Should the GST be increased/widened?

[Bill M]

Instead of asking the same gormless gst questions in QT, maybe the opposition should ask about this

http://www.afr.com/business/energy/...rofit-senate-tax-inquiry-told-20151108-gktu7s

Neither side is dealing with this, why?

They are all complaining about it so it should be easy peasy in the senate. Why isn't it being confronted head on and urgently? Can anybody tell me why it's still going on?

 

[Tisme]

Neither side is dealing with this, why?

They are all complaining about it so it should be easy peasy in the senate. Why isn't it being confronted head on and urgently? Can anybody tell me why it's still going on?

Campaign funds channeled through fake "Institutes"

 

[Logique]

Instead of asking the same gormless gst questions in QT, maybe the opposition should ask about this

http://www.afr.com/business/energy/...rofit-senate-tax-inquiry-told-20151108-gktu7s

$248 tax on $1.7Bill, that's outrageous.

 

[luutzu]

$248 tax on $1.7Bill, that's outrageous.

I actually thought there's a M behind $248 in tax. No M. dam, wouldn't it be nice if we could pay the same amount on our income.

 

[drsmith]

South Australian premier Jay Weatherill told a business lunch in Adelaide he would be taking a plan to the next leaders' meeting for an increase in the GST from 10 to 15 per cent on the condition that the extra revenue was kept by the Commonwealth rather than the states. In return, the federal government would allocate the states a fixed proportion of its income tax revenue.

Most other Commonwealth grants to the states would be converted to a share of the income tax base, he said.

The Commonwealth collected income tax on behalf of the states up until the Second World War when it stopped handing it over on a "temporary" basis but it never resumed.

Mr Weatherill said a reasonable share of Commonwealth income tax collections would be 17.5 per cent.

All decisions about compensation for the GST increase and income tax rates and exemptions would be made by the Commonwealth, he said.

"This is a superior solution to the states' long-term health care needs than the proposed increase in the GST to 15 per cent," he said.

"This is because the GST is not a growth tax and, even with a 15 per cent rate, it will eventually be inadequate to meet our health care needs. In simple terms, a 15 per cent GST collects too much in the short term and not enough in the long term," Mr Weatherill said.

Just broaden the base Jay. Then the states will get a growth tax without the convolutions of the above.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...tional-backing-of-15-gst-20151126-gl93as.html

Interestingly, I heard Adam Bandt commenting on the GST on ABC radio today and it seems he's seen the light on broadening the base relative to raising the rate.

 

[Craton]

So when I hear of tax cuts say, to offset the "proposed" GST hike, all I'm hearing is that Peter is robbing Paul (and as usual Paul is me), then I'll be the loser in the long run.

Has GST or equivalent gone done, being reduced, lowered at all, anywhere in the world?
Certainly not that I'm aware of and hence, the cynic in me sees that both the rate and the base will increase and broaden over time.

Its only logical unless, of course, deflation reduces the cost to govt. in providing our services. Yeah, like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

I reckon we all know it is just a matter of time before rate, base or both go up and broaden. Maybe we'll end up with varied GST rates similiar to Ireland, Italy, Algeria, Greece, Belgium, Tunisa, Turkey, UK, Finland, Egypt, France and the like.

The varied rate seems a lot more palatable but whatever happens, an increase is a cert.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm not opposed in principle to broadening or increasing GST, but first I'd like to see:

1. Everyone actually paying the taxes we already have. Close the "loopholes" that are in practice only available to big corporates.

2. Stop the wasteful spending and passing up of opportunity by governments in general.

If there's a hole in the bottom of a car's fuel tank then it's a lot smarter to fix the hole in the tank rather than asking for a pay rise such that you can afford to keep pouring fuel on the ground. Same principle with everything.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm not opposed in principle to broadening or increasing GST, but first I'd like to see:

1. Everyone actually paying the taxes we already have. Close the "loopholes" that are in practice only available to big corporates.

