This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Budget 2019

Jump to new
greggles said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :cool:
 
Last edited:
sptrawler said:
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.
Click to expand...
Smurf1976 said:
15% on literally everything and with the abolition of various other taxes was the original proposal.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I could never support this. The concept undermines the progressive nature of out tax system.
 
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
 
Logique said:
I could never support this. The concept undermines the progressive nature of out tax system.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
greggles said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Knobby22 said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is one thing for sure, radiology shares will go through the roof, over servicing will be on again. IMO
 
greggles said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sptrawler said:
There is one thing for sure, radiology shares will go through the roof, over servicing will be on again. IMO
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
Logique said:
But please God let us never go the way of the US health system, where you are one chronic illness away from bankruptcy
Click to expand...
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 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

So who are the winners and losers of the 2024 budget?
Replies
7
Views
1K
qldfrog
D
Lease adjusted ROCE for ASX stocks?
Replies
1
Views
749
divs4ever
M
WEF corrupts countries
Replies
6
Views
731
SirRumpole
Australian Federal Election 2025
27 28 29
Replies
564
Views
14K
basilio
Australian budget/regional airlines
Replies
7
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes