NSW to push treasurers on GST increase to meet federal health cuts.   :(

Date
    October 15, 2015


NSW Treasurer Gladys Berejiklian will continue the push to increase the GST from 10 to 15 per cent to address a looming health funding gap at a meeting of her state and federal counterparts in Sydney on Friday.   :(

The meeting with new federal Treasurer Scott Morrison is expected to cover implementing the abolition of the $1000 GST-free threshold for online purchases from overseas and establishment of a national register of foreign ownership of land titles.

Mr Morrison has also placed the recommendations of the Harper review of competition ­policy on the meeting agenda.

The review urged reforms across government sectors including health and education to which Mr Morrison has said he is keen to have the states and territories respond.


It was the cuts to health and education grants unveiled in former Treasurer Joe Hockey's first budget that prompted NSW Premier Mike Baird to raise the prospect of increasing the GST to 15 per cent.   

Mr Baird proposed the increase at a meeting of state and federal leaders in July to cover an estimated $35 billion national health funding shortfall by 2030.

He proposed that there would be no broadening of the GST base to include fresh food or education.

Ms Berejiklian told Fairfax Media that she looked forward to working with Mr Morrison and that state and territory treasurers "have a once in a generation opportunity to modernise the Federation".

"As far as NSW is concerned, our focus remains on addressing the looming fiscal gap which hits our Budget from 2017-18," she said.

"All options should remain on the table as we work constructively with our State and Federal counterparts on addressing our shared funding needs.

"NSW will continue to argue for the GST rate to be increased to 15 per cent with compensation for households with incomes of $100,000 or less."

Ms Berejiklian also welcomed Mr Morrison's focus on the Harper review recommendations.

"NSW welcomes the renewed focus on productivity enhancing reform," he said.

"Promoting effective competition will be a critical aspect of this reform."

At a meeting in August, Australia's treasurers agreed to impose the GST on all goods bought online from overseas from July 1, 2017.   :(

The treasurers are also likely to discuss details of a proposed national register of foreign ownership of land titles to be administered by the Commonwealth, including the cost to states of gathering the data.

The NSW budget surplus for last financial year has grown to a record $2.9 billion, according to the total state sector accounts released on Thursday.

The June budget estimated the 2014-15 surplus at $2.1 billion, but Ms Berejiklian said it had increased by $823 million.

This was largely due to one-off items including higher than expected distributions from managed investments and Commonwealth payments, she said.

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/nsw/nsw-to-push-treasurers-on-gst-increase-to-meet-federal-health-cuts-20151015-gk9vey.html#ixzz3ogHeApkR

The filthy grubs won't take their hands out of our pockets.

You want quality hospitals and schools you ALL have to pay for it.

Money doesn't grow on trees despite what you Truebelievers are brainwashed into thinking?

Swagman wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 10:05am:

You want quality hospitals and schools you ALL have to pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees despite what you Truebelievers are brainwashed into thinking?

The Feds removing funding to bully the states to go for a GST increase is not the solution it's just dishonest.

Restore the unaffordable tax cuts of the early 2000's and start collecting a reasonable amount of tax from the Multinationals first.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 9:49am:

The filthy grubs won't take their hands out of our pockets.

OR put them into their OWN pockets...  >:(

Swagman wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 10:05am:

You want quality hospitals and schools you ALL have to pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees despite what you Truebelievers are brainwashed into thinking?

That's really funny Swaggie. Money trees seem to be in great abundance when the election sweeteners are handed out. Didn't the private health rebate, child care subsidy and concessional CGT come from these trees.

WE HAD quality hospitals and schools - successive governments sold off the farm and now the revenue level for the State is on a steep downhill run.

Stuff Baird and his GST - if he can't make ends meet he needs a lesson in home economics from a ten year old.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 10:11am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 10:05am: You want quality hospitals and schools you ALL have to pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees despite what you Truebelievers are brainwashed into thinking? The Feds removing funding to bully the states to go for a GST increase is not the solution it's just dishonest. Restore the unaffordable tax cuts of the early 2000's and start collecting a reasonable amount of tax from the Multinationals first.

That's a win/win solution.

Stop squandering money like it grows on trees too.

