GST and the Medicare Levy

[Geoff]

If GST is raised to 15% and the Medicare levy raised to 5% would all the issues surrounding health and tax go away? Or is it just a bigger pot of revenue to get raided and the same old same old to be argued?

 

[Power Raid]

If GST is raised to 15% and the Medicare levy raised to 5% would all the issues surrounding health and tax go away? Or is it just a bigger pot of revenue to get raided and the same old same old to be argued?

raising the GST to 15% and lowering the PAYG taxes will help establish two things. One start to restore order to the balance of the states and commonwealth as per our constitution. this has the added benefit of reducing to power of lobby groups and better tailored "local solutions to local needs".

The other issue it resolves is a better balance of income spread across income and expenditure. Meaning our government taxes "wealth" as well as "wealth generation". After all taxing wealth makes more sense than taxing something you encourage (wealth generation).


I raise my eyes at medicare at 5%. We all want good health care but we have to draw the line somewhere. I am not sure where the line should be but we should have a minimum standard of dental care implemented into medicare but we should also have a co-contribution to ensure patients are considering the allocation of resources before they trundle down to the doctor. In short we should have dental added and better accountability from health service providers and patients.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

no same old bullshit, as always.

 

[Schache It Off]

No from me. Raise GST and cut all taxes drastically is my answer.

As Power Raid said, you have to draw the line. Can't keep gradually increasing it over time.

 

[eastfreo75]

Raise the GST tO 20% and have a flat tax rate of 20% after $20000 with no tax deductions.

With the extra GST make the states be solely responsible for Health and Education.

 

[Power Raid]

Raise the GST tO 20% and have a flat tax rate of 20% after $20000 with no tax deductions.

With the extra GST make the states be solely responsible for Health and Education.

I don't get the "no tax deductions" bit. what happens if:

an individual is a mortgage broker and earns $100,000 and no expenses; versus
an individual is a potato grower and generate $1m in sales and $900,000 in deductions

using a 30% tax rate the mortgage broker earns $70k after tax and the potato grower earns MINUS $200k ($1m -900k - 300k)

 

[Taylor]

I don't get the "no tax deductions" bit. what happens if:

an individual is a mortgage broker and earns $100,000 and no expenses; versus
an individual is a potato grower and generate $1m in sales and $900,000 in deductions

using a 30% tax rate the mortgage broker earns $70k after tax and the potato grower earns MINUS $200k ($1m -900k - 300k)

Not to mention the thousands of accountants who would go from earning $400 an hour to unemployed.

 

[The Punter]

There are many areas where tax reform could provide meaningful change to Australia if only it were genuinely pursued.

The problem with Medicare at the moment is that it is totally universal. There should be nothing wrong with means testing, with the very wealthy not having access and the well-off and wealthy incurring some sort of charge to use it. Then bulk billing could be restored for the less wealthy.

The real problem with health care is we aren't serious in this country about complimentary medicine, associated health professionals and preventative care. Everything goes through a GP, and this is just how the AMA want it to stay. We also need to do more to prevent health problems.

I'd be more inclined to support a widening of the base of the GST rather than an increase, but that would be of concern to low income earners.

And the last thing we should be worrying about with tax reform is making accountants unemployed. People will have more disposable income and will pump that into the economy generating new jobs.

 

[Power Raid]

There are many areas where tax reform could provide meaningful change to Australia if only it were genuinely pursued.

The problem with Medicare at the moment is that it is totally universal. There should be nothing wrong with means testing, with the very wealthy not having access and the well-off and wealthy incurring some sort of charge to use it. Then bulk billing could be restored for the less wealthy.

The real problem with health care is we aren't serious in this country about complimentary medicine, associated health professionals and preventative care. Everything goes through a GP, and this is just how the AMA want it to stay. We also need to do more to prevent health problems.

I'd be more inclined to support a widening of the base of the GST rather than an increase, but that would be of concern to low income earners.

And the last thing we should be worrying about with tax reform is making accountants unemployed. People will have more disposable income and will pump that into the economy generating new jobs.

All good points.

the medicare issue, medication and AMA issue is a real concern and requires reform. Unfortunately like IR reform, it is too political to touch.

 

[Lebbo73]

There are many areas where tax reform could provide meaningful change to Australia if only it were genuinely pursued.

