GST

[tandino]

Three little letters that has caused so much political heartache over the past 30 years.

We may as well have a thread on it as it seems that this will be a recurring topic of discussion over the term of this Parliament.

I personally don't want to hear any excuses, if the GST rises or broadens then Stamp Duty has to be consigned to history. No ifs or buts about it.

 

[DeanoT]

Three little letters that has caused so much political heartache over the past 30 years.

We may as well have a thread on it as it seems that this will be a recurring topic of discussion over the term of this Parliament.

I personally don't want to hear any excuses, if the GST rises or broadens then Stamp Duty has to be consigned to history. No ifs or buts about it.

Haven't we been down this road before?

 

[RUNVS]

The GST can't go up as Rudd forced Abbott to say quite a few times that he will not raise the GST. If Abbott does raise it he is essentially handing the next election to Labor as it will be easy for Labor to use the same tactics Abbott used in regards to the Carbon Tax.

 

[Pessimistic]

I tipped this

Tax and spend

 

[DeanoT]

The GST can't go up as Rudd forced Abbott to say quite a few times that he will not raise the GST. If Abbott does raise it he is essentially handing the next election to Labor as it will be easy for Labor to use the same tactics Abbott used in regards to the Carbon Tax.

There is more to the GST than simply the 10% rate. There is also the issue of what the GST is, and isn't applied, to, which states get the slice of the GST pie, and what taxes were originally meant to be replaced by the states (Stamp Duty, as tandino mentioned above).

 

[Gough]

There is more to the GST than simply the 10% rate. There is also the issue of what the GST is, and isn't applied, to, which states get the slice of the GST pie, and what taxes were originally meant to be replaced by the states (Stamp Duty, as tandino mentioned above).

I agree with all of this, but recent history has shown that the voting public generally don't look at the nuances of policy, preferring instead the three word slogan. The Coalition will have to tread carefully here.

 

[Oscarman]

What about putting it up to 15%, applying it to everything and pissing off all other Federal and State taxes? Works for me.

 

[Andre]

IMO there's a solution to it that gets the rate up AND allows Abbott to pass the buck on the blame (and lets be realistic in that much as some of us would like the Coalition to up the rate and broaden it, the economic illiteracy of the average voter ensures that'd be political suicide).

At present the GST is collected by the Federal government on the states behalf (well not really as the differing amounts going to each state shows). Modify the legislation such that:

1. Each state gets to keep all it's own GST receipts.
2. Each state sets it's own GST rate. By default this will be 10%. State treasurers will be able to notify the ATO that from 1 July in a financial year a new rate will apply.

This pushes it back as the GST truly being a state tax collected by the federal government. If a particular state thinks they don't have enough money, they do have access to a growth tax whose rate they control. Though I'd add in further conditions that if the rate goes over a certain amount (say 12%) stamp duty has to go as a trade off.

 

[pazza]

Was never needed in the first place and has done nothing but be a slur on the country and it's taxation measures.

If the Government were serious about cost of living pressures, it need not worry about the Carbon and Mining Taxes.

Take away the GST and then see what happens.

 

[DeanoT]

What about putting it up to 15%, applying it to everything and pissing off all other Federal and State taxes? Works for me.

Except that the states were meant to abolish other "taxes" and duties when the original GST came in. I doubt the Feds can do anything to stop the states re-introducing other "taxes".

Was never needed in the first place and has done nothing but be a slur on the country and it's taxation measures.

If the Government were serious about cost of living pressures, it need not worry about the Carbon and Mining Taxes.

Take away the GST and then see what happens.

You do know that the price of many things, cars for example, fell when the GST was introduced as sales tax was 22%?

 

[Pessimistic]

In a though bubble I was thinking they could reform and make the states revenues come from environmental taxes such as fuel excise

Less from gst.

That way states could slowly transfer fuel excise revenue into user pays on blanket road tolls which could be used to mitigate congestion, get people onto public transport etc. have time of day discounting etc

The states have far more input into energy and associated use

Done properly it could be far more effective in lowering dependence on fossil fuels than the carbon tax could ever be

Im sure even abbot can deny we have a cogestion problem, like he has with carbon, would take a bit of vision and bipartisanship, which sadly might have been killed off in autralia


We also might be able to get some sustainable funding for infrastrucure, which is now in the too hard basket after failure of public or private funding models

 

[Footy Smarts]

The real problem is states complaining about not getting "their fair share" of GST. It's like a bunch of children all complaining they don't get enough of the lollies. Hearing both Napthine and Andrews complaining about it this morning was farcicle with their only motivation to stoke interstate rivalry.