So much waste and profligate spending built into the Budget by our second worst PM, after abbott. Our second worst Treasurer, after hokey, Costello, gave ongoing tax cuts to the rich financed by boom time revenues. In 2008 the boom ended but the profligate spending on pork, wealthfare and tax cuts kept going.

The neocons making up the present shambles don’t want to tackle this built–in, Howardista profligacy. They would rather cut funding to schools, hospitals and infrastructure which is, of course, exactly what stupid Howard did.

Labor did remove some of the profligate spending but also, major mistake, gave a tax cut in the 2008-9 Budget. S T U P I D ! Their moves on super and FBT were reversed by abbott & hokey.

Wonder if the Baird government understand that this issue could see them in opposition after the next election?

Governments that push for a huge tax increase seldom survive, I doubt that a government as poor as this one would be any different.

crocodile wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 10:05am: You want quality hospitals and schools you ALL have to pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees despite what you Truebelievers are brainwashed into thinking? That's really funny Swaggie. Money trees seem to be in great abundance when the election sweeteners are handed out. Didn't the private health rebate, child care subsidy and concessional CGT come from these trees.

Indeed - that's the allusion in the Abbott Crash Investigations analysis of the reasons for the crash of the Pocketliner A2016...

"Far above the national capital, in the cool clear air far above the hustle and bustle of the daily grind for the majority, a brand new Abbott Turnbull Airlines Pocketliner A2016 is making its way around Australia laden with gifts.....

So far on this maiden flight all seems normal, the instruments are working perfectly, the crew is relaxed, and the Chief Flight Attendant, Morrison, is making the rounds of the cabin with free drinks.....

In the cockpit Captain Turnbull and his co-pilot, First Officer Warren Truss who has recovered from the narcolepsy that contributed to the crash of the Abbott Airlines Budgetliner A2014, and has been given a clean bill of wealth - are enjoying a few moments peace in looking at the landscape passing far below.... they are drinking a cup of coffee free from the Parliamentary Canteen.... an outstanding brew worth around $1000 a cup and available to only a very few privileged to drink it....."

crocodile wrote on Oct 16^th, 2015 at 11:04am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 10:05am: You want quality hospitals and schools you ALL have to pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees despite what you Truebelievers are brainwashed into thinking? That's really funny Swaggie. Money trees seem to be in great abundance when the election sweeteners are handed out. Didn't the private health rebate, child care subsidy and concessional CGT come from these trees.

Those tax rebates are really just smoke and mirrors Croc.

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

The States should just levy their own version of the GST.

What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :)

Swagman wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

The States should just levy their own version of the GST.

They can't. If they implement any tax then they lose federal assistance. So if the levy their own GST, people in the states that did would need to pay state GST, federal GST and federal income tax and the state would get no federal funding at all.

The States could take back their income tax powers tho.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:57am:

The States could take back their income tax powers tho.

They can't, practically. The law governing collection of income tax has been declared valid by the high court. They could in theory levy an income tax, but people would still have to pay federal income tax.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :)

What was that again you said Premier Andrews?  You are an economic illiterate? Thanks for that Premier Andrews.   :)

Swagman wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:21am:

crocodile wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 11:04am: Swagman wrote on Oct 16th, 2015 at 10:05am: You want quality hospitals and schools you ALL have to pay for it. Money doesn't grow on trees despite what you Truebelievers are brainwashed into thinking? That's really funny Swaggie. Money trees seem to be in great abundance when the election sweeteners are handed out. Didn't the private health rebate, child care subsidy and concessional CGT come from these trees. Those tax rebates are really just smoke and mirrors Croc. http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/BEWAREGOVT.jpg

Yeah, about 12 billion bucks worth of smoke and mirrors.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 18^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

Wonder if the Baird government understand that this issue could see them in opposition after the next election? Governments that push for a huge tax increase seldom survive, I doubt that a government as poor as this one would be any different.

With NSW Libs massively popular and the Federal Libs the same way, a GST increase now is as possible as any other time. Having brought in the original GST we all know the economy wont die and people starve as a result.

Bring it on.

wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :)

Andrews doesn't get a say.  Only the Federal Government does.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:32am:

wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:42am: What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :) Andrews doesn't get a say.  Only the Federal Government does.

I'd tend to agree with this. Although the agreement requires the states to approve, the legislation is ultimately federal legislation that can be amended.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 8:57am:

The States could take back their income tax powers tho.

Enslave their own people and regain the right to do so.. why, suh - that could cause the North to declare Civil War on us down here in Dixie!

If NSW declares independence and goes to war - I go with her - but I fear the consequences, since down here in the Deep South we have not a single cannon factory, and even though every Southron Gennuman is worth ten of them damned Yankees from Cambra, we are outnumbered and stand alone.... but we sure can Whistle Dixie!

Ah do declare Secession!!

Kytro wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:32am: wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:42am: What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :) Andrews doesn't get a say.  Only the Federal Government does. I'd tend to agree with this. Although the agreement requires the states to approve, the legislation is ultimately federal legislation that can be amended.

Exactly. All it takes is for the government to rescind this requirement and it is done. In fact, it is in the constitution that the federal government is not able to be dictated to by any other parliament.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:25am:

Kytro wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:38am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:32am: wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:42am: What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :) Andrews doesn't get a say.  Only the Federal Government does. I'd tend to agree with this. Although the agreement requires the states to approve, the legislation is ultimately federal legislation that can be amended. Exactly. All it takes is for the government to rescind this requirement and it is done. In fact, it is in the constitution that the federal government is not able to be dictated to by any other parliament.

It still has to pass through the senate, but so does any GST change, so there really isn't any difference. It depends mostly on if the senate will pass the revoking of the agreement.

Kytro wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:25am: Kytro wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:38am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:32am: wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:42am: What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :) Andrews doesn't get a say.  Only the Federal Government does. I'd tend to agree with this. Although the agreement requires the states to approve, the legislation is ultimately federal legislation that can be amended. Exactly. All it takes is for the government to rescind this requirement and it is done. In fact, it is in the constitution that the federal government is not able to be dictated to by any other parliament. It still has to pass through the senate, but so does any GST change, so there really isn't any difference. It depends mostly on if the senate will pass the revoking of the agreement.

Obviously the legislation will need to be passed by both houses but also, it could be passed via a double dissolution bill. That would disable the senate's veto powers. It's a long shot true, but this states agreement is of little to no consequence.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 11:52am:

Obviously the legislation will need to be passed by both houses but also, it could be passed via a double dissolution bill. That would disable the senate's veto powers. It's a long shot true, but this states agreement is of little to no consequence.

Like I said, I tend to agree. It only matters what all of federal parliament does. The senate is a house of review, but it has almost all the same powers the house of reps does, the main difference being supply.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:32am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 18th, 2015 at 8:03am: Wonder if the Baird government understand that this issue could see them in opposition after the next election? Governments that push for a huge tax increase seldom survive, I doubt that a government as poor as this one would be any different. With NSW Libs massively popular and the Federal Libs the same way, a GST increase now is as possible as any other time. Having brought in the original GST we all know the economy wont die and people starve as a result. Bring it on.

Liberals the party of taxation.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 10:32am:

wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 8:42am: What was that again you said Premier Andrews?.  Oh that's right, you said you don't support an increase in the GST.  Thank for that Premier Andrews.   :) Andrews doesn't get a say.  Only the Federal Government does.

Under the current legislation he does.

The current position was put in place by John Howard precisely because he believed that it meant that the rate could never be increased. That was the intention 10% GST locked in.

John Howards position: the GOD of all conservatives everywhere decreed that 10% was sufficient and put in place a system meant to ensure that it was never going to be possible to change it.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

Under the current legislation he does. The current position was put in place by John Howard precisely because he believed that it meant that the rate could never be increased. That was the intention 10% GST locked in. John Howards position: the GOD of all conservatives everywhere decreed that 10% was sufficient and put in place a system meant to ensure that it was never going to be possible to change it.

The problem with this position is that it still require legislation to change the rate, and if they are going to do that they can also remove the agreement when they do.

Kytro wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 11:52am: Obviously the legislation will need to be passed by both houses but also, it could be passed via a double dissolution bill. That would disable the senate's veto powers. It's a long shot true, but this states agreement is of little to no consequence. Like I said, I tend to agree. It only matters what all of federal parliament does. The senate is a house of review, but it has almost all the same powers the house of reps does, the main difference being supply.