The problem with Medicare at the moment is that it is totally universal. There should be nothing wrong with means testing, with the very wealthy not having access and the well-off and wealthy incurring some sort of charge to use it. Then bulk billing could be restored for the less wealthy.

The real problem with health care is we aren't serious in this country about complimentary medicine, associated health professionals and preventative care. Everything goes through a GP, and this is just how the AMA want it to stay. We also need to do more to prevent health problems.

I'd be more inclined to support a widening of the base of the GST rather than an increase, but that would be of concern to low income earners.

And the last thing we should be worrying about with tax reform is making accountants unemployed. People will have more disposable income and will pump that into the economy generating new jobs.

How are you going to means test it? The well off and the wealthy already pay a Medicare levy. Also, most people who see a private doctor pay extra on top of the Medicare rebate. If you have private insurance, you are already paying more. Are we then going to add a users charge on top of the other user charge/s?

 

[The Punter]

The health system is unsustainable. There are people who can pay and people who cannot. You can reduce total costs at either end.

Perhaps private health insurance should cover visits to GPs? We need to explore options, because it is simply unacceptable that people may not have access to the basic levels of health care that our quality of life demands.

I don't really have time for ideological arguments about taxation and stuff like that. It's what is best for the country.

How does the government means test anything? Pretty straightforward really.

 

[Maggie5]

How about the medicare levy on a sliding scale? The more you earn the higher the %?

On GST, I think they will broaden it, continually talk about 15% and settle on 12.5%.
Not sure how they will calculate compensation when you taken into account the areas that are currently exempt like fresh food, education and health.

 

[Power Raid]

How about the medicare levy on a sliding scale? The more you earn the higher the %?

On GST, I think they will broaden it, continually talk about 15% and settle on 12.5%.
Not sure how they will calculate compensation when you taken into account the areas that are currently exempt like fresh food, education and health.

The issue is as much on the user side as it is on the supply side.

We have a medical system driven by doctors on the government tit and loving it. The supply of doctors into the system at every layer (specialists etc) is regulated by the union (they would hate being called that). The inefficiency is laughable and the pay is out of kilter with the job.

a young english doctor couldn't believe the pay here noted the conditions were better and the hours less. That's a good thing but we should seek to become more competitive simply by increasing supply of labour and taking away the barriers to entry.

A $10 usage charge for those over $30k or assets over $x is not a bad start either.

 

[Maggie5]

The issue is as much on the user side as it is on the supply side.

We have a medical system driven by doctors on the government tit and loving it. The supply of doctors into the system at every layer (specialists etc) is regulated by the union (they would hate being called that). The inefficiency is laughable and the pay is out of kilter with the job.

a young english doctor couldn't believe the pay here noted the conditions were better and the hours less. That's a good thing but we should seek to become more competitive simply by increasing supply of labour and taking away the barriers to entry.

A $10 usage charge for those over $30k or assets over $x is not a bad start either.

Too much waffle but as to your last sentence, you can't be seriously surely?
It seems to me that you accuse almost everyone earning under $50K is on government tit.
You really do need to get down from your ivory tower and mix with normal people.

 

[The Punter]

It seems to me that you accuse almost everyone earning under $50K is on government tit.

PR is probably sort of correct, considering stuff like the low income tax rebate and family tax benefits.

Having said that, one needs to make a compelling case that it matters. It's from the same school of rhetoric as Andrew Bolt complaining that 1 in 4 Australian employees work for government. He's getting to this number by adding the military, teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers and firefighters.

Governing costs money, and if done correctly, helps everyone.

Now I'm not necessarily opposed to some sort of price trigger, but it has to come in at the right place. Rolling the dice by discouraging people who don't earn much money from going to the doctor is laden with all sorts of risk.

 

[Power Raid]

Too much waffle but as to your last sentence, you can't be seriously surely?
It seems to me that you accuse almost everyone earning under $50K is on government tit.
You really do need to get down from your ivory tower and mix with normal people.

no, I said doctors are on the government tit and protected by a very strong union which has pushed our labour higher than the UK. Addressing that issue will fix the supply side of the problem.

The other side of the problem is demand. Addressing demand by putting a small charge on the service makes people stop and think about going to the doctors unnecessarily. The whole debate about "medical treatment should be free" is wank. We pay for healthy food, we pay for exercise, we pay for preventative treatments.....so why should going to the doctors be free given we value health?

