Put the GST on private health insurance and private schools, not fresh food

Date
    January 8, 2015
    The Age

Food for thought: Health experts have raised fears that applying the GST to fresh food will worsen rates of obesity and chronic disease.

The Abbott government should apply the GST to private health and education, rather than fresh food, if it wants to raise more revenue with the tax, according to research from think tank The Australia Institute.

That would help to raise an extra $2.3 billion a year, and it would be less regressive than applying the GST to fresh food because it would affect predominantly middle- and high-income households.   :)

The Abbott government has kickstarted debate on raising the GST this week with Country Liberal MP Dan Tehan saying the tax should be broadened to cover items such as fresh food, education and health.   :(


Country Liberal MP Dan Tehan sparked debate on raising the GST this week, saying the tax should cover fresh food, education and health.

By broadening the GST it would raise $21.6 billion in extra revenue each year and enable further serious reductions in direct taxes, Mr Tehan has argued.

But health experts have slammed suggestions the GST should apply to fresh food, warning such a change would worsen already alarming rates of obesity and chronic disease.

Australia's farmers have also criticised the move, saying big supermarkets would push the costs onto farming families, and consumers would switch to less healthy and cheaper processed foods.      :(   

In a new paper, called How to Extend the GST without Hurting the Poor, Australia Institute economist Matt Grudnoff has argued that the government could make the GST less regressive while raising more revenue at the same time.

"[And] this could be achieved by removing the GST exemptions for services that are more likely to be consumed by higher-income households," Mr Grudnoff argues.

"The two prime candidates for consideration are private schools and private health insurance."   :)

Drawing on work by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), the paper shows the government would raise an extra $1.5 billion a year from a GST on private health insurance and $790 million from private schools.

Most of that money would come from families living in capital cities, rather than regional areas.

"The criticism of the Abbott government's first budget was that it was unfair," Mr Grudnoff says in the paper.

"Analysis of the budget from a number of different sources, including Treasury, showed that the budget savings were built on taking money from those on lower incomes far more than those on higher incomes."   :(

"A broadening of the GST to include private schools and private health insurance is less likely to be subject to similar criticism, since most of the tax revenue will come from higher-income earners."   ;)

Earlier this week, the Grattan Institute think tank said if the government put a GST on fresh food it would raise an extra $6 billion a year.

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg  suggested recently that the GST should be applied to goods bought from overseas websites that are worth less than $1000, but he has been criticised by members of his own party for doing so.

But Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said on Wednesday that she supported all MPs who wanted to talk about ways to reform the GST.

"I certainly supports MPs for putting forward ideas," Ms Bishop said.

"We should have a constructive, mature debate about our taxation system and that would include the GST."

The executive director of the Institute for Public Affairs, John Roskam, urged the government to drop talk of new taxes and stand up for consumers instead.

"The membership understands the cost pressures on individuals and families and it is a terrible message at the start of 2015 for the federal government to be talking about increasing costs for families and increasing taxes when they should talking about doing the opposite," he said.

Mr Roskam said extending the GST to online purchases - the move flagged by Mr Frydenberg this week - would increase the cost of living for families for little revenue gain.   :(

"It will be a pin-prick to allegedly help save the retailers when they have far bigger problems," Mr Roskam said.

The GST raises about $54 billion in revenue for the federal government each year, before being distributed to the states.

Extend the gst on nothing you lying grubs! The people are sick of your lies and if you want to change anything make it policy and take to an election so the people can decide. >:( >:(

wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 5:05am:

Put the GST on private health insurance and private schools, not fresh food

that'll never happen with a liberal govt. ... they only want taxes that OTHER people pay

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:01am:

wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 5:05am: Put the GST on private health insurance and private schools, not fresh food that'll never happen with a liberal govt. ... they only want taxes that OTHER people pay

Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only.

I believe that we have a long held commitment from the conservatives including Tony Abbott to not increase the GST on anything.

This is the problem you get when you elect someone to be PM when you know that his word has no value.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:14am:

Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only

rich people don't like to pay any more than they have to . ..... especially taxes

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:17am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:14am: Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only rich people don't like to pay any more than they have to . ..... especially taxes

They virtually don't actually pay any taxes. For many their income is zero.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:21am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:14am: Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only rich people don't like to pay any more than they have to . ..... especially taxes They virtually don't actually pay any taxes. For many their income is zero.

been denunked multiple times but you have turned into such an ignorant dolt, you cannot learn.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:45am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:21am: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:14am: Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only rich people don't like to pay any more than they have to . ..... especially taxes They virtually don't actually pay any taxes. For many their income is zero. been denunked multiple times but you have turned into such an ignorant dolt, you cannot learn.

Only when you show that the rich are on $70K.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:57am:

Only when you show that the rich are on $70K.

Someone on $70K is rich compared to someone on $35K.... ;D

Twice as rich...

A single person on $88Kpa must be rich these days according to the Govt as that's when the Medicare Levy Surcharge kicks in?

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:01am:

wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 5:05am: Put the GST on private health insurance and private schools, not fresh food that'll never happen with a liberal govt. ... they only want taxes that OTHER people pay

That's complete rot.  It's Leftists that want to live out of everyone else's pocket.

The GST should be levied on everything then there'd be no arguments.

It doesn't seem to matter how often we explain things to you people, you just don't get it do you.

To the extent that you disincentivise private education and private health insurance, to that extent you put extra burdens on the public systems.
A lot of the people who pay for these products - many, many people - are on low to medium incomes and make sacrifices to exercise their choice.
But at the same time, their marginal propensity to opt out is high.

Quote:

Drawing on work by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), the paper shows the government would raise an extra $1.5 billion a year from a GST on private health insurance and $790 million from private schools.

A similar amount can be saved by trimming the fat of the private health insurance rebate from 30% to 20%.

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

Quote: Drawing on work by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), the paper shows the government would raise an extra $1.5 billion a year from a GST on private health insurance and $790 million from private schools. A similar amount can be saved by trimming the fat of the private health insurance rebate from 30% to 20%.

Just disolve medicare and all rebates and get everyone to pay their own way in life.  See how you ochlocratic socialists like that one.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:57am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:45am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:21am: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:14am: Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only rich people don't like to pay any more than they have to . ..... especially taxes They virtually don't actually pay any taxes. For many their income is zero. been denunked multiple times but you have turned into such an ignorant dolt, you cannot learn. Only when you show that the rich are on $70K.

it has already been PROVEN that the top 16% pay 63% of income tax.  even a dope like you is going to struggle to deny that.

---

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg

45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates?

They whinge about wealth fare, they whinge about private schools and then whinge about private health insurance rebates?  They whinge about CO2 emissions and Hospital beds, and level crossings and paramedics etc etc etc til the cows come home....