What should be done:

1. Disband the state governments. The main role of state governments is to provide services that are specified to their state but this is still far too broad. Replace them with ~70 largeish local councils whose job it is to deliver the services to that area with similar needs. These should be divided based on simlarity of area rather than population.

2. Have taxes as standard across the board going to the federal government. Significant money is then given to the local areas for delivery of services based on need, similar to how the GST is done now. Since taxes are all national though you wouldn't have situations where WA looks like it gets a miniscule amount of its GST back but this is mainly because its royalties payments are huge compared to other states. Hopefully removing state rivalries and making taxes nationwide that would end the stupid bickering over GST shares (although I doubt it would entirely fix it).

3. The lower house has 150 seats at proportional representation. Therefore everyone's vote is equal in deciding the government of the day so pork-barreling won't be constrained to Western Sydney. The upper house is made up of those ~70 local areas which therefore assists areas with low population to have a voice (which was basically the idea of the Senate in the first place).

As for the GST, well actually decide on reasonable arguments. At the moment the main argument seems to be that the states have no money and the GST is their main revenue source so we better raise the GST. That's a short-term fix not an argument about whether the GST being raised is actually a good thing for the country.

Note: I realise most of this is unconstitutional and would never happen in a million years. It's good to dream though.

 

[tandino]

In a though bubble I was thinking they could reform and make the states revenues come from environmental taxes such as fuel excise

Less from gst.

That way states could slowly transfer fuel excise revenue into user pays on blanket road tolls which could be used to mitigate congestion, get people onto public transport etc. have time of day discounting etc

The states have far more input into energy and associated use

Done properly it could be far more effective in lowering dependence on fossil fuels than the carbon tax could ever be

Im sure even abbot can deny we have a cogestion problem, like he has with carbon, would take a bit of vision and bipartisanship, which sadly might have been killed off in autralia

No State Government would take ownership of such a scheme if they value their re-election prospects.

States want all of the upside and none of the downside.

 

[The Speaker]

The real problem is states complaining about not getting "their fair share" of GST. It's like a bunch of children all complaining they don't get enough of the lollies. Hearing both Napthine and Andrews complaining about it this morning was farcicle with their only motivation to stoke interstate rivalry.

What should be done:

1. Disband the state governments. The main role of state governments is to provide services that are specified to their state but this is still far too broad. Replace them with ~70 largeish local councils whose job it is to deliver the services to that area with similar needs. These should be divided based on simlarity of area rather than population.

2. Have taxes as standard across the board going to the federal government. Significant money is then given to the local areas for delivery of services based on need, similar to how the GST is done now. Since taxes are all national though you wouldn't have situations where WA looks like it gets a miniscule amount of its GST back but this is mainly because its royalties payments are huge compared to other states. Hopefully removing state rivalries and making taxes nationwide that would end the stupid bickering over GST shares (although I doubt it would entirely fix it).

3. The lower house has 150 seats at proportional representation. Therefore everyone's vote is equal in deciding the government of the day so pork-barreling won't be constrained to Western Sydney. The upper house is made up of those ~70 local areas which therefore assists areas with low population to have a voice (which was basically the idea of the Senate in the first place).

As for the GST, well actually decide on reasonable arguments. At the moment the main argument seems to be that the states have no money and the GST is their main revenue source so we better raise the GST. That's a short-term fix not an argument about whether the GST being raised is actually a good thing for the country.

Note: I realise most of this is unconstitutional and would never happen in a million years. It's good to dream though.

Absolutely not.

State governments have continually lost power (mostly by losing revenue) since federation. They need to have that return so that they aren't simply begging the federal government to for more dough.

We, like the majority of countries in the world that cover a massive area, are a federation because it was recognised that states were necessary to ensure localised issues were dealt with appropriately. 70 'local' councils would not be local councils at all. They would be smaller states.

 

[The_Reaper]

The real problem is states complaining about not getting "their fair share" of GST. It's like a bunch of children all complaining they don't get enough of the lollies. Hearing both Napthine and Andrews complaining about it this morning was farcicle with their only motivation to stoke interstate rivalry.

