean this up and you could fund a hell of a lot more with what they have now.

The OS money, As I see it with a Flat tax system most people would not think about going offshore with this system, just not worth it to save 10% when it would cost about that to setup and run a good OS system. 
and When people that where earning income OS move back to retire and bring their money back with them, it will find its way into the system and be taxed, via their spending.


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

wildkactus; said:
			
		

> I like the idea of a flat tax, with say everyone earnng over 10Kpa paying 10%, plus make it just apply to income earned in Australia, any OS income would be earned tax free or taxed in the country that it was earned in.




OS income - This is sort  of how it works right now.If you are out of the country for X days then the OS earnings are not taxed in Aus. The earnings are added to Aus income to establish the highest marginal rate - fair enough to stop people getting a tax free allowance in more than one country. Generally it will be taxed in the country that it is earned in.


----------



## breakeven (22 April 2008)

I think negative gearing of rental properties should be looked at again.  I know it has been done in the past and the laws repealed but the previous laws weren't thought through.  Negative gearing should only be allowed for properties that increase the stock of housing.  

For example, now if you buy an existing house you can negatively gear it.  This does nothing to increase the overall supply of new living spaces but on one view simply increases house prices as investors (who use negative gearing) compete with potential owner/occupiers.  Negative gearing should be restricted to developments that increase the stock of housing.  This could be achieved by only allowing negative gearing on:

a) houses constructed on previously vacant land (never been a house on it before or for say 20 years);

b) dwellings eg flats or townhouses built on land that previously housed a single residence dwelling.

The above would achieve two things.  One it would decrease demand for existing houses because investors who couldn't negatively gear would tend to leave the market for houses already built.  This means that owner occupiers have less competition and this should lead to lower prices for them. Two it will encourage investors to invest in projects that increase the overall stock of dwellings that can be lived in.  So that an investor who bulids a "new" house gets the financial advantage of negative gearing.  As does an investor who builds muiltple occupier dwellings in place of single occupier dwellings.


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

breakeven; said:
			
		

> I think negative gearing of rental properties should be looked at again.  I know it has been done in the past and the laws repealed but the previous laws weren't thought through.  Negative gearing should only be allowed for properties that increase the stock of housing.
> 
> For example, now if you buy an existing house you can negatively gear it.  This does nothing to increase the overall supply of new living spaces but on one view simply increases house prices as investors (who use negative gearing) compete with potential owner/occupiers.  Negative gearing should be restricted to developments that increase the stock of housing.  This could be achieved by only allowing negative gearing on:
> 
> ...




AGREED!!!!

How can it make sense to allow me to offset interest and costs (post rent) against top rate tax, and as long as I keep the property for more than 12 months I get a 50% reduction in the capital gain.

Lets assume an interest charge of 8%, a capital increase of 8% PA, and rental  income that just covers the cost (which on many multi $ properties is the go).

So, on a $1m property (assume 100% mortgage just to make the numbers easy), I pay $80,000 in interest less tax relief of 46.5% = $42.5k cost to me. Over 10 years it costs me $425k. 

However over 10 years, due to the magic of compound interest my property is now worth $2.2m, less the cost of $1m = profit of $1.2m, less 50% capital gains relief = $600k at 46.5% tax = $279k. So, $1.2m less $270k is just a tad short of $1m after tax return for an outlay of less than $0.5m.

In reality it has been possible to finance under 8%, and generally over any 10 year period an 8% return is conservative, so the benefit is greater than above. 

This is just financial engineering based on taxation - it does not add anything to the greater good of Australians. In fact it transfers money from those who struggle to pay their mortgage and raise their families to those on high rate tax salaries.

Of course the same outcome is possible when buying shares on a margin account. It is no different, just pieces of paper or bricks and morter??

And before anyone shouts about jealousy etc, I happen to be in a position to do the above. I still don't think its right.

By all means allow the tax loss to accumulate and offset when disposal is undertaken, at normal tax rates.


