Why is it 'unsupported'? I never denied that W.A. may currently be getting the raw end of the GST and/or federal funding deal, but things change in time. For example, mining in Tasmania was significantly economically important to the colonies and early Commonwealth from the late 19th to mid 20th century, and as recently as the late 1990s and early 2000s, W.A.'s mining industry was contracting in size. Times change, and they can change quickly.
The GST carve up
- Thread starter stormee
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Why is it 'unsupported'? I never denied that W.A. may currently be getting the raw end of the GST and/or federal funding deal, but things change in time. For example, mining in Tasmania was significantly economically important to the colonies and early Commonwealth from the late 19th to mid 20th century, and as recently as the late 1990s and early 2000s, W.A.'s mining industry was contracting in size. Times change, and they can change quickly.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
unsupported [ˌʌnsəˈpɔːtɪd]
adj
2. not upheld by evidence or facts; unsubstantiated
You're not telling me anything I don't know about mining, it's a highly cyclical industry. That on its own in no way supports the premise that the Commonwealth has preferentially 'looked after' WA in the past and/or will in the future.
I am all for more funding for resource projects. The WA government uses public debt to do it. The Federal govt uses it to buy votes in Western Sydney and other marginal seats.
As for Tasmania I would appreciate it if they would, just for once, take responsibility for their economic decisions. They are all to happy to stop industry, mining and other profitable business in order to protect their environment. Yet when the inevitable loss of revenue bites who takes the hit? Sure as hell not them.
It's easy to preach from your eco friendly soapbox when someone else is making up the revenue shortfall. If you want to go green, more power too you. But you should be responsible for ALL the positives AND negatives that come from that decision.
Wow - did anyone just hear Barnett on ABC 720 just now?
Got a little bit fired up, almost threatening succession.
Got a little bit fired up, almost threatening succession.
Moo
Premium Platinum
Seal the border!!!!!!
To arms!!!!
To arms!!!!
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
WA will receive a $600 million reduction going into next year.
Moo
Premium Platinum
Perhaps he is just confident it will go well?
Barnett is a smart guy.
WA's per capita revenue is slightly higher than all over States (bar the NT), yet he chooses to concentrate solely on the distribution of GST, rather than looking at the bigger picture, which is the context in which the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommends payments. A reduction in WA's GST relativity does not have a material affect on the States net revenue position. Yet this reduction in isolation makes a good story for a Liberal Premier opposing a Labor government with all their taxes. He has absolutely nothing to lose by making a fuss, but what he will gain is greater momentum for some of WA's proposals at COAG, plus, personal support for his State pride.
WA's per capita revenue is slightly higher than all over States (bar the NT), yet he chooses to concentrate solely on the distribution of GST, rather than looking at the bigger picture, which is the context in which the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommends payments. A reduction in WA's GST relativity does not have a material affect on the States net revenue position. Yet this reduction in isolation makes a good story for a Liberal Premier opposing a Labor government with all their taxes. He has absolutely nothing to lose by making a fuss, but what he will gain is greater momentum for some of WA's proposals at COAG, plus, personal support for his State pride.
- May 5, 2006
- 62,726
- 70,017
- AFL Club
- West Coast
How does one argue logically with a government that sees value investing $275m into a marginal industry in one state but doesn't see value in letting another state with huge infrastruture pressures keep a 2/3 share of GST revenues generated within its borders?
If you compare total revenue per capita, excluding the NT, it shows that horizontal fiscal equalisation is working. Every State has 'equal' capacity to provide average services for it's population. This is the ideology behind the $600 million reduction.
WA does have above average infrastructure funding requirements, but I doubt the CGC would have considered that at it's full extent for the 2012 review. The Commission's foresight is inconsiderate and lags; therefore WA's needs will not be met. Barnett will need to stress this point.
- Banned
- #140
Are you seriously suggesting that WA's infrastructure need is a new thing and hence not "considered to its full extent..."?
If so, you are clueless and should stop posting like you aren't.
I'm suggesting that WA's infrastructure needs are greater than the CGC's assessment.
- Banned
- #142
But you seem to imply that is a newish thing but stating "but I doubt the CGC would have considered that to its full extent in its 2012 review"....
I mean if it's been overlooked for any reason then the CGC is incompetent or lacking in independence. Either way we end up with a dopey result ...
By adjusting the GST amount downwards because Royalties have gone up, the Commonwealth is effectively overriding the states taxing rights to an extent. Basically WA increasing taxes as it is constitutionally able to results in more money for SA & Tassie...
We already know this.
That is the ideology of horizontal fiscal equalisation. The current system will effectively make adjustments so that every state has equal capacity to provide average level of services. The states signed up to this process, which is a bad deal for the prosperous states, but everything is constitutional.
Meanwhile, Swan threatening, like the juvenile that he is, to reduce infrastructure payments as a consequence of increasing royalties, is undermining the autonomy of the states. NSW, QLD and WA should fight this one hard.
- Banned
- #145
The states signed up for the current GST arrangements?
The current government is absolutely undermining the autonomy of states and the allocation of GST revenues on top of the Grants system is simply exacerbating the problem.
Unless you "punish" states for poor economic choices then the system simply rewards mediocrity.
Yep, I've always wanted it ever since I knew what it was.
The NT can't provide the basics for its population at the moment.
It's a little more complicated than that.
One of the biggest drains, apart from SA and TAS is the NT and the whole indigenous thing.
The Feds should just force the territory into statehood, because the population are too tarded to do so, and that way, the NT would at least be able to raise some revenue, rather than the skewed figures it puts out at the moment.
But then again, maybe the rest of Australia likes it as the testing ground for all things racist and hazardous.
What are you talking about? The interim report released today recommends changes.
Including:
http://www.smh.com.au/wa-news/review-panel-raises-hopes-of-more-gst-for-wa-20120423-1xh7n.html
Or were you so excited by the thought of being right that you didn't actually bother to check your sources?
My understanding is that there is considerable resistance in Canberra to NT becoming a state. Something to do with the number of Senators they would be entitled to, which might upset the balance of power.
Has more to do with using the Terrortory as one big human experiment.
Wouldn't be able to have a nuke dump here if the NT was a state.
And of course, the fact that the NT is on the teet means that any potential government has to suck it up. The open speed limits and road funding was one example - which actually cost the NT a fair bit of money and publicity - due to car manufacturers pulling out of testing in the NT.
The fact is, you don't have the same rights as soon as you cross the border into the NT.
Similar threads