The big differences is that it cannot form government nor can it initiate revenue matters. They are pretty big differences.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 3:12pm:

The big differences is that it cannot form government nor can it initiate revenue matters. They are pretty big differences.

Yes, of course, but it is still an integral part of the legislative process.

Kytro wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 3:51pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:12pm: The big differences is that it cannot form government nor can it initiate revenue matters. They are pretty big differences. Yes, of course, but it is still an integral part of the legislative process.

Of course, but its only real power is to veto legislation. it cant initiate much and the lower house would veto anyhow.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Kytro wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:12pm: The big differences is that it cannot form government nor can it initiate revenue matters. They are pretty big differences. Yes, of course, but it is still an integral part of the legislative process. Of course, but its only real power is to veto legislation. it cant initiate much and the lower house would veto anyhow.

Senators  able to introduce Private Member's Bills.

crocodile wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 4:04pm: Kytro wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:51pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 3:12pm: The big differences is that it cannot form government nor can it initiate revenue matters. They are pretty big differences. Yes, of course, but it is still an integral part of the legislative process. Of course, but its only real power is to veto legislation. it cant initiate much and the lower house would veto anyhow. Senators  able to introduce Private Member's Bills.

As long as they are not revenue bills as per Palmers attempt re the Carbon Tax bills.  Doesn't amount to much tho, does it? Without party support it wont get thru the senate. Without government support it wont become law.  Not a lot of private member bills get anywhere.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 4:04pm:

Of course, but its only real power is to veto legislation. it cant initiate much and the lower house would veto anyhow.

It can initiate any legislation except supply. It tends not to do so, but it does have that power. But yes, due to the nature of the HoR they are less likely to be passed.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 19^th, 2015 at 2:33pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 19th, 2015 at 10:32am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 18th, 2015 at 8:03am: Wonder if the Baird government understand that this issue could see them in opposition after the next election? Governments that push for a huge tax increase seldom survive, I doubt that a government as poor as this one would be any different. With NSW Libs massively popular and the Federal Libs the same way, a GST increase now is as possible as any other time. Having brought in the original GST we all know the economy wont die and people starve as a result. Bring it on. Liberals the party of taxation.

Yes - whenever you  run up against the brick wall of your own spending and your past ills in cutting the balls off your own revenue via taxation cuts to big business and your mates at the top end of town - always go for the throat of the mass of people.  They can afford it because there are more of them so the injury to each will be proportionately smaller.

Longy could explain the maths to us... he's that good!

NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase

The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 6:29am:

NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim.

Good

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 6:29am:

NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim.

The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted.

Oh yeah. take a massive increase to taxationof the mass of people to a double dissolution, marvellous way of going into Opposition.

While Baird is popular still, the Fed Libs are on 50:50, and the hard heads in the Party understand this even if the fanbois don’t, and so there will be no adventures.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:32am:

Oh yeah. take a massive increase to taxationof the mass of people to a double dissolution, marvellous way of going into Opposition. While Baird is popular still, the Fed Libs are on 50:50, and the hard heads in the Party understand this even if the fanbois don’t, and so there will be no adventures.

53/47 loser-boy.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:18am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted.

The Liberals would never take a broken promise tax grab to a DD election.

That is as captain stupid as you can be.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:18am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted.

The states don't have a say.

Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 10:44am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero.

The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else.

In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:19pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements.

The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional.

You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it!

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional.

There is no indication that the federal government are attempting to circumvent their own legislation.

I agree they could if they wanted to and if the senate would pass it but their is no indication of that happening.

You are the only one putting that option on the table.

The Govt, is not prepared to reduce public service wages -

The public service unions are too strong to fight against -

the only other alternative is to raise the GST.

We can blame greedy public servants doing useless bureaucratic jobs - wasting our money.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional.

That is profoundly untrue. Only the legislative powers ceded to the commonwealth in section 51 of the constitution are affected in this way. Taxation you will find cannot disadvantage one state over another. A different GST rate across states would have a tough time in the courts.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional.