How dare the Govt that us 45.9% of income earners that only pay 3.7% of the cost for spend the 96.3% of other people's taxes on anything but them?  ;D ;D ;D

They call the so-called rich selfish?  ::)

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? They whinge about wealth fare, they whinge about private schools and then whinge about private health insurance rebates?  They whinge about CO2 emissions and Hospital beds, and level crossings and paramedics etc etc etc til the cows come home.... How dare the Govt that us 45.9% of income earners that only pay 3.7% of the cost for spend the 96.3% of other people's taxes on anything but them?  ;D ;D ;D They call the so-called rich selfish?  ::)

well said but they will never understand it.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:15am:

It doesn't seem to matter how often we explain things to you people, you just don't get it do you. To the extent that you disincentivise private education and private health insurance, to that extent you put extra burdens on the public systems.

The modelling says otherwise.

Quote:

Abolishing the private health insurance rebate could save the budget $3 billion a year, dwarfing the savings that would be generated by introducing a $6 fee for GP visits, according to a think tank.

Quote:

The 30 per cent private health insurance rebate was introduced in 1999. Its annual cost has risen faster than any other component of government health spending, from $1.4 billion in 1999-2000 to $5.5 billion in 2012-13. A Grattan Institute analysis predicts removing the rebate would increase demand for public hospital services by between $1.5 billion and $3.8 billion a year, but suggests the increase would be at the lower end of the range because the Medicare Levy Surcharge (paid by middle and high-income earners who do not have private cover) and the Lifetime Cover policy (a penalty on those who first take out private cover after the age of 30) would provide incentives for people to keep their insurance. The institute settles on an estimate of $2.5 billion in extra public hospital costs, projecting that scrapping the rebate would produce a net saving of $3 billion.

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:11am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:01am: wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 5:05am: Put the GST on private health insurance and private schools, not fresh food that'll never happen with a liberal govt. ... they only want taxes that OTHER people pay That's complete rot.  It's Leftists that want to live out of everyone else's pocket. The GST should be levied on everything then there'd be no arguments.

then why don't you propose gst on private health and education? rot my arse

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 10:14am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:57am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:45am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:21am: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:14am: Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only rich people don't like to pay any more than they have to . ..... especially taxes They virtually don't actually pay any taxes. For many their income is zero. been denunked multiple times but you have turned into such an ignorant dolt, you cannot learn. Only when you show that the rich are on $70K. it has already been PROVEN that the top 16% pay 63% of income tax.  even a dope like you is going to struggle to deny that.

That is the top 16% of PAYE earners basically and goes down to incomes of around $70K.

Many of the truly wealthy put in returns of virtually zero and appear in the same data as being poor and required to pay no tax at all.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 10:14am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:57am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:45am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:21am: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:17am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:14am: Not sure I agree, like with education many conservatives like to force the price up to keep the rabble out and to insure that it is an exclusive service for the benefit of their people only rich people don't like to pay any more than they have to . ..... especially taxes They virtually don't actually pay any taxes. For many their income is zero. been denunked multiple times but you have turned into such an ignorant dolt, you cannot learn. Only when you show that the rich are on $70K. it has already been PROVEN that the top 16% pay 63% of income tax.  even a dope like you is going to struggle to deny that.

the comment was that the RICH pay all the taxes ....  up to $180 k is NOT rich.

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates?

Why do you insist on posting lies?

As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot.

Stop lying.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? They whinge about wealth fare, they whinge about private schools and then whinge about private health insurance rebates?  They whinge about CO2 emissions and Hospital beds, and level crossings and paramedics etc etc etc til the cows come home.... How dare the Govt that us 45.9% of income earners that only pay 3.7% of the cost for spend the 96.3% of other people's taxes on anything but them?  ;D ;D ;D They call the so-called rich selfish?  ::) well said but they will never understand it.

This BS has been significantly debunked. It is rubbish.

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:23pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:15am: It doesn't seem to matter how often we explain things to you people, you just don't get it do you. To the extent that you disincentivise private education and private health insurance, to that extent you put extra burdens on the public systems. The modelling says otherwise. Quote: Abolishing the private health insurance rebate could save the budget $3 billion a year, dwarfing the savings that would be generated by introducing a $6 fee for GP visits, according to a think tank. [quote]The 30 per cent private health insurance rebate was introduced in 1999. Its annual cost has risen faster than any other component of government health spending, from $1.4 billion in 1999-2000 to $5.5 billion in 2012-13. A Grattan Institute analysis predicts removing the rebate would increase demand for public hospital services by between $1.5 billion and $3.8 billion a year, but suggests the increase would be at the lower end of the range because the Medicare Levy Surcharge (paid by middle and high-income earners who do not have private cover) and the Lifetime Cover policy (a penalty on those who first take out private cover after the age of 30) would provide incentives for people to keep their insurance. The institute settles on an estimate of $2.5 billion in extra public hospital costs, projecting that scrapping the rebate would produce a net saving of $3 billion.

[/quote]

but if you remove the rebate you would also be ethically required to remove the other part of that policy which was the lifetime cover requirement.  That would make the savings smaller.

and as someone who teaches modelling in an area of science that is far more precise than this, taking modelling as gospel is dangerous.  REmember all the treasury models of the last ten years that missed by truly astronomical margins?

Your wish to remove the rebate is purely ideological - not financial.  With families already paying $4000 a year in private health after the rebate  do you think cash-strapped families will continue to do so when you ad another $1500pa to it?

Private health - like private education - SAVES the govt money and has been well understood for a long time.  There are bigger savings to be made right across govt expenditure before cutting your own fiscal throat like this.

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:22am:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:18am: Quote: Drawing on work by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), the paper shows the government would raise an extra $1.5 billion a year from a GST on private health insurance and $790 million from private schools. A similar amount can be saved by trimming the fat of the private health insurance rebate from 30% to 20%. Just disolve medicare and all rebates and get everyone to pay their own way in life.  See how you ochlocratic socialists like that one.

I see you like inflicting needless pain and suffering on millions of people just so you can steal a few more dollars for yourself out of the public purse.

You're one of those conservatives who are obsessed with the price of everything and have no concept of value.

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:30pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? Why do you insist on posting lies? As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot. Stop lying.

Lying?  ::) the figures quoted are the ATO's data from actual tax returns.

Feel free to tabulate your indirect tax data to try and back up your lame rebutal 'argument' if you can.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 11:53am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? They whinge about wealth fare, they whinge about private schools and then whinge about private health insurance rebates?  They whinge about CO2 emissions and Hospital beds, and level crossings and paramedics etc etc etc til the cows come home.... How dare the Govt that us 45.9% of income earners that only pay 3.7% of the cost for spend the 96.3% of other people's taxes on anything but them?  ;D ;D ;D They call the so-called rich selfish?  ::) well said but they will never understand it. This BS has been significantly debunked. It is rubbish.

hmm I am interested in how you think ATO/ABS figures on ACTUAL TAX RECEIPTS can even be debunked?

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:22am: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:18am: Quote: Drawing on work by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), the paper shows the government would raise an extra $1.5 billion a year from a GST on private health insurance and $790 million from private schools. A similar amount can be saved by trimming the fat of the private health insurance rebate from 30% to 20%. Just disolve medicare and all rebates and get everyone to pay their own way in life.  See how you ochlocratic socialists like that one. I see you like inflicting needless pain and suffering on millions of people just so you can steal a few more dollars for yourself out of the public purse. You're one of those conservatives who are obsessed with the price of everything and have no concept of value.

I not inflicting needless pain and suffering on anyone as I'm just making a point.

You're the advocate for legalised armed robbery and slavery (AKA - progressive taxation).... :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:26pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:11am: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:01am: wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 5:05am: Put the GST on private health insurance and private schools, not fresh food that'll never happen with a liberal govt. ... they only want taxes that OTHER people pay That's complete rot.  It's Leftists that want to live out of everyone else's pocket. The GST should be levied on everything then there'd be no arguments. then why don't you propose gst on private health and education? rot my arse

I just did Smithy...........and you'd better see the Quack about your arse rot ;D ;D ;D....I certainly can't help you there  :D ;D ;D

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:26pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:11am: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:01am: wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 5:05am: Put the GST on private health insurance and private schools, not fresh food that'll never happen with a liberal govt. ... they only want taxes that OTHER people pay That's complete rot.  It's Leftists that want to live out of everyone else's pocket. The GST should be levied on everything then there'd be no arguments. then why don't you propose gst on private health and education? rot my arse I just did Smithy...........and you'd better see the Quack about your arse rot ;D ;D ;D....I certainly can't help you there  :D ;D ;D

so you did ... sorry, missed it  ... I'm betting you'd be in the minority with that.

so just to sum up...

DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts.

I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:33pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:23pm: but if you remove the rebate you would also be ethically required to remove the other part of that policy which was the lifetime cover requirement.  That would make the savings smaller. and as someone who teaches modelling in an area of science that is far more precise than this,

I doubt it, you have claimed to work in numerous occupations in the past few years.


Quote:

Your wish to remove the rebate is purely ideological - not financial.

Rubbish - it's the fastest-growing area of health expenditure. Why shouldn't it be trimmed or abolished?

YOUR wish to keep it - not even to touch it - is ideological, and the only way your view would change would be if the Liberal party were to change its view.


Quote:

With families already paying $4000 a year in private health after the rebate  do you think cash-strapped families will continue to do so when you ad another $1500pa to it?

If they're cash strapped, they would be looking to ditch it regardless. A poor argument.


Quote:

Private health - like private education - SAVES the govt money and has been well understood for a long time.

No it doesn't. That's just Liberal-party ideological nonsense without the slightest shred of proof. I notice you haven't posted any links.


Quote:

There are bigger savings to be made right across govt expenditure before cutting your own fiscal throat like this.

Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals. Then abolish corporate welfare such as the diesel fuel rebate (but change the law so biodiesel isn't taxed), direct action and other corporate welfare. We could cut nearly $100 billion from the budget without difficulty by cutting all this fat from the top end. We can then use the proceeds of this necessary levelling of the taxation field to eliminate the deficit and pay down debt, and put the rest into some tax cuts, such as lowering the company tax rate to 25% and raising the tax-free threshold to the level of the minimum wage (so all income earners benefit from tax cuts).

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals

now longie will come out and say that you are targetting the rich, and those measures aren't 'fair'.  :D :D :D :D :D

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:33pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:23pm: but if you remove the rebate you would also be ethically required to remove the other part of that policy which was the lifetime cover requirement.  That would make the savings smaller. and as someone who teaches modelling in an area of science that is far more precise than this, I doubt it, you have claimed to work in numerous occupations in the past few years. Quote: Your wish to remove the rebate is purely ideological - not financial. Rubbish - it's the fastest-growing area of health expenditure. Why shouldn't it be trimmed or abolished? YOUR wish to keep it - not even to touch it - is ideological, and the only way your view would change would be if the Liberal party were to change its view. [quote]With families already paying $4000 a year in private health after the rebate  do you think cash-strapped families will continue to do so when you ad another $1500pa to it?

If they're cash strapped, they would be looking to ditch it regardless. A poor argument.


Quote:

Private health - like private education - SAVES the govt money and has been well understood for a long time.

No it doesn't. That's just Liberal-party ideological nonsense without the slightest shred of proof. I notice you haven't posted any links.


Quote:

There are bigger savings to be made right across govt expenditure before cutting your own fiscal throat like this.

Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals. Then abolish corporate welfare such as the diesel fuel rebate (but change the law so biodiesel isn't taxed), direct action and other corporate welfare. We could cut nearly $100 billion from the budget without difficulty by cutting all this fat from the top end. We can then use the proceeds of this necessary levelling of the taxation field to eliminate the deficit and pay down debt, and put the rest into some tax cuts, such as lowering the company tax rate to 25% and raising the tax-free threshold to the level of the minimum wage (so all income earners benefit from tax cuts).
[/quote]


and tell me what you think the result of all that would be?  do you think it would have zero effect on the economy?  go on. I am serious.  look at all theos policies and tell me if you think any of them would have a negative impact on the economy.

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:30pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? Why do you insist on posting lies? As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot. Stop lying. Lying?  ::) the figures quoted are the ATO's data from actual tax returns.

And that's why it's a lie. You're crapping on about "tax" but totally failing to mention that "tax" includes indirect tax - a lie by omission.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:19pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:18pm: Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals now longie will come out and say that you are targetting the rich, and those measures aren't 'fair'.  :D :D :D :D :D

of COURSE he is targetting the 'rich'. do you see a SINGLE  proposal there that is not purely targeted at them?

Longie:

"Your wish to remove the rebate is purely ideological - not financial.  With families already paying $4000 a year in private health after the rebate  do you think cash-strapped families will continue to do so when you ad another $1500pa to it?

Private health - like private education - SAVES the govt money and has been well understood for a long time.  There are bigger savings to be made right across govt expenditure before cutting your own fiscal throat like this."

The comment about it being "ideological" is the crux of the matter.
So many on the left are consumed by hatred, suspicion & envy of all things private that they would cut of their nose to spite their face.
They don't really care if the health and education systems crash about their ears as long as it becomes one long grey line for everybody.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:18pm: Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals now longie will come out and say that you are targetting the rich, and those measures aren't 'fair'.  :D :D :D :D :D of COURSE he is targetting the 'rich'. do you see a SINGLE  proposal there that is not purely targeted at them?

Australia's richest 1% own more wealth than 60% of population ... so yes, we target the 1%. you want equal when it's time to pay the taxes, but cry whenever some low income earner merely wants to 'equal' wages to any of those in the higher income brackets  ... you can't have it both ways.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:18pm: Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals now longie will come out and say that you are targetting the rich, and those measures aren't 'fair'.  :D :D :D :D :D of COURSE he is targetting the 'rich'. do you see a SINGLE  proposal there that is not purely targeted at them?

The whole tax system targets the (socalled) Rich.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

Private health - like private education - SAVES the govt money and has been well understood for a long time

no, the right have been claiming that for a long time, but no one has ever proven it

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:18pm: Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals now longie will come out and say that you are targetting the rich, and those measures aren't 'fair'.  :D :D :D :D :D of COURSE he is targetting the 'rich'. do you see a SINGLE  proposal there that is not purely targeted at them? The whole tax system targets the (socalled) Rich.

to target those without the money to pay tax is like asking a bull for milk ......  :D :D :D of course you target the 'rich'

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:23pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:41pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:30pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? Why do you insist on posting lies? As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot. Stop lying. Lying?  ::) the figures quoted are the ATO's data from actual tax returns. And that's why it's a lie. You're crapping on about "tax" but totally failing to mention that "tax" includes indirect tax - a lie by omission.

Not at all, I invited you to table your indirect tax data in Reply# 26  :-?


Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:

Feel free to tabulate your indirect tax data to try and back up your lame rebutal 'argument' if you can.

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:27pm:

Longie: "Your wish to remove the rebate is purely ideological - not financial.  With families already paying $4000 a year in private health after the rebate  do you think cash-strapped families will continue to do so when you ad another $1500pa to it? Private health - like private education - SAVES the govt money and has been well understood for a long time.  There are bigger savings to be made right across govt expenditure before cutting your own fiscal throat like this." The comment about it being "ideological" is the crux of the matter. So many on the left are consumed by hatred, suspicion & envy of all things private that they would cut of their nose to spite their face. They don't really care if the health and education systems crash about their ears as long as it becomes one long grey line for everybody.

the private health rebate is a real problem for ideological lefties just as is private school funding.  but the facts are that in the case of private schools, it is irrefutable that it saves the govt around $10B a year.  Private health is less clear because it is far cheaper than private schools but it remains true that private health keeps a lot of people out of already-overcrowded public hospitals. That alone is enough to support keeping it.  Yes, it is a fast growing cost but so is healthcare in general.  Like it or not, healthcare is a very expensive line item that is going to continue to rise well above inflation.  But if we want to keep costs in line we have to jettison ideology and embrace a degree of pragmatism.  The health rebate keeps a lot of people in the private system and whats more, the lifetime cover policy ensures that once they leave, they aint coming back and a generation of public health patients is created.

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:23pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:41pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:30pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? Why do you insist on posting lies? As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot. Stop lying. Lying?  ::) the figures quoted are the ATO's data from actual tax returns. And that's why it's a lie. You're crapping on about "tax" but totally failing to mention that "tax" includes indirect tax - a lie by omission.

since it was an argument on INCOME TAX and not total tax then you are wrong.

but indirect tax - largely GST - is also predominantly related to income.  Earn more, spend more, pay more GST.  a pretty obvious correlation that few would reject and none could refute.

Like it or not, the majority of taxes are made disproportionately by higher income earners.  Now just to be clear, I don't think that is unfair, but I get rather sick of the denials that it isn't true or that 'the rich' aren't paying their way.

Lets have a taxtion debate based on some actual facts, not ideological wannabe drivel.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:30pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:27pm: Private health - like private education - SAVES the govt money and has been well understood for a long time no, the right have been claiming that for a long time, but no one has ever proven it

It's been shown plenty of times Smithy.

If just one privately insured individual is treated in a private hospital (or indeed a public hospital in certain circumstances) it is saving the Government money by providing a service that the Government would otherwise had to pay for, AND it also provides an extra public hospital bed for public use.

As far as private schooling goes the concept is very similar. 

Private schools educate about 35% of children with 22c in the Govt education dollar.

In 2012

Govt (States & Fed) spent $36.5B to educate 2.3M public school kids or $15.869K per head.

Govt (State & Fed) spent $10.2B to educate 1.2M non-Govt school kids or $8.5K per head.

$46.7B in total

Savings to Govt should it have had to pay to educate the Non-Govt school children is $7.4K per head

$7.4K x 1.2M non-govt schoolkids = $8.8 Billion Dollars

Sourced

Govt saved $8.8 Billion dollars in 2011-12 due to the existence of Private schools.

:-?

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/bump.gif

your source is the private school industry. It'sd not like their likely to be biased is it? I've never seen anything from anyone other than the private schools themselves that show that funding private schools saves the govt. money.

If you pulled all funding, sure a lot of those kids will end up in the public system, but not all ... it is the difference that needs to be looked at. The rich will always pay for private schools, no matter what they cost. You think Packer will send his kids to school with the common folk?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:18pm: Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals now longie will come out and say that you are targetting the rich, and those measures aren't 'fair'.  :D :D :D :D :D of COURSE he is targetting the 'rich'. do you see a SINGLE  proposal there that is not purely targeted at them?

All of those would apply to me and I am not rich.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

your source is the private school industry. It'sd not like their likely to be biased is it? I've never seen anything from anyone other than the private schools themselves that show that funding private schools saves the govt. money. If you pulled all funding, sure a lot of those kids will end up in the public system, but not all ... it is the difference that needs to be looked at. The rich will always pay for private schools, no matter what they cost. You think Packer will send his kids to school with the common folk?

and this will always be your argument on anything you don't like.  just deny the figures, claim bias, close your eyes and ignore it.

bottom line figures as provide by the education dept itself along with ABS and a few others show that the govts of all levels combined contribute 30% LESS per private student than public.  It is a saving of around $10Bpa to the govt.

not the word bolded - COMBINED.  if you go to the education union they will happily tell you that the feds contribute vastly more to private ed than public schools.  what they very conveniently forget is that public schools are overwhelmingly funded by state govts which get their money from the feds and that private schools are only funded federally.  Amazing what creative stats can do.


okay loser smithy, disprove the above.  Bet ya cant. or that you will even try.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:

so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them?

Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:20pm:

If you pulled all funding, sure a lot of those kids will end up in the public system, but not all

Yes not all I agree, but even if just one non-Govt school kid transferred to a public school it would cost the public system an extra $7.4K based upon those numbers anyway.

Your ideological argument is that private health and private schools do not save the Govt "any" money.

