Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Should the GST be increased/widened?

Jump to new
SirRumpole

SirRumpole

Joined
26 March 2014
Posts
19,965
Reactions
12,454
The discussion is going on as to whether the GST should be increased or widened to close the deficit gap.

This is a regressive tax that hits the lower income people the hardest and it would be politically dangerous to implement further changes, unless compensated for by tax cuts and pension increases.

While the average consumer can't avoid GST, businesses get a refund for the GST they pay. On the principle that it's easier to avoid company tax than GST, why not remove the refund to businesses for GST paid, and compensate by lowering the company tax rate ?

If it's good enough for the consumer, why not for business ?
 
SirRumpole said:
The discussion is going on as to whether the GST should be increased or widened to close the deficit gap.

This is a regressive tax that hits the lower income people the hardest and it would be politically dangerous to implement further changes, unless compensated for by tax cuts and pension increases.

While the average consumer can't avoid GST, businesses get a refund for the GST they pay. On the principle that it's easier to avoid company tax than GST, why not remove the refund to businesses for GST paid, and compensate by lowering the company tax rate ?

If it's good enough for the consumer, why not for business ?
Click to expand...

If businesses didn't get the refund they would likely just pass the cost to them onto the customer as they do with everything else which is factored into price.

Also, anyone can register for GST and get GST refunds on things like GST costs incurred on investment products, you don't need to be a business entity to do this. I guess it's the way our whole system works, any expenditure incurred when trying to generate income gets tax relief/refunds while general living expenses do not.

Items purchased by the businesses are being used to generate income whereas when the consumer purchases these items or services they are simply going to be consumed which is why the business gets the benefit and the consumer does not.
 
Hodgie said:
Items purchased by the businesses are being used to generate income whereas when the consumer purchases these items or services they are simply going to be consumed which is why the business gets the benefit and the consumer does not.
Click to expand...

Without the consumer business doesn't have business. It's the consumption of goods and services that generate income for business, not the absence of a tax.

If you lower the company tax rate you attract more investment which increases the supply of services and keeps prices down.

Maybe if businesses pay GST the company tax rate can be abolished altogether as it's an expensive tax to collect. GST is efficient to collect so the overall result would be positive.
 
I've got no issue with broadening the GST, thought don't see an increase as justifiable considering the majority of exemptions benefit those in the higher income deciles.

Having said that, I would prefer to see changes to the GST part of a more comprehensive package that examines

  • Land taxes to replace stamp duties - why do the 6% of households buying property each year pay an unfair share of the revenue required by the states?
  • Limiting to removal of the halving of CGT - benefits the wealthy most.
  • Changes to super concessions - easiest would be full tax on contributions
  • Bring back some form of Reasonable Benefits Limit to super to stop it being treated as a tax shelter by the rich
  • Examine why the primary residence is invisible to the pension assets test - asset poor gen x and y have to pay higher taxes because of this.
  • Quarantine Negative Gearing to new housing builds and against the income of the asset invested in ie capitalise the losses to the cost base if they outweigh the income generated as pretty much every other country does.

We have world beating tax expendtirues worth close to 8% of GDP. Clamping down on them would increase efficiency and fairness while also helping to make capital allocation into productive investments rather than housing a more viable option.

The below graph from the Henry review shows how we need to move away from corporate and income taxes, along with stamp duties. Land taxes are pretty much the most efficient available. The super chart shows how poorly targeted super concessions are and just how concentrated wealth has become in Australia.
 

Attachments

  • super assets.PNG
    super assets.PNG
    150 KB · Views: 233
  • marginal excess burden.PNG
    marginal excess burden.PNG
    14.5 KB · Views: 215
SirRumpole said:
why not remove the refund to businesses for GST paid, and compensate by lowering the company tax rate ?
Click to expand...

Because the purpose of the tax is to be a 10% tax on the final retail sale price. if each step in the supply chain had to add 10% and there was no refunds, it would end up being much more more.

eg. If I make clay, and sell the clay to sir rumpole for $1.10, he actually pays me $1 and I sent this extra 10c to the government as GST. but then Sir rumpole makes a brick with the clay, and sells it for $2.20 to a retailer, he then owes 20c to the government, but gets a credit for the 10c gst he has already paid to me, the retailer sells the brick to the consumer for $3.30, the retailer owes the government 30cents gst, but gets a credit for the 20cents he paid to sir rumpole.

So the total tax on the end product was 10% being 30c, but 10c was paid by the clay maker, 10c was paid by the brick maker, and 10c paid by the retailer.

If each step wasn't able to claim back the gst they paid when they purchased their goods, then the final tax amount would have been 60c not 30c as it should be
 
sydboy007 said:
[*]Limiting to removal of the halving of CGT - benefits the wealthy most.
Click to expand...

the capital gains tax discount is required to offset inflation, other wise your just taxing inflation.

Your meant to be taxing capital gain profits, not simply taxing increases in price due to inflation.

Remember when your dealing with shares, property or any real asset, part of its "capital gain" is not due to increasing value, but rather the it's price has been pushed up by inflation, providing a discount on gains helps this.
 