2. Stop the wasteful spending and passing up of opportunity by governments in general.

If there's a hole in the bottom of a car's fuel tank then it's a lot smarter to fix the hole in the tank rather than asking for a pay rise such that you can afford to keep pouring fuel on the ground. Same principle with everything.

If you do 1. and 2. then maybe you don't need to alter the GST.

Changing the GST is the easy way out. Harder is dealing with corporate / high end tax avoidance. Unfortunately people with mobile money may shop around for better deals if taxes on them go too high. I can't see Gina Reinhart moving her mines to the Caymans though.

 

[luutzu]

If you do 1. and 2. then maybe you don't need to alter the GST.

Changing the GST is the easy way out. Harder is dealing with corporate / high end tax avoidance. Unfortunately people with mobile money may shop around for better deals if taxes on them go too high. I can't see Gina Reinhart moving her mines to the Caymans though.

Yea, it's easier to audit and take it to the little guys - just send them a letter and they'll cough it up or find they have a job to go to so a fight isn't worth it.

Send a letter to the Big Aussie... better send an army of qualified experts and prepare for the long battle.

It's pretty amazing what corporations can get away with. I mean, oil and gas companies all seem to report losses last year. Just get some consultants and experts in, claim market condition is bad and will get worst so the assets aren't producing much so they have to be written down as an expense/impairment.

Hope I'm wrong about that accounting gimmick but apparently that's how it's done. and it's legal!

If the same rule apply to us normal people... let say I injured my leg, or the industry look pretty tough for my line of work and my wages/revenue will be lower. So my asset (myself) is impaired and that's a deduction on this year's income.

That can't be right, right?

 

[luutzu]

So when I hear of tax cuts say, to offset the "proposed" GST hike, all I'm hearing is that Peter is robbing Paul (and as usual Paul is me), then I'll be the loser in the long run.

Has GST or equivalent gone done, being reduced, lowered at all, anywhere in the world?
Certainly not that I'm aware of and hence, the cynic in me sees that both the rate and the base will increase and broaden over time.

Its only logical unless, of course, deflation reduces the cost to govt. in providing our services. Yeah, like that's gonna happen anytime soon.

I reckon we all know it is just a matter of time before rate, base or both go up and broaden. Maybe we'll end up with varied GST rates similiar to Ireland, Italy, Algeria, Greece, Belgium, Tunisa, Turkey, UK, Finland, Egypt, France and the like.

The varied rate seems a lot more palatable but whatever happens, an increase is a cert.

Increase GST will increase cost of living, cost of doing business. Then on top they privatise utilities because investors love nothing more than to put out money buying stuff they then make "efficient" and pass the savings onto customers who have no other choice but to take whatever price is "reasonable".

Then once these double taxation are the new norm, the private corporations might neglect to maintain the assets properly and it's all stuffed... taxpayers will have to bail themselves out and buy it back again and make them nice capitalists richer still.

You got to admire how the game is played though.

 

[DB008]

Spoiler Alert - Right Wing Alan Jones talks about a 2% tax on everything with a Texan Senator.

What do you think?

http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/138296​

 

[Smurf1976]

Then once these double taxation are the new norm, the private corporations might neglect to maintain the assets properly and it's all stuffed... taxpayers will have to bail themselves out and buy it back again and make them nice capitalists richer still.

Tasmanian Government Railways. Taken over (nationalised) by the Australian Government late 1970's.

Then sold to Pacific National in the 1990's, end result of which was that a train couldn't run, not even at walking pace, from one end of the state to the other without a derailment. They couldn't have run it further into the ground if they'd tried. Freight moved to road and no surprises that the roads fell apart as a result of that.

Then the state government bought it back a few years ago for somewhere around $30 million so not much. But then pouring $$$ into it each and every year - new tracks, new sleepers, new rolling stock, new locomotives. Basically had to replace every single thing that makes up a working railway. There's pretty much zero chance that it's ever going to make a profit, but at least it's cheaper and safer than having all that freight on roads that weren't designed or built to cope with it.

