Budget 2019

[SirRumpole]

My idea is to eliminate income tax altogether and generate all tax revenue from a consumption tax. Make all fresh fruit and vegetables, bread and milk tax free. Same with rent, power, utilities etc. Basically the essentials.

What about all those self funded retirees that people are worried about ? They don't pay tax on their benefits so there are no income tax cuts that will benefit them and suddenly their costs go through the roof.

SP will be apoplectic.

 

[PZ99]

Why bot just put GST on everything? It would be much simpler and compensation could be factored in.
That is the way it was initially designed, before it was butchered as everything is, then it becomes a pigs ear.

15% on literally everything and with the abolition of various other taxes was the original proposal.

Yep, stamp duty, payroll tax etc were supposed to be abolished by the states.

Naturally they reneged... give an inch they take a mile. Given its constitutional properties, changing the GST would be virtually impossible. I think eventually they'll blow it up and replace it with some form of a cashflow tax.

 

[Logique]

My idea is to eliminate income tax altogether and generate all tax revenue from a consumption tax. Make all fresh fruit and vegetables, bread and milk tax free. Same with rent, power, utilities etc. Basically the essentials.
Everything else is taxed at 20%. Luxury goods are taxed at 30% or 40%. Let people decide how they pay tax according to how they choose to consume products and services.

I could never support this. The concept undermines the progressive nature of out tax system.

 

[qldfrog]

But isnt the progressive nature of tax a terrible idea and the root of the problem where you can give 51pc of voters a tax free status and basically seize the assets of the 49pc remaining ones
and be reelected for life
See socialism in the west, Venezuela, communism
This is in a more nuanced way what is happening now, both left and even right in Australia
If you earn nothing 15pc is not much, if you earn a lot 15pc is a lot of dollars
The same percentage for all is what would make sense and this is the case in some countries but we have been twisted to think if you earn more you should contribute more not only in dollar term but even in percentage
Double whammy..very sad that it has become an accepted "truth"
Like income tax

 

[greggles]

I could never support this. The concept undermines the progressive nature of out tax system.

I don't agree. If you make all essential items tax free, purchases that people need to make live such as basic food and essential services then you are making it tax free to live.

Yes, that Snickers bar should be taxed at 20% because you don't need it. Yes, that BMW should be taxed at 40% because it is a luxury item. The rich will pay more tax because they spend more and will be taxed more on luxury items. But what a consumption based tax gives people is choice on how they pay tax. We all choose how we consume. Spendthrifts will pay more tax while those who live a frugal life will pay very little.

 

[sptrawler]

Aren’t you unemployed?

Obviously not, or I would be on newstart.

 

[jbocker]

The best surplus analysis I’ve read

It’s not a surplus. It’s the projection of a prediction of a mirage set to occur in the future, on the proviso that, for the first time in this government’s period in power, the underlying predictions on which it is based (wages growth, etc) turn out to be accurate rather than absurdly optimistic.

It won’t happen. It’s simply election propaganda.

Ahh a good old Election Promise. Tune in folks there will be more coming and don't stop listening till the steak knives are thrown into the deals.

 

[Smurf1976]

I don't agree. If you make all essential items tax free, purchases that people need to make live such as basic food and essential services then you are making it tax free to live.

I think the difficulty lies with what's "essential" and what's not.

Food, basic clothing and shelter yes.

If someone lives out in the sticks with no public transport available then owning a car is in practice essential in order to get to any shop or other service. Owning a car is not essential for most other people however.

In the ACT, Tas and inland parts of other states it could be said that some form of heating is essential (the social welfare groups certainly argue strongly that it is) whereas it's clearly not essential in Darwin and could be considered desirable but not actually essential in places like Sydney or Perth. So tax free heating appliances in some places but not others (electricity and other fuels would presumably be tax exempt anyway by virtue of being essential).

I'm not really arguing for or against the concept, just seeing a lot of complexities in defining what's essential and what's not.

How do we define essential clothing versus non-essential clothing?

Or I could say that electricity is clearly essential in the modern era but that being so, environmental groups would be outright furious if power from the grid were untaxed but solar panels, insulation or more efficient appliances were taxed.

Etc.

 

[greggles]

I'm not really arguing for or against the concept, just seeing a lot of complexities in defining what's essential and what's not.

How do we define essential clothing versus non-essential clothing?