Ah, Grasshopper - you are beginning to approach the issue of Divine Right of Elected Government - truly is your education going forward........ now mediate upon the reality you have espoused here.. extend your mind and your reasoning, and find the final answer.  Guide you mind along the lines of whether or not it is right that a government may set in place any legislation it chooses..... then will you find your answer.

**chews popcorn and awaits outcome of dispute over State's Rights, Secession and eventual Civil War**

If NSW secedes and goes to war - I go with her .... but I fear the outcome, since there is not a single cannon factory in The South.... and while any Southron Gennuman can lick his weight in Cambra wildcats - there are just too many of them...

Bobby. wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 7:00pm:

The Govt, is not prepared to reduce public service wages - The public service unions are too strong to fight against - the only other alternative is to raise the GST. We can blame greedy public servants doing useless bureaucratic jobs - wasting our money.

Govt is imposing effective pay cuts on the PS. In the face of sluggish wage growth that is idiocy pure and simple. Their numbers have been cut and cut, now we have 6.4% unemployment and 10% underemployment.

crocodile wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 9:02pm:

That is profoundly untrue. Only the legislative powers ceded to the commonwealth in section 51 of the constitution are affected in this way. Taxation you will find cannot disadvantage one state over another. A different GST rate across states would have a tough time in the courts.

On what premise are you basing this? If it's not a constitutional ground, then it must be legislative, and if it's legislative it can be changed.

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 20^th, 2015 at 5:47pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional. You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it!

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:53am:

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states.

If federal law and state law are in conflict, then federal law overrides it, but there are matters in which the states have the final say, like education or gun control.

Technically the states don't overrule the federal government, but they do have powers that federal government does not.

Kytro wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. If federal law and state law are in conflict, then federal law overrides it, but there are matters in which the states have the final say, like education or gun control. Technically the states don't overrule the federal government, but they do have powers that federal government does not.

Yes that is true eg mineral and resource rights (eg water etc). But they are constitutional guarantees. Everything else is legislative and can be changed.  The states cannot legislate to override federal legislation eg NT Euthanasia bill or the ACT Gay Marriage act. Similarly, their wishes are irrelevant on the GST. 

Kytro wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:31am:

crocodile wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 9:02pm: That is profoundly untrue. Only the legislative powers ceded to the commonwealth in section 51 of the constitution are affected in this way. Taxation you will find cannot disadvantage one state over another. A different GST rate across states would have a tough time in the courts. On what premise are you basing this? If it's not a constitutional ground, then it must be legislative, and if it's legislative it can be changed.

Section 51 covers the legislative powers of the Commonwealth. They are restricted. Anything not listed then the states take precedence.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:53am:

Cliff48 wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:47pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional. You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it! It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

No. Federal legislation takes precedence only with the articles in section 51. Otherwise, the states tell the feds to piss off.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

Anything not listed the commonwealth takes precedence.

In the US it is the states take precedence.

crocodile wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:48am:

Kytro wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:31am: crocodile wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 9:02pm: That is profoundly untrue. Only the legislative powers ceded to the commonwealth in section 51 of the constitution are affected in this way. Taxation you will find cannot disadvantage one state over another. A different GST rate across states would have a tough time in the courts. On what premise are you basing this? If it's not a constitutional ground, then it must be legislative, and if it's legislative it can be changed. Section 51 covers the legislative powers of the Commonwealth. They are restricted. Anything not listed then the states take precedence. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

Yes the states have residual powers, and both the federal government and state governments can levy taxes, though in practice only the federal government does.

What part of this means that tax must even?

Kytro wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 9:21am:

crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:48am: Kytro wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:31am: crocodile wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 9:02pm: That is profoundly untrue. Only the legislative powers ceded to the commonwealth in section 51 of the constitution are affected in this way. Taxation you will find cannot disadvantage one state over another. A different GST rate across states would have a tough time in the courts. On what premise are you basing this? If it's not a constitutional ground, then it must be legislative, and if it's legislative it can be changed. Section 51 covers the legislative powers of the Commonwealth. They are restricted. Anything not listed then the states take precedence. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html Yes the states have residual powers, and both the federal government and state governments can levy taxes, though in practice only the federal government does. What part of this means that tax must even?