It would have been a much better outcome for taxpayers to just keep it all along and accept any small losses it made along the way. Fixing it has cost an outright fortune once everything's added up.

I am not in any way against private enterprise per se, Smurf ain't no socialist as such. But private enterprise underwritten by government, and that's inevitably the case when we're talking about critical infrastructure, ends up being a case of all profits being privatised and any major losses being passed through to taxpayers. It's just not a good deal for taxpayers or, in most cases, consumers.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am not in any way against private enterprise per se, Smurf ain't no socialist as such. But private enterprise underwritten by government, and that's inevitably the case when we're talking about critical infrastructure, ends up being a case of all profits being privatised and any major losses being passed through to taxpayers. It's just not a good deal for taxpayers or, in most cases, consumers.

Noco will be disappointed that you are not a socialist I'm sure.

There has to be some criteria applied as to whether it is in the national interest to have vital infrastructure controlled by private enterprise, because it usually happens that it ends up being foreign owned and therefore the people who run it have no direct benefit from it running properly.

Private companies can go bankrupt when things get tough and just walk away from messes they have created; eg James Hardy reducing asbestos compensation.

The current government is just privatising for the sake of their ideology, I would certainly have asked some harder questions regarded the privatisation of Medibank private, and the effect that there is now no stabilising force preventing 'managed care' in which decisions about our medical treatment are made by insurance companies not doctors. But of course some Ministers will be popping up on the boards of these privatised service companies as a thank you for services to corporatisation.

 

[luutzu]

Tasmanian Government Railways. Taken over (nationalised) by the Australian Government late 1970's.

Then sold to Pacific National in the 1990's, end result of which was that a train couldn't run, not even at walking pace, from one end of the state to the other without a derailment. They couldn't have run it further into the ground if they'd tried. Freight moved to road and no surprises that the roads fell apart as a result of that.

Then the state government bought it back a few years ago for somewhere around $30 million so not much. But then pouring $$$ into it each and every year - new tracks, new sleepers, new rolling stock, new locomotives. Basically had to replace every single thing that makes up a working railway. There's pretty much zero chance that it's ever going to make a profit, but at least it's cheaper and safer than having all that freight on roads that weren't designed or built to cope with it.

It would have been a much better outcome for taxpayers to just keep it all along and accept any small losses it made along the way. Fixing it has cost an outright fortune once everything's added up.

I am not in any way against private enterprise per se, Smurf ain't no socialist as such. But private enterprise underwritten by government, and that's inevitably the case when we're talking about critical infrastructure, ends up being a case of all profits being privatised and any major losses being passed through to taxpayers. It's just not a good deal for taxpayers or, in most cases, consumers.

So Tas Rail is about to be floated then?

Heard similar cases in the UK and US a while back too.

In the UK, Branson's Virgin and pals did a similar deal, walked away with a billion or two extracted from a UK rail network after the taxpayers have to buy it back to fix the stuff ups.

In the US, the gov't actually cut funding to Amtrak. They've been cutting it every year for a while now. So with those cuts there's no new safety or significantly new loco upgrades etc., Service is then poor then soon they claim gov't can't run anything so flock it off to their pals.

 

[luutzu]

Noco will be disappointed that you are not a socialist I'm sure.

There has to be some criteria applied as to whether it is in the national interest to have vital infrastructure controlled by private enterprise, because it usually happens that it ends up being foreign owned and therefore the people who run it have no direct benefit from it running properly.

Private companies can go bankrupt when things get tough and just walk away from messes they have created; eg James Hardy reducing asbestos compensation.

The current government is just privatising for the sake of their ideology, I would certainly have asked some harder questions regarded the privatisation of Medibank private, and the effect that there is now no stabilising force preventing 'managed care' in which decisions about our medical treatment are made by insurance companies not doctors. But of course some Ministers will be popping up on the boards of these privatised service companies as a thank you for services to corporatisation.