Value Collector said:
Because the purpose of the tax is to be a 10% tax on the final retail sale price. if each step in the supply chain had to add 10% and there was no refunds, it would end up being much more more.

eg. If I make clay, and sell the clay to sir rumpole for $1.10, he actually pays me $1 and I sent this extra 10c to the government as GST. but then Sir rumpole makes a brick with the clay, and sells it for $2.20 to a retailer, he then owes 20c to the government, but gets a credit for the 10c gst he has already paid to me, the retailer sells the brick to the consumer for $3.30, the retailer owes the government 30cents gst, but gets a credit for the 20cents he paid to sir rumpole.

So the total tax on the end product was 10% being 30c, but 10c was paid by the clay maker, 10c was paid by the brick maker, and 10c paid by the retailer.

If each step wasn't able to claim back the gst they paid when they purchased their goods, then the final tax amount would have been 60c not 30c as it should be
Click to expand...

These things could be compensated for by not charging the consumer the final gst because it has already been paid for in the manufacturing and other processes and therefore added to the retail price. The rate could be adjusted
suitably so that the price effects can be controlled. Or, you can leave the GST on the final price as well and lower income tax rates and raise pensions.

The main point is that companies are avoiding company tax in spades, but they can't avoid GST. That was the main argument for imposing it on the consumer in the first place. Most PAYE consumers can't avoid income tax, but companies can. Having them pay GST makes the tax system more efficient.
 
Value Collector said:
the capital gains tax discount is required to offset inflation, other wise your just taxing inflation.

Your meant to be taxing capital gain profits, not simply taxing increases in price due to inflation.

Remember when your dealing with shares, property or any real asset, part of its "capital gain" is not due to increasing value, but rather the it's price has been pushed up by inflation, providing a discount on gains helps this.
Click to expand...

Bring back the previous system of bumping up the cost base by CPI. Easily done in the age of computers.
 
SirRumpole said:
These things could be compensated for by not charging the consumer the final gst because it has already been paid for in the manufacturing and other processes and therefore added to the retail price.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I follow. Consumers won't pay the tax because the tax is already included in the price? Isn't that the same outcome?

SirRumpole said:
The main point is that companies are avoiding company tax in spades
Click to expand...

Says who?:confused:
 
No I don't support broadening the GST to fresh food and have already written to my local MP about this. It's an efficient but regressive tax, if all other options were exhausted like super concessions, negative gearing, CGT concession and we still need to raise tax revenue then I'm not opposed to raising the GST. But it's already too cheap to eat unhealthy processed rubbish and that gap will only widen if we apply the GST to fresh food. Obesity is a huge problem in our Western society and we all know the health ramifications that come from obesity. I would support a junk food tax before broadening the GST to fresh food.
 
sydboy007 said:
Bring back the previous system of bumping up the cost base by CPI.
Click to expand...
That I agree with as it's a more equitable system for long term investment.

One of the problems though was that a significant gain pushed the taxpayer into high marginal rates. The answer to that at the time was to calculate the tax on 1/5 of the gain and then multiply that by 5.

Overall though it delivered little relief for more medium term investments (~3 to 5 years) to tax on capital for those on higher incomes from high marginal rates so I think an additional discount to CPI is required such that the real level of capital gain is taxed at something closer to the corporate rate.

In other words, go back to a CPI indexed cost base and have a further discount of up to about 1/3 tapered in over a period of years from initial investment.

In the absence of significantly lower marginal rates of income tax, the present 50% discount should be tapered at 10% intervals to take full effect after an investment has been held for 5 years and CPI cost base indexation should also be available as an alternative where that provides a better outcome for the taxpayer than the discount above.

Longer term, the top rate of income tax should be much closer to the corporate rate such that any fixed CGT discount can be done away with altogether.
 
overhang said:
No I don't support broadening the GST to fresh food and have already written to my local MP about this. It's an efficient but regressive tax, if all other options were exhausted like super concessions, negative gearing, CGT concession and we still need to raise tax revenue then I'm not opposed to raising the GST. But it's already too cheap to eat unhealthy processed rubbish and that gap will only widen if we apply the GST to fresh food. Obesity is a huge problem in our Western society and we all know the health ramifications that come from obesity. I would support a junk food tax before broadening the GST to fresh food.
Click to expand...
+100.
 
Are you aiming to assist state coffers or federal coffers? Are you hoping increase in GST improving the state coffers flows throw to lower trasfer of funds from federal coffers to state coffers?
 
overhang said:
No I don't support broadening the GST to fresh food and have already written to my local MP about this. It's an efficient but regressive tax, if all other options were exhausted like super concessions, negative gearing, CGT concession and we still need to raise tax revenue then I'm not opposed to raising the GST. But it's already too cheap to eat unhealthy processed rubbish and that gap will only widen if we apply the GST to fresh food. Obesity is a huge problem in our Western society and we all know the health ramifications that come from obesity. I would support a junk food tax before broadening the GST to fresh food.
Click to expand...

totally agree
 

Similar threads

bigdog
Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
tech/a
tech/a
R
The 7 Moats of Quality Companies
Replies
7
Views
7K
divs4ever
divs4ever
sydboy007
State tax reform
Replies
0
Views
4K
sydboy007
sydboy007
MrBurns
Can the government stave off recession?
Replies
13
Views
5K
sinner
S
R
The Role of Government? Which areas should spending be cut from?
2 3 4
Replies
72
Views
15K
awg
awg
Top