(ii)  taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 9:14am:

Anything not listed the commonwealth takes precedence. In the US it is the states take precedence.

If that were the case there would be no need to list anything at all. The Commonwealth is restricted to legislation only in the defined areas listed unless by referral.

crocodile wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 9:28am:

(ii)  taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

That's what I get for skipping over it  ;D.

It looks like they federal government must apply any taxation to the states on the same basis. The only way around this would be to remove the ban on states taxing and allow them to locally boost the GST.

Ban all taxes.... especially the GST.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:53am:

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Do you begin yet, Grasshopper, to see the very real issue behind The Divine Right of Elected Government, and are you beginning to see what it is you are saying here?

Your very position throws the entire governance of this country into disrepute and shows the paucity of honour within this system.... as well as the very real and present danger of any unfettered right to create 'legislation'......

Legislation is not intended to suit the ends of government - it is intended to suit the ends of Law and of service to the people.  We do not yet live in an autocratic state controlled by an elite self-chosen, and history shows us never more than clearly how very dangerous such a position is once foisted upon a sleeping public.

If legislation were passed this afternoon saying that all marias would be incarcerated for life as enemies of the state - would that be Law or legislation?  Meditate upon this difference, Grasshopper.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 7:53am:

It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

The process for increasing the GST does not involve the states overruling the federal government. The process is that the decision must be a unanimous one made by the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations—chaired by the Commonwealth Treasurer.

crocodile wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 8:51am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: Cliff48 wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:47pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional. You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it! It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. No. Federal legislation takes precedence only with the articles in section 51. Otherwise, the states tell the feds to piss off. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The process for increasing the GST does not involve the states overruling the federal government. The process is that the decision must be a unanimous one made by the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations—chaired by the Commonwealth Treasurer.

A process that can be overturned by simple legislation and some opinions are that it doesn't even need that. The right to impose taxes federally is without restriction.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:45am:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:39am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The process for increasing the GST does not involve the states overruling the federal government. The process is that the decision must be a unanimous one made by the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations—chaired by the Commonwealth Treasurer. A process that can be overturned by simple legislation and some opinions are that it doesn't even need that. The right to impose taxes federally is without restriction.

So, Grasshopper, you agree that we live in a totalitarian dictatorship, in which there are no real rights adhering to the general public?  It is good to see your personal getting of wisdom proceeding apace....

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:43am:

crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:51am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: Cliff48 wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:47pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional. You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it! It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. No. Federal legislation takes precedence only with the articles in section 51. Otherwise, the states tell the feds to piss off. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so.

No Maria, those on the list are powers granted by the states to the Commonwealth not the other way around. When you examine the list it is not really all that comprehensive.

If the Commonwealth held precedent over articles not on the list there would be no reason to even have a list.

crocodile wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 9:30am:

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 9:14am: Anything not listed the commonwealth takes precedence. In the US it is the states take precedence. If that were the case there would be no need to list anything at all. The Commonwealth is restricted to legislation only in the defined areas listed unless by referral.

There was also a list of powers the States would keep. Anything not in either list the commonwealth takes precedence. In the US the States take precedence. The US States have much more power than Australian States. This was covered in 4th year history in my days.

Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 12:58pm:

crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 9:30am: Jovial Monk wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 9:14am: Anything not listed the commonwealth takes precedence. In the US it is the states take precedence. If that were the case there would be no need to list anything at all. The Commonwealth is restricted to legislation only in the defined areas listed unless by referral. There was also a list of powers the States would keep. Anything not in either list the commonwealth takes precedence. In the US the States take precedence. The US States have much more power than Australian States. This was covered in 4th year history in my days.

There is no such list. In fact, the Commonwealth is expressly forbidden to make laws that are not enshrined in part V of the constitution. You misunderstood your lecturer.

crocodile wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 12:10pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:51am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: Cliff48 wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:47pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional. You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it! It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. No. Federal legislation takes precedence only with the articles in section 51. Otherwise, the states tell the feds to piss off. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. No Maria, those on the list are powers granted by the states to the Commonwealth not the other way around. When you examine the list it is not really all that comprehensive. If the Commonwealth held precedent over articles not on the list there would be no reason to even have a list.