Yea true. There should some sort of independent review whether the sales is to a domestic or foreign entity. It's not like homegrown capitalists will be nicer than foreign ones. If the infrastructure or the corporation is essential to the running of the country, they will take risks and make the most money out of it knowing that if the risk pays off they get the profit but if it fail they will be bailed out because the gov't got no other choice.

But yes, a career in politics is very short... you'd need a few directorships to retire on.


Heard from a few economists that capitalism and entrepreneurship in the US, and I guess true too for UK and Aus., is somewhat of a joke. Just about all advances in technologies and industry has been funded by gov't research labs or funded with taxpayers money through gov't contracts or tax breaks.

On game changing development, the gov't pay and take all the risks, then once the technology is successful it's offloaded to private enterprise to make money out of. So take Boeing... most of the technologies on their planes and jets were funded by US taxpayers through Pentagon contracts building bombers and spy planes. Or Google or Apple and the internet of things.

But we're all told that gov't can't do anything except maybe declare war and stand in the way of private enterprise and competitiveness.

 

[Smurf1976]

The crux of all this is that our governments are collectively choosing to give away large sums of money on an ongoing basis via these "deals" covering everything from gambling to railways.

So long as that continues, it's pointless paying more tax in the same way as it's pointless putting more fuel in the car when there's a hole at the bottom of the tank.

No matter how much money we hand to governments, they'll still be broke if they keep giving it away.

 

[luutzu]

The crux of all this is that our governments are collectively choosing to give away large sums of money on an ongoing basis via these "deals" covering everything from gambling to railways.

So long as that continues, it's pointless paying more tax in the same way as it's pointless putting more fuel in the car when there's a hole at the bottom of the tank.

No matter how much money we hand to governments, they'll still be broke if they keep giving it away.

All true. But maybe that's the point though.

It's reverse Robin Hood. The people get to pay more and more, got less and less for it, and the gov't never seem to be able to afford anything.

 

[Logique]

Peter Reith says NO to the GST increase.

Meanwhile the PM and Julie Bishop make heros of themselves at our expense, flinging away $800Mill of taxpayers money on 'climate change'.

And they've got the nerve to say there's a revenue problem, requiring a GST increase! Well they can forget it.

The real problem is a spending problem.

Malcolm Turnbull should shut down the discussion about raising GST
November 30, 2015 - by Peter Reith
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/raisi...urnbull-before-christmas-20151130-glbb1y.html

..Today's best candidate for dumping is the proposal to increase the rate of the GST. Turnbull should shut down this discussion before Christmas...

Turnbull pledges $800 million for climate
Tuesday, 1 December 2015
Sky News: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-...million-for-climate.html#sthash.XUng03pM.dpuf

Australia will commit an extra $800 million over five years to help poorer countries cope with climate change but will redirect the funds from the existing foreign aid budget.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull confirmed the multimillion dollar gift on Tuesday (AEDT) during his national statement at the United Nations climate change conference in Paris...

 

[qldfrog]

Peter Reith says NO to the GST increase.

Meanwhile the PM and Julie Bishop make heros of themselves at our expense, flinging away $800Mill of taxpayers money on 'climate change'.

And they've got the nerve to say there's a revenue problem, requiring a GST increase! Well they can forget it.

The real problem is a spending problem.

your own quote says it: 800M redirected from foreign aid, so not a cent more, and maybe less in the pockets of the various corrupt O/S politicians/oz business dealing in foreign aid.not a bad decision

 

[luutzu]

Peter Reith says NO to the GST increase.

Meanwhile the PM and Julie Bishop make heros of themselves at our expense, flinging away $800Mill of taxpayers money on 'climate change'.

And they've got the nerve to say there's a revenue problem, requiring a GST increase! Well they can forget it.

The real problem is a spending problem.

Nooo... We can forget it, they're the ones deciding. They're the Decider, if you will.