You mean the open and transparent government we were promised?
OOOHHH. Another non core pre election throw away.
The fact that the deal has been so hush hush is so wrong. If this is for the good of the country then surely we the people of said country deserve to know what our self sacrificing pollies have been beavering away on to make our lives better /sarc.
Why aren't they concerned about the cost of administering GST on such low cost overseas purchases being greater than the revenue? Isn't that some kind of regulartory burden?
A 2011 Productivity Commission inquiry into the retail industry found strong grounds for the $1000 to be lowered significantly - arguing that goods sourced from overseas should face the same tax regime as those bought locally.
However, it found that removing the threshold completely would cost more than $2 billion to businesses, consumers and government while only generating revenue of around $600 million annually.
It therefore recommended against lowering the $1000 threshold until it was cost-effective to do so.
Does anyone have a problem with this ?
I don't
IIRC that around a $500 threshold the revenue gain was minimal and $300 was break even.
I'd like to know what technology will lower the breakeven threshold that the government keeps harping on about.
Even with GST people will still buy from overseas when it's half the price of buying locally.
Funny how a government that maks so much noise aboutthe cutting red tape is gumming up the Telco industry with uncosted data retention regulation and now a gst proposal that will cost hundreds of millions in lost revenue.
Key told reporters the TPP could extend the patents on medications, preventing Pharmac [equivalent to Medicare] from quickly using generic versions, but that these costs would be more than offset by gains through increased market access.
“Patents will run for a little bit longer and that means the government will have to pay for the original drug as opposed to the generic for a little bit longer,” Key said.
“As I have made clear repeatedly, the government will not support outcomes that would increase the prices of medicines for Australians or adversely affect our health system more generally; end of story,” he said. “Nor would we accept outcomes that undermine our ability to regulate or legislate in the public interest in areas such as health,” Mr Robb said.
Only about 64 biologic medicines are currently included in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme but they include five of the 10 most expensive. Biologics accounted for one quarter, or $2.3 billion, of the cost of the PBS in 2013-14.
Single injections can cost thousands of dollars.
“Why would our government agree to any extension on data monopolies when even one year’s delay for some of these drugs can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the PBS,” said Dr Patricia Ranald, convener of a fair trade network called AFTINET.
IIRC that around a $500 threshold the revenue gain was minimal and $300 was break even.
I'd like to know what technology will lower the breakeven threshold that the government keeps harping on about.
Even with GST people will still buy from overseas when it's half the price of buying locally.
Funny how a government that maks so much noise aboutthe cutting red tape is gumming up the Telco industry with uncosted data retention regulation and now a gst proposal that will cost hundreds of millions in lost revenue.
I suppose it may be driven, by the constant complaints of retailers, that the current system is unfair?
Whether it resolves the problem of the consumer chasing the lowest price possible? I doubt it, it didn't work for the Australian car industry.
However the retailers do have the right, to demand imports or online purchases attract the same tax impost.
The Government can't win, if it does the fair thing, it is wrong. If it does nothing, it is wrong.
It seems only Labor can sit on their hands, do nothing for six years, and get away with it.
Better to do nothing that come up with a solution that will costs hundreds of millions extra to run than the income generated. I suppose that's what you get from a party so heavily into NG. Positive cash flow doesn't factor into their decision making process.
Basically it's an extra tax on anyone buying from overseas, or all of us, depending on how the Govt decides to fund the costs.
Possibly an easier way to achieve a levelling of the field would be to use the merchant category code for FOREX transactions and exclude travel related sectors and add a 10% tax on top of most of merchants. Should be relatively easy to achieve. The banks and credit card companies may not like it. Certainly a way cheaper than what the Govt is currently proposing.
I think it is just a gesture, to try and make it look like they are doing something, when in actual fact nothing can be done about it.
But that is the way politics are these days, media driven sensationalist rubbish, to feed the chooks.:1zhelp:
I have a bit of that myself...but in all seriousness, she must go. The helo to Geelong turns out to be the tip of the iceberg, and that's the real issue.So Bronwyn Bishop was doing "secret women's business" nine years ago in the area, the day before going to Sophie's wedding. Chartering a plane makes perfect sense.
10 to one she eventually explains away her largess as amaxophobia
I have a bit of that myself...but in all seriousness, she must go. The helo to Geelong turns out to be the tip of the iceberg, and that's the real issue.
You don't place the PM and Manager of Opposition Business in the embarrassing position of having to sack you. She's been around long enough to know that.
How much more uncompetitive does Abbott want to make the economy?
That depends on who is asking the question.
If it's big business then there's no problem. "Charge as much as you like, no need to worry about being competitive".
If a union's involved then it's "oh no, sorry but you don't understand. We have to be competitive you see...".
I used to believe all the stuff about being competitive and so on. As I got older, I realised that whilst the underlying point may well be true, in practice the argument is just used as a convenient justification for whatever governments want to do.
Hence, I thought it would be worth investigating how much influence Alan Jones does (or does not) have.
It is estimated his radio audience numbers about 150,000 listeners daily.
150,000 is a pittance compared to the voting population of the country, even in Sydney.
If he can't do better than that it beats me why he is considered so "influential" .
150,000 is a pittance compared to the voting population of the country, even in Sydney.
If he can't do better than that it beats me why he is considered so "influential" .
But as long as we are focussing on same sex marriage, politicians abusing the system, climate change and racial discrimination, who cares about the economy.
The other issues sell more papers.lol
Well that is untill we are well and truly in the manure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?