What should be done:

1. Disband the state governments. The main role of state governments is to provide services that are specified to their state but this is still far too broad. Replace them with ~70 largeish local councils whose job it is to deliver the services to that area with similar needs. These should be divided based on simlarity of area rather than population.

2. Have taxes as standard across the board going to the federal government. Significant money is then given to the local areas for delivery of services based on need, similar to how the GST is done now. Since taxes are all national though you wouldn't have situations where WA looks like it gets a miniscule amount of its GST back but this is mainly because its royalties payments are huge compared to other states. Hopefully removing state rivalries and making taxes nationwide that would end the stupid bickering over GST shares (although I doubt it would entirely fix it).

3. The lower house has 150 seats at proportional representation. Therefore everyone's vote is equal in deciding the government of the day so pork-barreling won't be constrained to Western Sydney. The upper house is made up of those ~70 local areas which therefore assists areas with low population to have a voice (which was basically the idea of the Senate in the first place).

As for the GST, well actually decide on reasonable arguments. At the moment the main argument seems to be that the states have no money and the GST is their main revenue source so we better raise the GST. That's a short-term fix not an argument about whether the GST being raised is actually a good thing for the country.

Note: I realise most of this is unconstitutional and would never happen in a million years. It's good to dream though.

Nope.
Horrible idea for anyone who lives outside Melbourne, Sydney or Canberra.


Anyone living in the country would be completely buggerd over.

 

[Oscarman]

Except that the states were meant to abolish other "taxes" and duties when the original GST came in. I doubt the Feds can do anything to stop the states re-introducing other "taxes".

Which is the worst part of it. Howard should have withheld what the taxes that should have been abolished raised from the distribution so the States couldn't get fat on the extra revenues.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Nope.
Horrible idea for anyone who lives outside Melbourne, Sydney or Canberra.


Anyone living in the country would be completely buggerd over.

I would suggest not. Those in the country would be much better off if they were delivering services in a way that suited their needs while fitting general guidelines from the federal government. Much better than having the predominantly city based state government trying to deliver health services to rural areas and inner-city areas at the same time.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Absolutely not.

State governments have continually lost power (mostly by losing revenue) since federation. They need to have that return so that they aren't simply begging the federal government to for more dough.

We, like the majority of countries in the world that cover a massive area, are a federation because it was recognised that states were necessary to ensure localised issues were dealt with appropriately. 70 'local' councils would not be local councils at all. They would be smaller states.

That's sort of the point.

State governments are far, far too big to be able to handle localised issues. Almost the entire idea of statehood was based aroung the state having broad interests across the whole area so they can deliver services more easily. With the vastly increased population and huge urbanisation states no longer represent what they used to. Much better to have smaller areas to deliver services than attempting a one size fits all approach where the problems they're facing are so varied.

 

[The_Reaper]

That's sort of the point.

State governments are far, far too big to be able to handle localised issues. Almost the entire idea of statehood was based aroung the state having broad interests across the whole area so they can deliver services more easily. With the vastly increased population and huge urbanisation states no longer represent what they used to. Much better to have smaller areas to deliver services than attempting a one size fits all approach where the problems they're facing are so varied.

Except all these new 'states' would be too small and be completely dependent on the federal government for everything. So essentially they'll just be dominated by the whims of the federal government.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Worth noting that the GST is foremost about taxing the poor more than they currently pay. It is also an unevely applied consumption tax which imports can avoid (if valued under $1000) like 'the Carbon tax'. So many people said that would destroy the economy. It didn't.

 

[The_Reaper]

Worth noting that the GST is foremost about taxing the poor more than they currently pay. It is also an unevely applied consumption tax which imports can avoid (if valued under $1000) like 'the Carbon tax'. So many people said that would destroy the economy. It didn't.

the smokers tax also buggers over the poor.

 

[Caesar]

The GST will not be raised during this term of parliament.

I dare say Abbott will take a GST increase to the next election if the polls are favourable enough for him to get away with it.

 

[DeanoT]

Beware anyone advocating the abolition of state governments.

 

[RUNVS]

the smokers tax also buggers over the poor.

If people are dumb enough to smoke they deserve to be charged extra for it given how much they cost the health system.

 

[medusala]

What should be done:

1. Disband the state governments.

Federal systems eg Switzerland, Germany, US work far better than centralised government.

The answer is simple.

State income tax (and obviously a reduction in Federal income tax).

Competition and choice are marvellous things. See payroll tax for what would happen.