Or I could say that electricity is clearly essential in the modern era but that being so, environmental groups would be outright furious if power from the grid were untaxed but solar panels, insulation or more efficient appliances were taxed.

Etc.

I agree that it would be more complex than I have made it out to be. I think that in any case it would still be more efficient than the current system of income taxation with all its deductions and other complexities, at least for individuals.

 

[sptrawler]

I get nothing of course.
Just more bracket creep and a promise if they win the election in 3 years time that they will help.

No attack the many ways the wealthy and multinationals avoid tax, just keep hitting PAYE tax payers.

Steve Price called the budget " Labor Light".

The whole system is biased to baby boomers.

Oh well Knobby, you said there was nothing in the budget for you, well it sounds as though labor are going to remove the proposed tax cuts, so they don't have anything for you either.
Life's tough.
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-planned-income-tax-cuts-20190404-p51asj.html

From the article:
A person on $37,000 would get $350 when they complete their tax return after July 1 under Labor compared to the $255 being promised by Mr Morrison. Someone on $40,000 would get $549 compared to the government's $480.

Labor has previously hedged on whether it would go further and adopt the second-stage of the Coalition's three-step plan to lower taxes for middle and higher income earners, but has now decided to oppose it.

You will just have to build an investment property and get rent assistance from Bill.

 

[Knobby22]

Yea, I don't count anything as a tax cut if it's promised 2 elections away. Who knows the Libs might be back in power by then.

 

[sptrawler]

Yea, I don't count anything as a tax cut if it's promised 2 elections away. Who knows the Libs might be back in power by then.

There is one thing for sure, radiology shares will go through the roof, over servicing will be on again. IMO

 

[Smurf1976]

I agree that it would be more complex than I have made it out to be. I think that in any case it would still be more efficient than the current system of income taxation with all its deductions and other complexities, at least for individuals.

I'm not aiming to shoot you down - just playing devil's advocate.

I definitely agree that removing complexities has advantages both in terms of administrative costs and also through the closing of loopholes.

 

[Smurf1976]

There is one thing for sure, radiology shares will go through the roof, over servicing will be on again. IMO

Radiology?

 

[SirRumpole]

There is one thing for sure, radiology shares will go through the roof, over servicing will be on again. IMO

Medical treatment is a tightrope between too much and too little. Too much hits the hip pocket, too little and you die.

I don't know if anyone has found the right balance but I'd rather have a doctor looking after my health than a politician or public servant.

 

[sptrawler]

Radiology?

My apologies radiography, i was meaning imaging services like SKG, just rushing late night shopping here in the West.

 

[sptrawler]

Medical treatment is a tightrope between too much and too little. Too much hits the hip pocket, too little and you die.

I don't know if anyone has found the right balance but I'd rather have a doctor looking after my health than a politician or public servant.

I thought medicare covered most treatments for those on welfare? unless it was experimental.
Things like MRI's, I would imagine you get, if it is needed by the specialist.
Fortunately I haven't had cancer, so no first hand experience.

 

[Logique]

No question Medicare is a huge call on the national exchequer, and wherever over servicing occurs it should be stamped upon.

But please God let us never go the way of the US health system, where you are one chronic illness away from bankruptcy

 

[Smurf1976]

But please God let us never go the way of the US health system, where you are one chronic illness away from bankruptcy

Paying tax has its downsides but it beats the US approach to health that's for sure.

I do question the real value of the private health system in Australia though. There's consumers' money going in, there's government money going in and still they turn away patients with insurance and send them to the public hospital instead and charge the rest a gap fee. So the point of it all is ????

I'm not ideologically opposed but I question the value of private health versus the alternative if all that money were added to the public system.

 

[SirRumpole]

Paying tax has its downsides but it beats the US approach to health that's for sure.

I do question the real value of the private health system in Australia though. There's consumers' money going in, there's government money going in and still they turn away patients with insurance and send them to the public hospital instead and charge the rest a gap fee. So the point of it all is ????

I'm not ideologically opposed but I question the value of private health versus the alternative if all that money were added to the public system.

I think it's an ideological commitment to having competing systems. I doubt if the medical lobby would put up with having an all public system, there would be no way they could push their fees up if it was all taxpayer funded. But I agree if the private health rebate was abolished , the public health system would benefit and private health would probably cease to exist.

Would that be a good or bad thing ?