Would you like to identify any areas of significance that the states have sole rights over? Education is apparently one. Do you have any others?

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:43am:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so.

The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured.

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:11pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured.

Who's opinion? Yours?  If the government decides to increase the GST then the federal parliament will decide. It will probably be the major election policy. And after the election, the senate will simply vote how they want anyhow with zero regard for the election outcome. At no time will the Premier's agreement be sought and probably not even their opinion.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured. Who's opinion? Yours?  If the government decides to increase the GST then the federal parliament will decide. It will probably be the major election policy. And after the election, the senate will simply vote how they want anyhow with zero regard for the election outcome. At no time will the Premier's agreement be sought and probably not even their opinion.

I like how strongly you argue that Howard Costello Abbott and the Liberals have been lying on this topic for years.

You sure that you support them ?

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:25pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured. Who's opinion? Yours?  If the government decides to increase the GST then the federal parliament will decide. It will probably be the major election policy. And after the election, the senate will simply vote how they want anyhow with zero regard for the election outcome. At no time will the Premier's agreement be sought and probably not even their opinion. I like how strongly you argue that Howard Costello Abbott and the Liberals have been lying on this topic for years. You sure that you support them ?

They conned the ignorant an ill-informed clowns that fill state parliaments that they would have a say in any changes to stroke their egos. Any half-wit with a modicum of knowledge of government and the constitution would have known better, but they got sucked in just the same. Even now, there are fools like Andrews think that his anti-increase opinion carries any weight.

Howard was a very clever fellow in politics. He knew how to stroke egos to get a job done.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:48pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:25pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured. Who's opinion? Yours?  If the government decides to increase the GST then the federal parliament will decide. It will probably be the major election policy. And after the election, the senate will simply vote how they want anyhow with zero regard for the election outcome. At no time will the Premier's agreement be sought and probably not even their opinion. I like how strongly you argue that Howard Costello Abbott and the Liberals have been lying on this topic for years. You sure that you support them ? They conned the ignorant an ill-informed clowns that fill state parliaments that they would have a say in any changes to stroke their egos. Any half-wit with a modicum of knowledge of government and the constitution would have known better, but they got sucked in just the same. Even now, there are fools like Andrews think that his anti-increase opinion carries any weight. Howard was a very clever fellow in politics. He knew how to stroke egos to get a job done.

If Labor had done that you would call it a despicable lie.

Even Abbott went to the last election (2013) using that as his GST defence for not being able to increase the GST.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 2:51pm:

crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 12:10pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:51am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: Cliff48 wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:47pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional. You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it! It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. No. Federal legislation takes precedence only with the articles in section 51. Otherwise, the states tell the feds to piss off. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. No Maria, those on the list are powers granted by the states to the Commonwealth not the other way around. When you examine the list it is not really all that comprehensive. If the Commonwealth held precedent over articles not on the list there would be no reason to even have a list. Would you like to identify any areas of significance that the states have sole rights over? Education is apparently one. Do you have any others?

Absolutely anything not under section 51 and those submitted previously by referral.

crocodile wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 4:04pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 2:51pm: crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 12:10pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: crocodile wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 8:51am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 7:53am: Cliff48 wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:47pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:43pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 5:19pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 4:33pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 10:44am: mariacostel wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 7:18am: Dnarever wrote on Oct 20th, 2015 at 6:29am: NSW To Push Treasurers On GST Increase The likelihood of being able to bully, bribe or blackmail every state and the senate into supporting an increase is still fairly slim. The states don't have a say. It is purely Federal Parliament. And if push comes to shove, take it to a Double Dissolution election and it is all done and dusted. The states don't have a say. Under the current legislation all states have to agree and the chance of the senate agreeing to change that position is zero. The states don't actually have the constitutional right to disagree with federal legislation. This has been investigated before and found to be the case. GST is solely the province of the federal government and nothing else. In this case it has nothing to do with disagreeing with federal legislation they are just following the legislations requirements. The point is that this so-called 'states agreement' is effectively non-existent. Any legislation passed by federal parliament is law and no state can counter that. It is even in the constitution to preclude any state parliament from over-ruling federal parliament. The agreement - if it even exists - is both worthless and unconstitutional. You are suggesting that legislation passed by Federal government is void?  Can you provide a source that backs that claim?  I doubt it! It is unconstitutional for the federal government to be over-ruled by the states. This supposed agreement is simply a bit of legislation which can be overturned in an instance and isn't constitutional anyhow. Any change to the GST is entirely the province of the federal government. Costello and Howard did this as a sop to the gullible states who swallowed it hook, line and sinker. No. Federal legislation takes precedence only with the articles in section 51. Otherwise, the states tell the feds to piss off. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. No Maria, those on the list are powers granted by the states to the Commonwealth not the other way around. When you examine the list it is not really all that comprehensive. If the Commonwealth held precedent over articles not on the list there would be no reason to even have a list. Would you like to identify any areas of significance that the states have sole rights over? Education is apparently one. Do you have any others? Absolutely anything not under section 51 and those submitted previously by referral.