Again as with Bam's ideological indirect tax argument....feel free to provide your own sourced rebutal data to back up your claim?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:35pm:

and this will always be your argument on anything you don't like.  just deny the figures, claim bias, close your eyes and ignore it.

rubbish ... my argument is that I have never seen any figures supporting the claim other than those supplied by the private school industry themselves. If you have other figures, share ... otherwise bugger off and go comment on a thread on geese, it's the only thing you have any knowledge off

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

Yes not all I agree, but even if just one non-Govt school kid transferred to a public school it would cost the public system an extra $7.4K based upon those numbers anyway.Your ideological argument is that private health and private schools do not save the Govt "any" money.Again as with Bam's ideological indirect tax argument....feel free to provide your own sourced rebutal data to back up your claim?

thats my whole point ...I've never seen any other data on this other than that provided by private schools, despite this topic coming up almost every other month. Surely if it were independenty verified someone would have found it by now?

Your claim about one school costing 7.4k ... how can you make that claim without knowing the number of students in the school? Some schools have 2000 students, others have 200 . These figures sound very convenient to me.

John Smith wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:16pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:37pm: Yes not all I agree, but even if just one non-Govt school kid transferred to a public school it would cost the public system an extra $7.4K based upon those numbers anyway.Your ideological argument is that private health and private schools do not save the Govt "any" money.Again as with Bam's ideological indirect tax argument....feel free to provide your own sourced rebutal data to back up your claim? thats my whole point ...I've never seen any other data on this other than that provided by private schools, despite this topic coming up almost every other month. Surely if it were independenty verified someone would have found it by now? Your claim about one school costing 7.4k ... how can you make that claim without knowing the number of students in the school? Some schools have 2000 students, others have 200 . These figures sound very convenient to me.

The figures per student are based on the total funding divided by the total number of students. It doesn't mean that an extra student will cost that - you'll find that a single extra student probably costs the system not more than a three figure sum, not thousands.

Get an extra 40 of them in the one school area and that's when they're each going to start costing nearer the figure in the thousands - once more infrastructure and staff has to be added to the equation. With greater numbers then you'll have to add admin staff, more infrastructure etc - and then the figure will be even closer.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:09pm: so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them? Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results.

so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???  it is a very simple interpretation.  In fact, it isn't even an interpretation at all it is simple reading off a table.

and DNA runs away yet again...

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

The figures per student are based on the total funding divided by the total number of students. It doesn't mean that an extra student will cost that - you'll find that a single extra student probably costs the system not more than a three figure sum, not thousands. Get an extra 40 of them in the one school area and that's when they're each going to start costing nearer the figure in the thousands - once more infrastructure and staff has to be added to the equation. With greater numbers then you'll have to add admin staff, more infrastructure etc - and then the figure will be even closer.

cheers.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???

no, if that was what you said ... but you didn't, you said the rich pay ALL  the tax :D :D :D :D

Life_goes_on wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:16pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:37pm: Yes not all I agree, but even if just one non-Govt school kid transferred to a public school it would cost the public system an extra $7.4K based upon those numbers anyway.Your ideological argument is that private health and private schools do not save the Govt "any" money.Again as with Bam's ideological indirect tax argument....feel free to provide your own sourced rebutal data to back up your claim? thats my whole point ...I've never seen any other data on this other than that provided by private schools, despite this topic coming up almost every other month. Surely if it were independenty verified someone would have found it by now? Your claim about one school costing 7.4k ... how can you make that claim without knowing the number of students in the school? Some schools have 2000 students, others have 200 . These figures sound very convenient to me. The figures per student are based on the total funding divided by the total number of students. It doesn't mean that an extra student will cost that - you'll find that a single extra student probably costs the system not more than a three figure sum, not thousands. Get an extra 40 of them in the one school area and that's when they're each going to start costing nearer the figure in the thousands - once more infrastructure and staff has to be added to the equation. With greater numbers then you'll have to add admin staff, more infrastructure etc - and then the figure will be even closer.

What about 1.2 million kids?  Do you think public education costs would increase somewhat?   :-?

The argument is that private schooling saves the Govt money?

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 6:17pm:

What about 1.2 million kids?

to answer that I think you first have to know how many will switch to the public system if funding is pulled. The govt spends many hundreds of millions subsidising private schools. Many of these kids could go to existing schools without a huge increase in funding to those schools

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 2:00pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:23pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:41pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:30pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? Why do you insist on posting lies? As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot. Stop lying. Lying?  ::) the figures quoted are the ATO's data from actual tax returns. And that's why it's a lie. You're crapping on about "tax" but totally failing to mention that "tax" includes indirect tax - a lie by omission. since it was an argument on INCOME TAX and not total tax then you are wrong.

It is you who are wrong, and you should learn to read.


Quote:

45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax

"Tax". Not "Income tax".

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 1:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:19pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:18pm: Ok, let's abolish negative gearing, FBT concessions, capital gains tax concessions, dividend imputation, concessions on superannuation and other similar expenditure. Then we go after all the tax concessions and loopholes that companies use to lower their tax, especially foreign multinationals now longie will come out and say that you are targetting the rich, and those measures aren't 'fair'.  :D :D :D :D :D of COURSE he is targetting the 'rich'. do you see a SINGLE  proposal there that is not purely targeted at them?

Your point being?

People on more modest incomes have been targeted for years, whenever the conservatives decide to cut spending they chop at the bottom, and when they spend - as they always do - they give it to the top. Even when Labor governments make modest cuts at the top - like the means test for private health insurance rebate - how the Liberals howl! And as soon as the Liberals got back in, they promptly bring the measures back even though it is funded with borrowed money. Budget emergency, oh really?

What we really need in this country is a horror budget brought down by a Labor government to rein in some of the largesse handed out at the top by conservative governments over the past 20 years, especially to corporations. Some of this money can then be used to simplify the tax system and bring tax cuts. I doubt we would see this; the Labor party are not much less beholden to corporate vested interests than the Coalition. They're going to need a massive landslide win before they have the courage to act in the national interest.

I also notice that I was quoted out of context and the bit where I specifically said tax cuts was deleted; obviously the full argument was too hard to refute.

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

"Tax". Not "Income tax".

The linked table and therefore commentary was obviously all about 'income tax' returns. 

There's no denying the 'income tax' data.  45.9% of income earners pay only 3.7% of total income tax. 

I'm still waiting on your indirect tax data backing up your counter claims Bam?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 4:46pm:

and DNA runs away yet again...

Made dinner took the dog for a walk and watched some TV then my wife was on my computer for a while, didn't realise that you had me on a clock. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:09pm: so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them? Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results. so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???  it is a very simple interpretation.  In fact, it isn't even an interpretation at all it is simple reading off a table.

Saying that people who earn $80K are the wealthy is wrong.

People who earn 80K and above pay 63% of the tax means that many middle income earners need to be included to get that number which makes the claim that the wealthy pay all the tax clearly incorrect. Further the fact that many of the truly wealthy end up being defined as among the poor for the purposes of this data further distorts the picture.

The number you quote is the number from the table - what it really means is not much.

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:48pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm: "Tax". Not "Income tax". The linked table and therefore commentary was obviously all about 'income tax' returns.  There's no denying the 'income tax' data.  45.9% of income earners pay only 3.7% of total income tax.  I'm still waiting on your indirect tax data backing up your counter claims Bam?

45.9% of income earners pay only 3.7% of total income tax. 


$6,000 or less pay no tax - almost a million people.

up to $37,000 pay 15c in the Dollar over $6000.  4.8 million

About 5.7 Million low income earners make up about 45.9% of PAYE tax payers.

Does this fact really have much meaning  except that we have way too many people earning way too little money.

If you want to tax them more it is really simple just pay them more.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:28pm:

The number you quote is the number from the table - what it really means is not much.

It means that 16% of income earners pay a whopping 63% of income tax.  That's not "not much".

Whether one brands them 'rich' or not is irrelevant.  Whatever you call them it doesn't alter the fact that they pay way over their fair share of tax.

The other 84% of income earners shouldn't be whinging about 'wealth-fare' or 'private health insurance rebates' or 'private school funding' and the budget because they are already getting the lion's share of the government benefits.  They should be kissing the 16%'s bum not bashing them with insults.

All you Lefties carrying on like pork chops about the 'unfairness' of the budget are a friggin joke.  The actuality is that the 84% are unfairly ripping off the 16% who cannot do anything about it because they are a minority and virtually unrepresented in Parliament. They are slaves of the mob.  Forced to work and pay for the Mob's expenses by the rigged ballot box, our warped democracy.   >:(

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:48pm:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm: "Tax". Not "Income tax". The linked table and therefore commentary was obviously all about 'income tax' returns.  There's no denying the 'income tax' data.  45.9% of income earners pay only 3.7% of total income tax.  I'm still waiting on your indirect tax data backing up your counter claims Bam?

http://i.imgur.com/LRqbZI0.png
This is why wealthy conservatives LOVE to talk about increasing the GST. The poor would be hardest hit by any increase to the GST. It is a regressive tax.

 
Bam wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:54am:

This is why wealthy conservatives LOVE to talk about increasing the GST. The poor would be hardest hit by any increase to the GST. It is a regressive tax.

The poor receive the benefits from taxation.

We have taxation so that income is redistributed to the poor.

Any taxation regressive or progressive benifits the poor.

Regressive taxes also collect revenue from criminals, black marketeers, tax cheats (AKA The Black Economy) to the benefit of income tax payers.

Regressive taxes benefit all citizens.

The MYTH that regressive taxes are bad is extreme Leftist propaganda.

Proportion of income?  What proportion of the income of the poor is redistributed tax?

At the end of the day the only thing "poor" is your argument.... ;D :D

Bam wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:00pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:23pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:41pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:30pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? Why do you insist on posting lies? As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot. Stop lying. Lying?  ::) the figures quoted are the ATO's data from actual tax returns. And that's why it's a lie. You're crapping on about "tax" but totally failing to mention that "tax" includes indirect tax - a lie by omission. since it was an argument on INCOME TAX and not total tax then you are wrong. It is you who are wrong, and you should learn to read. Quote: 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax "Tax". Not "Income tax".

since you want to play the pedantic game, the term 'income' was used in the sentence thus very strongly implying that the tax being referred to was income tax. In fact if he were referring to anything other than income tax basic literacy would demand that he say that.

Bam wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:54am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:48pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm: "Tax". Not "Income tax". The linked table and therefore commentary was obviously all about 'income tax' returns.  There's no denying the 'income tax' data.  45.9% of income earners pay only 3.7% of total income tax.  I'm still waiting on your indirect tax data backing up your counter claims Bam? http://i.imgur.com/LRqbZI0.png This is why wealthy conservatives LOVE to talk about increasing the GST. The poor would be hardest hit by any increase to the GST. It is a regressive tax.

and if the y axis was in dollars the result would be the complete opposite.  and GST is collected in dollars.  welfare is distributed in dollars not % of income.


great statistic as long as you use it properly - which you do not.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:09pm: so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them? Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results. so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???  it is a very simple interpretation.  In fact, it isn't even an interpretation at all it is simple reading off a table. Saying that people who earn $80K are the wealthy is wrong. People who earn 80K and above pay 63% of the tax means that many middle income earners need to be included to get that number which makes the claim that the wealthy pay all the tax clearly incorrect. Further the fact that many of the truly wealthy end up being defined as among the poor for the purposes of this data further distorts the picture. The number you quote is the number from the table - what it really means is not much.

its not about 'wealthy',  it is saying the top 16% pay 63% of tax and you abject refusal to even accept it.

Swagman wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:03am:

Bam wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:54am: This is why wealthy conservatives LOVE to talk about increasing the GST. The poor would be hardest hit by any increase to the GST. It is a regressive tax. The poor receive the benefits from taxation. We have taxation so that income is redistributed to the poor. Any taxation regressive or progressive benifits the poor. Regressive taxes also collect revenue from criminals, black marketeers, tax cheats (AKA The Black Economy) to the benefit of income tax payers. Regressive taxes benefit all citizens. The MYTH that regressive taxes are bad is extreme Leftist propaganda. Proportion of income?  What proportion of the income of the poor is redistributed tax? At the end of the day the only thing "poor" is your argument.... ;D :D

the other myth is that GST is regressive.  Progressive taxes have progressively increasing rates as dollar value increase.  Regressive taxes have LOWER rates as dollar value increase.  the GST is neither.  it is a FLAT TAX ie neither progressive nor regressive.

Now watch the mathematically ignorant lefties claim otherwise.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:09pm: so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them? Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results. so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???  it is a very simple interpretation.  In fact, it isn't even an interpretation at all it is simple reading off a table. Saying that people who earn $80K are the wealthy is wrong. People who earn 80K and above pay 63% of the tax means that many middle income earners need to be included to get that number which makes the claim that the wealthy pay all the tax clearly incorrect. Further the fact that many of the truly wealthy end up being defined as among the poor for the purposes of this data further distorts the picture. The number you quote is the number from the table - what it really means is not much. its not about 'wealthy',  it is saying the top 16% pay 63% of tax and you abject refusal to even accept it.

I never said that I don't accept it just that it does not mean a lot. It isn't difficult to work out that the people who earn the most will pay the most tax, its not rocket science just look at the tax tables.
The concerning thing about the data is that about 5 Million people earn under $37K. which is around 45%.

The reason that the top 16% pay so big a percentage of tax is because the bottom 45% don't earn enough to pay a very significant amount of tax and yet the big effort by business and government is to restrict the wage growth for the lowest paid. As shown by these numbers the wage moderation at the low end has been a huge success.

45% of employees earn under $37K.

Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:48am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:09pm: so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them? Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results. so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???  it is a very simple interpretation.  In fact, it isn't even an interpretation at all it is simple reading off a table. Saying that people who earn $80K are the wealthy is wrong. People who earn 80K and above pay 63% of the tax means that many middle income earners need to be included to get that number which makes the claim that the wealthy pay all the tax clearly incorrect. Further the fact that many of the truly wealthy end up being defined as among the poor for the purposes of this data further distorts the picture. The number you quote is the number from the table - what it really means is not much. its not about 'wealthy',  it is saying the top 16% pay 63% of tax and you abject refusal to even accept it.

its not about 'wealthy',


So you have finally conceded that point.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ?

Yes they should.  Everyone should.  It's really an easy fix.  If all sectors had a small increase it would have to go a long way to alleviating the revenue problems.  The rich would still shoulder the lion's share but at least the poor would contribute a smidgeon to their own expenses.

That's the stupidity of politicians.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:48am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:09pm: so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them? Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results. so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???  it is a very simple interpretation.  In fact, it isn't even an interpretation at all it is simple reading off a table. Saying that people who earn $80K are the wealthy is wrong. People who earn 80K and above pay 63% of the tax means that many middle income earners need to be included to get that number which makes the claim that the wealthy pay all the tax clearly incorrect. Further the fact that many of the truly wealthy end up being defined as among the poor for the purposes of this data further distorts the picture. The number you quote is the number from the table - what it really means is not much. its not about 'wealthy',  it is saying the top 16% pay 63% of tax and you abject refusal to even accept it. I never said that I don't accept it just that it does not mean a lot. It isn't difficult to work out that the people who earn the most will pay the most tax, its not rocket science just look at the tax tables. The concerning thing about the data is that about 5 Million people earn under $37K. which is around 45%. The reason that the top 16% pay so big a percentage of tax is because the bottom 45% don't earn enough to pay a very significant amount of tax and yet the big effort by business and government is to restrict the wage growth for the lowest paid. As shown by these numbers the wage moderation at the low end has been a huge success. 45% of employees earn under $37K. Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ?

the point you sidestep has been the long and entertaining battle in getting you and your fellow perennially ignorant posters to even accept the facts.  How do we have a genuine debate on tax issues when you wont even accept the undeniable and irrefutable facts?  This all came out of a claim  - which you denied - that the rich (defined as the top earners) - don't pay much tax.  You still tend to make that claim.

before we can have any real and genuine debate you and the others need to learn to accept actual facts without dispute instead of continually demanding proof for the smallest claim and then denying it once it is given.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:48am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 9:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:09pm: so just to sum up... DNA rejects the ATOs figures on tax receipts. I wonder how anyone proves anything to a person who doesn't believe any figures unless he personally agrees with them? Nothing wrong with the data just how it is interpreted to get the desired results. so saying 16% of people pay 63% of income tax is wrong???  it is a very simple interpretation.  In fact, it isn't even an interpretation at all it is simple reading off a table. Saying that people who earn $80K are the wealthy is wrong. People who earn 80K and above pay 63% of the tax means that many middle income earners need to be included to get that number which makes the claim that the wealthy pay all the tax clearly incorrect. Further the fact that many of the truly wealthy end up being defined as among the poor for the purposes of this data further distorts the picture. The number you quote is the number from the table - what it really means is not much. its not about 'wealthy',  it is saying the top 16% pay 63% of tax and you abject refusal to even accept it. its not about 'wealthy', So you have finally conceded that point.

its never been about wealthy.  You made it that so that you could avoid discussing the topic on point by introducing a subjective definition.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:47am:

Bam wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 10:54am: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:48pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm: "Tax". Not "Income tax". The linked table and therefore commentary was obviously all about 'income tax' returns.  There's no denying the 'income tax' data.  45.9% of income earners pay only 3.7% of total income tax.  I'm still waiting on your indirect tax data backing up your counter claims Bam? http://i.imgur.com/LRqbZI0.png This is why wealthy conservatives LOVE to talk about increasing the GST. The poor would be hardest hit by any increase to the GST. It is a regressive tax. and if the y axis was in dollars the result would be the complete opposite.

Funny how you never mention dollars in incomes. The reason why wealthy people pay more tax is because they earn more money - a point that you and Swag NEVER mention, and handwave away when others mention it.

Low income people have much less money to pay taxes with, and yet pay almost as great a percentage of tax as high-income earners, thanks to indirect taxes. Yet if you and Swag had your way, low-income people would be paying 120% of their incomes in tax and you would still be crying, bleed them for MORE! MORE! MOOOOOORE!!!!!


Quote:

great statistic as long as you use it properly - which you do not.

You have no credibility on the use of statistics. If it came to a difference between you and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the ABS wins. Every time.

Swagman wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ? Yes they should.  Everyone should.  It's really an easy fix.  If all sectors had a small increase it would have to go a long way to alleviating the revenue problems.  The rich would still shoulder the lion's share but at least the poor would contribute a smidgeon to their own expenses.

They already do, Swag, and more than a "smidgeon".

Indirect taxes

http://i.imgur.com/LRqbZI0.png

All taxes

https://mattcowgill.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/taxes-by-quintile.png

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 8:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 2:00pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 1:23pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:41pm: Bam wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 12:30pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 8th, 2015 at 10:57am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? Why do you insist on posting lies? As usual you ignore all indirect taxes, and keep wilfully misrepresenting "income tax" as being the same as "all tax" when you know full well that isn't the case, not by a long shot. Stop lying. Lying?  ::) the figures quoted are the ATO's data from actual tax returns. And that's why it's a lie. You're crapping on about "tax" but totally failing to mention that "tax" includes indirect tax - a lie by omission. since it was an argument on INCOME TAX and not total tax then you are wrong. It is you who are wrong, and you should learn to read. Quote: 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax "Tax". Not "Income tax". since you want to play the pedantic game, the term 'income' was used in the sentence thus very strongly implying that the tax being referred to was income tax. In fact if he were referring to anything other than income tax basic literacy would demand that he say that.

That's basically an admission that you're wrong. You're now making up rubbish based on not what was said, but what you are pretending he said.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 2:48pm:

its never been about wealthy

no, it was 'the RICH' pay ALL the tax  :D :D :D :D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

the term 'income' was used in the sentence thus very strongly implying that the tax being referred to was income tax

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Swagman wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ? Yes they should. That's the stupidity of politicians.

they can't ... they have no extra money to pay in taxes

Swagman wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/crazxy-carnal_004.jpg 45.9% of income earners pay 3.7% of tax and then whinge because 'their' services are being cut and the 'rich' are getting a few miserly tax rebates? They whinge about wealth fare, they whinge about private schools and then whinge about private health insurance rebates?  They whinge about CO2 emissions and Hospital beds, and level crossings and paramedics etc etc etc til the cows come home.... How dare the Govt that us 45.9% of income earners that only pay 3.7% of the cost for spend the 96.3% of other people's taxes on anything but them?  They call the so-called rich selfish?