----------



## breakeven (22 April 2008)

CAFA1234 said:


> AGREED!!!!
> 
> How can it make sense to allow me to offset interest and costs (post rent) against top rate tax, and as long as I keep the property for more than 12 months I get a 50% reduction in the capital gain.
> 
> ...




Thanks, I too am in a position to negatively gear.  It just makes me sad to see my kids competing with investors when they go to buy an existing house!!  Families getting started these days appear to have little chance of buying that first home, competing with wealthier people who are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer makes it impossible for them.


----------



## treefrog (22 April 2008)

breakeven said:


> Thanks, I too am in a position to negatively gear.  It just makes me sad to see my kids competing with investors when they go to buy an existing house!!  Families getting started these days appear to have little chance of buying that first home, competing with wealthier people who are effectively subsidised by the taxpayer makes it impossible for them.




while I also think neg gearing is nonsense, it is however not the house price but the land price depending on where you want that house - many parts of Oz u can get a fully serviced block only for less than $40k and established house and land for $150k but everyone wants the cities so you are competing with everyone - hence supply and demand prices

oh and for tax reform - serious tax reform only one tax - 20% GST on everything - food included


----------



## doogie_goes_off (22 April 2008)

OK wild one, you are probably going to want to kill me for twisting your idea around, but based on what has been said (no more no less) and without prejudice. I put forward this mixed idea again:

Raise the tax free threshold to $10K. Don't offer the tax free threshold to those who go to work overseas. Abolish the top tax rate and make it 40c in the dollar for everything over the second top threshold.

Probaly doesn't help you out that much but there needs to be referm, I'm just not sure what, that's what I'm asking.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (22 April 2008)

Hi to the frog in the tree,

20% GST, your money is your own then - I like it. That's real reform. The great thing about tax reform is there's no rules just ways to stop lawyers and accountants taking your cash!

Less taxes = less accountants and lawyers - perfect.


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

treefrog; said:
			
		

> while I also think neg gearing is nonsense, it is however not the house price but the land price depending on where you want that house - many parts of Oz u can get a fully serviced block only for less than $40k and established house and land for $150k but everyone wants the cities so you are competing with everyone - hence supply and demand prices
> 
> oh and for tax reform - serious tax reform only one tax - 20% GST on everything - food included




Well, the states control the land release and sub-division, and it is a cash cow to them so they want to maximize the value. If they release enough land on the outskirts of the major cities to force the price down e.g. flood the land blocks onto the market, then very quickly the land value in the cities will start to fall.

However, all those people that will have negative equity will then vote the government out because they will be poorer. A right mess we have got into over the past 5/8 years of rapid house price growth. Is everyone feeling rich as a result of this?


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

doogie_goes_off; said:
			
		

> ....... Don't offer the tax free threshold to those who go to work overseas. ......




What makes you think you get the tax free when you work OS?

This is how it works - assume you have only $6k income in Aus (from bank account or dividends etc) - when you do your Aus tax return you have to declare the income from OS. Say you earned $100k OS, what happens is the ATO adds this to your $6k and taxes the $6k at full marginal rate e.g. 46.5% in this case. 

Same applies to the other country e.g. in the USA you have to declare the OS income ($6k in Aus) on your US tax return, Uncle Sam does the same trick and taxes it at full marginal rates. less any Aus tax already paid. In the case above there would e no extra US tax as the tax rate in Aus is higher than the top rate tax in the USA.

Hope this helps clarify the situation with tax free allowances when working OS

Now, if you don't declare the income then watch out  - the ATO now have in place agreements with the USA, UK, EU and and a few more.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (22 April 2008)

No I'm not feeling rich. Owner occupiers are no better off, they just want the utility value of a house. I got a home owners grant before it was an inflationary monster and I think everyone else deserves a fair go but I'd really like to abolish this childish policy, maybe it could be wound back as a high interest government bond scheme (for those specifically saving for a house deposit) got wound up.


----------



## CAFA1234 (22 April 2008)

doogie_goes_off; said:
			
		

> No I'm not feeling rich. Owner occupiers are no better off, they just want the utility value of a house. I got a home owners grant before it was an inflationary monster and I think everyone else deserves a fair go but I'd really like to abolish this childish policy, maybe it could be wound back as a high interest government bond scheme (for those specifically saving for a house deposit) got wound up.