The cost isn't to punish people or stop people going, it is a simple cost to stop the wastage. Labors figures highlighted savings of $18b or $19b could be achieved through reform. The reform agenda wasn't put forward but it does suggest something could and should be done.



Out of interest where did you get the "under $50k" from? Doctors are on much more than that

 

[CbayT]

I don't get the "no tax deductions" bit. what happens if:

an individual is a mortgage broker and earns $100,000 and no expenses; versus
an individual is a potato grower and generate $1m in sales and $900,000 in deductions

using a 30% tax rate the mortgage broker earns $70k after tax and the potato grower earns MINUS $200k ($1m -900k - 300k)

Bad example that's tax deduction vs cost of production.

 

[Power Raid]

Bad example that's tax deduction vs cost of production.

So ou would move away from tax treatment to managerial accounting as a basis for tax?

So COGS would be a deduction but sales, marketing, administration etc wouldn't be deductible?


I can definitely accept silo(ing) rental deductions to rental income the same way as foreign deductions are to foreign income. Effectively containing negative gearing and any overs forming part of the cost base to CGT rather than a deduction to total income.

 

[CbayT]

So ou would move away from tax treatment to managerial accounting as a basis for tax?

So COGS would be a deduction but sales, marketing, administration etc wouldn't be deductible?


I can definitely accept silo(ing) rental deductions to rental income the same way as foreign deductions are to foreign income. Effectively containing negative gearing and any overs forming part of the cost base to CGT rather than a deduction to total income.

Personal tax reductions are not COGS. Think deductions for self education, using your computer for work, home office, cleaning uniform etc. It cost a fortune in the tax system and is not always honest. The biggest dodge is cars on lease the ALP was right to try to get rid of that lurk.

 

[Power Raid]

Personal tax reductions are not COGS. Think deductions for self education, using your computer for work, home office, cleaning uniform etc. It cost a fortune in the tax system and is not always honest. The biggest dodge is cars on lease the ALP was right to try to get rid of that lurk.

So an office is a deduction but not a home office properly apportioned?

A computer is a deduction but not if properly apportioned between work and personal? What happens if a worker uses the office computer to buy something? Does the company loses the deductibility?

 

[CbayT]

So an office is a deduction but not a home office properly apportioned?

A computer is a deduction but not if properly apportioned between work and personal? What happens if a worker uses the office computer to buy something? Does the company loses the deductibility?

You get a lower tax rate to compensate. Its more efficient

 

[Seeds]

The health system is unsustainable. There are people who can pay and people who cannot. You can reduce total costs at either end.

Perhaps private health insurance should cover visits to GPs? We need to explore options, because it is simply unacceptable that people may not have access to the basic levels of health care that our quality of life demands.

I don't really have time for ideological arguments about taxation and stuff like that. It's what is best for the country.

How does the government means test anything? Pretty straightforward really.

The wealthy are the ones who pay for the majority of Medicare and now you don't want them to even be able to use it? If the wealthy cant use it then stop callin it a Medicare fee as its not. Its just a rise in income taxes to give to the poor.

 

[The Punter]

The wealthy are the ones who pay for the majority of Medicare and now you don't want them to even be able to use it? If the wealthy cant use it then stop callin it a Medicare fee as its not. Its just a rise in income taxes to give to the poor.

As a country we need to divorce ourselves from the any idea or part thereof that taxes are a fee for a service, or a bank account to be drawn on later.

Let me rephrase your comment:

The wealthy are the ones with the capacity to fund the basic level of health care that we as a society demand, and as they can and quite often do pay for their own access to the best health care, then it may be advisable to limit their access to the safety net version of health care. If the wealthy are unable to access Medicare call it something else to inflame opinion. It's just a confirmation of current levels of taxation to provide a basic level of health care to those who are unable to pay for their own care.

 

[Seeds]

As a country we need to divorce ourselves from the any idea or part thereof that taxes are a fee for a service, or a bank account to be drawn on later.

Let me rephrase your comment:

That's fine but then we should get rid of Medicare levies and just increase the income tax rate. If you are just taxing income to pay for the welfare of others then lets call it that so the voters are fully aware. If it would inflame voters opinions then it should inflame them. No more trickery.