So no examples then?  That was the point of the question - that there is very little not actually covered under section 51.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 3:17pm:

Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured. Who's opinion? Yours?  If the government decides to increase the GST then the federal parliament will decide. It will probably be the major election policy. And after the election, the senate will simply vote how they want anyhow with zero regard for the election outcome. At no time will the Premier's agreement be sought and probably not even their opinion.

The senate were elected too, and have as much right to vote how their constituents would want them too as well.

If you think they federal government is going to run on increasing the GST without support from the states, they almost certainly won't.

Kytro wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:04pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured. Who's opinion? Yours?  If the government decides to increase the GST then the federal parliament will decide. It will probably be the major election policy. And after the election, the senate will simply vote how they want anyhow with zero regard for the election outcome. At no time will the Premier's agreement be sought and probably not even their opinion. The senate were elected too, and have as much right to vote how their constituents would want them too as well. If you think they federal government is going to run on increasing the GST without support from the states, they almost certainly won't.

They may just call it tax reform before the election but more likely they will squeeze the states more financially to force them to ask for it.

Yup, while they squeeze pennies from pensioners etc the tax exemption on super will be bigger than the entire pension next financial year, large corporations evade paying tax on Australian earnings, the FBT is being ripped off etc.

An increase to the GST really should not even be considered until all these other drains on the revenue have been fixed.

Despite what the Libs say, increasing the GST is just cover for big tax cuts to the top 20% of income earners. A neocon con.

Kytro wrote on Oct 21^st, 2015 at 10:04pm:

mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:17pm: Dnarever wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 3:11pm: mariacostel wrote on Oct 21st, 2015 at 10:43am: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html That is a pretty long an comprehensive list. It doesn't leave a lot for the states. It is also my understanding that outside ot those powers specifically granted to the states, the federal government has the power to override - and has done so. The point you ignore is that nobody is suggesting that that will happen. The consensus is that the current rules will be honoured. Who's opinion? Yours?  If the government decides to increase the GST then the federal parliament will decide. It will probably be the major election policy. And after the election, the senate will simply vote how they want anyhow with zero regard for the election outcome. At no time will the Premier's agreement be sought and probably not even their opinion. The senate were elected too, and have as much right to vote how their constituents would want them too as well. If you think they federal government is going to run on increasing the GST without support from the states, they almost certainly won't.

This gets to the question of mandates. The senate often ends up with the power to vote down a policy that was approved of by the voters during an election. At some point, the senate has a duty to honour that rather than vote their own way. Not always of course, but there are some instances where they should.

mariacostel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2015 at 9:10am:

[ This gets to the question of mandates. The senate often ends up with the power to vote down a policy that was approved of by the voters during an election. At some point, the senate has a duty to honour that rather than vote their own way. Not always of course, but there are some instances where they should.

Mandates are, and have always been nonsense. The only mandate you have is if you have the numbers to pass the policy.

The elected senate representatives have as much duty to pursue their platforms as elected members of the house of representatives.

People also make compromises when they vote. A vote for a party isn't a tacit endorsement of all polices that they happen to come up with.

Effectively while parties may compromise if they believe there is a case for it, they have no duty to do so, and there is a mechanism to relieve roadblocks.