One way to solve this issue - all states forced to release land in sufficient  quantity to ensure land vales do not go up for the next 10 years or so. Everyone would know the 'rules' and therefore speculation in housing would stop immediately. 

Those with big mortgages would have to live with them, but they are really no worse off than otherwise and with income increases they will be better off over the years. There would be little point in negative gearing, as in real terms the land would be going down in value, so the tax problem of negative gearing on real estate is solved. And think how much better off the next generation would be  - being able to spend their money on keeping us oldies in nursing homes


----------



## breakeven (22 April 2008)

treefrog said:


> while I also think neg gearing is nonsense, it is however not the house price but the land price depending on where you want that house - many parts of Oz u can get a fully serviced block only for less than $40k and established house and land for $150k but everyone wants the cities so you are competing with everyone - hence supply and demand prices
> 
> oh and for tax reform - serious tax reform only one tax - 20% GST on everything - food included[/QUOTE
> 
> The idea about the move to indirect taxes (a bigger GST etc) is a good one as these are far more efficient to collect and harder to avoid.  On negative gearing, while I agree it is the house price it will reduce the city landlords.  While everyone wants to live in the city many people also want to be landlords in the city.  There was recently a article in the paper which showed many of the NSW members of parliament were city landlords.  I know it is not THE answer but every little bit helps.


----------



## Julia (22 April 2008)

20% GST is an unfair burden on people on low incomes.  How would you make this fair?  Yes, you can increase pensions and other welfare, but what about people supporting themselves but still on a relatively low income?


----------



## Trembling Hand (22 April 2008)

Julia said:


> 20% GST is an unfair burden on people on low incomes.  How would you make this fair?  Yes, you can increase pensions and other welfare, but what about people supporting themselves but still on a relatively low income?




Cannot imagine this ever getting up. Would be nice for anyone on mid to above income but how would the pollies sell this to the retires. Having to now pay a big slab of consumption tax after paying income tax all their live?


----------



## treefrog (22 April 2008)

Julia said:


> 20% GST is an unfair burden on people on low incomes.  How would you make this fair?  Yes, you can increase pensions and other welfare, but what about people supporting themselves but still on a relatively low income?




*why on earth is it not fair*

pension of 30k (income) *is not taxed *as only gst applies

wages of 30k *is not taxed *-as only GST applies 

wages of 200k *is not taxed *-as only GST applies

spend your money on new stuff and 20% tax so encourages savings (desperately needed in oz)

spend all 30k on brand new stuff - pay only 6k tax
spend all 200k on new - pay 40k
that is not fair i know - not fair to those earning the 200k and more

spend on s'hand  - again no tax

grow your own food - no tax

brew your own beer - no tax

cigarettes (new ones) - 20% tax

we already have the system folks - it has been implemented for years - it works except for some black money within but that is an issue common to all tax systems
but imagine getting your pay packet without any tax
the only downside is the army of tax officials, CPA's and lawyers who will be out of work - I feel soooooooooo unhappy about that

the people supporting themselves would of course be free to do what they do now - a little moonlighting for cash but on 20%GST system they do not feel guilty because go man go

oh and we get the overseas tourists etc contributing to the system they are visiting/using as they pay also


----------



## Trembling Hand (22 April 2008)

Tree frog. What of the low income earner who cannot save now and already pays no tax. They will be at least 10% worst off on a budget that doesnt stretch far enough now.


----------



## breakeven (22 April 2008)

Julia said:


> 20% GST is an unfair burden on people on low incomes.  How would you make this fair?  Yes, you can increase pensions and other welfare, but what about people supporting themselves but still on a relatively low income?




I don't think it is politically or practically possible to move to a full system of indirect taxes.  I don't know of any country that has done this (I am open to corrrection) but they are more efficient!