That 45.9% of people number about 5.8 Million people and they all earn less than $37,000 per year.

The problem that you have is that you can not get blood out of a stone.

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ? Yes they should. That's the stupidity of politicians. they can't ... they have no extra money to pay in taxes

The interesting thing that the table does not show is that high earners also pay tax at the same rate on what they earn below $37,000. that means that an increase at this level will impact higher wage earners the same as low income earners.

Also not shown in the calculation is the total amount collected in each band of taxation.

By that I mean that for people on high wages the tax paid in the lower bands are excluded from the calculation in those more relevant bands.

Meaning that much more is collected in the lower bands than what is shown and the tax collected in the lower band is then added to the higher band for higher earners even though that is not where it was collected it seems.

It is likely that the lower and mid bands actually collect more tax dollars.

Quote:

Put GST On Private Health Insurance Not Fresh Food

How about we don't go playing with the thin edge of that there wedge at all.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:25pm:

The interesting thing that the table does not show is that high earners also pay tax at the same rate on what they earn below $37,000.

the other thing is that that table would show Gina as earning $150 000 ... it doesn't count any of the 'income' from the companies she controls. How many of Ginas cars, boats or planes do you think are in her name?  :D :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ? Yes they should. That's the stupidity of politicians. they can't ... they have no extra money to pay in taxes

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/marginaltaxrates.jpg

The lowest paid don't pay any income tax anyway Smithy.

If the GST was increased to 15% and the income tax threshold increased to compensate there'd be effall impact on the lowest paid other than getting increased benefits and services as a result of greater revenues to Govt.

Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about  :-?

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about

...on that note I didn't see Crook nor any of you other Lefties whinging about the regressive properties of the carbon dioxide tax?   :-?

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ? Yes they should. That's the stupidity of politicians. they can't ... they have no extra money to pay in taxes http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/marginaltaxrates.jpg The lowest paid don't pay any income tax anyway Smithy. If the GST was increased to 15% and the income tax threshold increased to compensate there'd be effall impact on the lowest paid other than getting increased benefits and services as a result of greater revenues to Govt. Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about  :-?

my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent swag, now even if they could survive a year without food, phone, elect, car clothes or any other expenses, they still don't have enough for a roof over their heads, let alone any extra for income tax. Sydney and Melbourne rents are even worse.
I repeat, they have no extra money to pay in tax

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 1:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ? Yes they should. That's the stupidity of politicians. they can't ... they have no extra money to pay in taxes http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/marginaltaxrates.jpg The lowest paid don't pay any income tax anyway Smithy. If the GST was increased to 15% and the income tax threshold increased to compensate there'd be effall impact on the lowest paid other than getting increased benefits and services as a result of greater revenues to Govt. Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about  :-? my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent swag, now even if they could survive a year without food, phone, elect, car clothes or any other expenses, they still don't have enough for a roof over their heads, let alone any extra for income tax. Sydney and Melbourne rents are even worse. I repeat, they have no extra money to pay in tax

You really only half read my posts don't you Jonathon.   :D

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:56pm:

You really only half read my posts Jonathon.

thats usually enough to make me shake my head

raising tax free threshold won't do a thing to someone who only earns 20k ... and you've just increased ALL his bills by 5%

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent swag

BTW ........you capitalist porky you... ;D

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 2:49pm: my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent swag BTW ........you capitalist porky you... ;D

I don't have a problem with Capitalism, its when Capitalism overrides humanity that I have a problem. Money is good, HOWEVER money is not the be all and end all.

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:31pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:25pm: The interesting thing that the table does not show is that high earners also pay tax at the same rate on what they earn below $37,000. the other thing is that that table would show Gina as earning $150 000 ... it doesn't count any of the 'income' from the companies she controls. How many of Ginas cars, boats or planes do you think are in her name?  :D :D :D :D :D

Actually I don't know about Gina but a recent article showed that hundreds of people in Gina's financial position were paying tax consultants on average a bit over $2 Million per year but filing a tax return of zero income.

In the stats being used hundreds of people in a position similar to Gina's are counted among the nations poorest people paying virtually no tax at all.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:49pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 1:16pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:08pm: Swagman wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:15pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 1:03pm: Do you think that the lowest paid should pay more tax ? Yes they should. That's the stupidity of politicians. they can't ... they have no extra money to pay in taxes http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/marginaltaxrates.jpg The lowest paid don't pay any income tax anyway Smithy. If the GST was increased to 15% and the income tax threshold increased to compensate there'd be effall impact on the lowest paid other than getting increased benefits and services as a result of greater revenues to Govt. Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about  :-? my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent swag, now even if they could survive a year without food, phone, elect, car clothes or any other expenses, they still don't have enough for a roof over their heads, let alone any extra for income tax. Sydney and Melbourne rents are even worse. I repeat, they have no extra money to pay in tax

my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent

In a lot of areas that would be very cheap.

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:56pm:

You really only half read my posts don't you Jonathon.

I confess - I often give up well before the last sentence as well.

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 3:00pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 2:49pm: my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent swag BTW ........you capitalist porky you...

I read all of this one.

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

If the GST was increased to 15% and the income tax threshold increased to compensate there'd be effall impact on the lowest paid other than getting increased benefits and services as a result of greater revenues to Govt. Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about  :-?

If the GST was increased by 5% the lowest paid would pay an extra 5% on many purchases with nothing in compensation. This would have an impact on the lowest paid.

Swagman wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 1:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 1:16pm: Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about ...on that note I didn't see Crook nor any of you other Lefties whinging about the regressive properties of the carbon dioxide tax?   :-?

The carbon levy came with full compensation. Compensation won't be there if the GST is increased.

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 8:56pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 3:00pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 2:49pm: my tenant pay over $20k a year in rent swag BTW ........you capitalist porky you... ;D I don't have a problem with Capitalism, its when Capitalism overrides humanity that I have a problem. Money is good, HOWEVER money is not the be all and end all.

You are lost, doomed to never become a Liberal with that attitude.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

Swagman wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 1:16pm: If the GST was increased to 15% and the income tax threshold increased to compensate there'd be effall impact on the lowest paid other than getting increased benefits and services as a result of greater revenues to Govt. Regressive taxes are not the evil boogieman that Lefty spinners crap on about  :-? If the GST was increased by 5% the lowest paid would pay an extra 5% on many purchases with nothing in compensation. This would have an impact on the lowest paid.

Smithy pointed that out (as I mentioned an increase to tax free threshold in compo which would cover those poor unfortunates that don't pay any tax at all).  Obviously compo in the form of low income rebates paid by Centrelink / health cards / increases to benefits etc.

The increased revenues as with income tax will be sourced from high income earners.  They pay the lion's share of all taxes and they spend the lion's share on consumption.