----------



## doogie_goes_off (22 April 2008)

Perhaps 20% GST and a low *gross* income rebate of 20% below a certain threshold and 10% rebate at a higher threshold (reverse tax brackets).

The good old monthly or quartely declaration would be required for individuals so they get a lump sum as if they were saving up.

It could work, we jusn need a simpler, fairer system.

I heard a quote somewhere once that I think was Abraham Lincoln. He stated something like "Any government charging you more than 17% tax is ripping you off"

Ofcourse old Abe never had to supply people with telecommunications or probably sewerage, so what might be an appropriate "gross tax level". Surely we could figure this out by getting a total amount of tax paid by us the tax payers and divide it between the number of us as a dollar value and then figure this out as a % of GDP, anyone want to have a go?


----------



## treefrog (22 April 2008)

Trembling Hand said:


> Tree frog. What of the low income earner who cannot save now and already pays no tax. They will be at least 10% worst off on a budget that doesnt stretch far enough now.




TH - there are a lot of emotive "what ifs" in this but remember they were the same arguements put up when the original gst at 10% was discussed

some adjustment relief would obviously occur but nowhere near as much as people fear

if wee kev&co really think about this and require some of the billions they are going to spend on education be spent on zeroing in on teaching people how to live well on low wages (life education rather than academics and pinko flunky genger neutral nonsense) they will have no problems - been there, (the bones of me bum i mean) done it


----------



## disarray (22 April 2008)

yeah i like the high GST no income tax idea. it rewards innovation and risk taking which creates a more dynamic society and economy instead of everyone looking for dark holes to stuff their money into. also people are taxed according to their consumption which brings personal responsibility back into peoples finances. money tight? well no ciggies, take away or booze for you this week.  what about all the other taxes / stamp duties / registration fees / state government charges etc?

as for it not being fair to the oldies, tell them it will help ensure they get a pension. or give people over retirement age a card or something that enables gst refund on food and essentials or something.


----------



## treefrog (22 April 2008)

disarray said:


> yeah i like the high GST no income tax idea. what about all the other taxes / stamp duties / registration fees / state government charges etc?.




well that was probably pete's major blunder when he first introduced the 10%gst - didn't lock in the date those taxes had to stop with the states - trusted other pollies "yes gimmi gimmi GST and promise, promise, we'll abandon those"

once bitten etc - obviously would have to have it water-tight next time round


----------



## wildkactus (22 April 2008)

CAFA1234,
your right it is how it sort of works now, but you need to go OS to do it currently for 180 days or establish your permenent residence OS.
the OS i'am refering to is the OffShore money ie you live full time and use the tax payer funded beniftes in OZ and earn income OS (this could be on top of your current income) and keep it OS, this is the money i think you would see flow back as it would not be worth the effort to keep it OS.

The best person to be OS is the Aussie Expat we do have a good tax system if you live OS. compared to the US and some european countries that tax you senseless for the plesure of their passport.


----------



## CAFA1234 (23 April 2008)

wildkactus; said:
			
		

> CAFA1234,
> your right it is how it sort of works now, but you need to go OS to do it currently for 180 days or establish your permenent residence OS.
> the OS i'am refering to is the OffShore money ie you live full time and use the tax payer funded beniftes in OZ and earn income OS (this could be on top of your current income) and keep it OS, this is the money i think you would see flow back as it would not be worth the effort to keep it OS.
> 
> The best person to be OS is the Aussie Expat we do have a good tax system if you live OS. compared to the US and some european countries that tax you senseless for the plesure of their passport.




Yes, I understand. However this old trick is being dealt with by the ATO. There are few places left where you can hide earnings (as opposed to simply a hoard of money). 

Somewhere along the line you will have a tax return to do under some jurisdiction and these days most countries have reciprocal arrangements. 

Even spending on a Hong Kong based credit card (a favourite a few years back) will sooner or later get raised by the ATO. If you are resident in Aus and  screw around with OS income then one day you will be caught.

Anyway in the grand order of things this is a minor aspect and probably with the limited resources available the authorities work on the 80/20 rule and fry the bigger fish - so to speak.


----------

