GST hike to hit poor hard and leave rich unscathed, research shows

Date
    November 4, 2015
    Canberra Times

Malcolm Turnbull's task of convincing wary state governments and Senate crossbenchers to back a GST increase has been made more difficult by new research showing it would have a severe impact on the least well-off but leave wealthier households unscathed.

Lifting the GST to 15 per cent would hit low-income households hard but its negative effects would go almost unnoticed by those at the top end of society, new modelling of the proposed changes has revealed.   :(


Cassandra Goldie of ACOSS says increasing the GST should not be a starting point for tax reform.

The alternative idea of retaining the 10 per cent rate while broadening its base would be almost as regressive.

And offsetting the tax hike with lower marginal income tax would only make the disparity between rich and poor worse.

The analysis by the respected National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling shows the current 10 per cent GST consumes 13.4 per cent of disposable income for those in the bottom fifth of households, but that would rise to more than 20 per cent if the rate were lifted to 15 per cent, as is favoured by some within the Coalition government.

Households in the top 20 per cent, though, would experience a much milder impact, increasing from a mere 5.9 per cent of disposable income to 8.8 per cent.

Even just broadening the base to include fresh food, water and sewerage, health, and education would hit the poorest hardest, with the 13.4 per cent of disposable income jumping to nearly 18 per cent compared to a rise for the wealthiest from 5.9 per cent to 7.6 per cent.   :(

The figures go a long way to explaining Labor's trenchant opposition to any GST increase and suggest that any compensation built in to ensure the poorest are left "no worse off" - as the Prime Minister has pledged - will require an enormous "churn".

But the Prime Minister's difficult policy challenge is not without its Labor backers. Three former Labor premiers, Kristina Keneally (NSW), Peter Beattie (Qld), and Geoff Gallop (WA) have told Fairfax Media they would support an increase to the GST subject to certain conditions including compensation for low-income earners, federation reform, and additional money for health and education.

While Mr Turnbull has determinedly kept all taxation options on the table while a white paper is being prepared, he is aware of the likely scare campaign coming his way if lifting the GST is part of the mix.

Girding for that fight, Mr Turnbull has repeatedly stressed that changes proposed would be built around the core Australian principle of fairness.

"Any changes to the tax system have got to be ones that ensure that there is no disadvantage to the most vulnerable Australians, to less well-off Australians," Mr Turnbull said this week.

"We are a very fair society in Australia and it is important that our tax system reflects that."

Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Service, which commissioned the modelling, said ACOSS is not opposed to an increase in the GST but it should not be a "starting point" for tax reform given that it would hit low- and middle-income earners the hardest.

While some Labor figures back a higher GST in theory, federally the Opposition is preparing a major anti-GST campaign and is likely to revive the words of the Tony Abbott in relation to the carbon tax, arguing an expanded or increased consumption tax would be profoundly damaging to household budgets, hit spending confidence, and ultimately would be a "great big new tax on everything".

The modelling also shows if the GST was lifted to 15 per cent, and the extra revenue generated was used to fund a cut in personal income tax rates by 5 per cent, the overall progressivity of the tax system would be reduced much more than if the GST was raised alone.

In that scenario, the lowest 60 per cent of households would be worse off and the top 40 per cent would gain at their expense.   :(

The lowest 20 per cent of households would lose $33 a week (worth 6.6 per cent of income) on average while the top 20 per cent would gain $69 a week (worth 2.1 per cent of income).

Dr Goldie said raising the GST to 15 per cent to fund personal income tax cuts would do nothing to ease pressure on state health, education and welfare budgets.   :(

"If it's not about raising more revenue, the government has to justify why this option is being considered at all," she said.

The independent NATSEM modelling was commissioned by ACOSS, with support from the progressive-leaning Carnegie Foundation.

NATSEM's detailed modelling of the impact of the Abbott government's first budget led to the eventual conclusion of voters that its measures were harsh, unfair, and ideologically driven, contributing to its political failure. 

Its assessment of the government's second budget showed much the same thing, that budget consolidation was being made at the expense of the less well-off, for the second year in a row.   

The identical topic to this.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1446670021

Dnarever wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 7:27am:

The identical topic to this. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1446670021

Hey DNA... you are not alone!  There actually ARE other idiots unable to comprehend the notion of compensation.  ACOSS never has a nice word to say about any government and criticises everything they do unless they are raising the dole and jailing high earners.  They have no ones respect and no one's ear.

Wider GST could make people sicker.   :(

Date
    November 3, 2015
    Sydney Morning Herald

Increasing the GST to 15 per cent and extending it to health services and fresh food would slug Australians $15 billion a year and could drive people to eat more junk food, Labor warns.   

Opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King says raising and extending the consumption tax to fresh food would deliver a "disastrous blow" of more than $9 billion a year.   

A 15 per cent GST charge on health would cost sick Australians more than $5 billion a year, she says.

The calculations are based on Treasury figures that show the government would have gained an added $3.5 billion in revenue in 2014-15 if the existing 10 per cent GST had been applied to health.

"With around one million Australians already living with diabetes, a $9.6 billion-a-year hit on healthier foods would make junk food even more attractive, worsening health outcomes and adding to health costs," Ms King said.

It comes after the Parliamentary Budget Office, at the request of Nationals MP David Gillespie, found raising the GST to 15 per cent and extending it to more goods and services would generate an extra $65.6 billion, for a total take of more than $130 billion, in 2017-18.

Treasurer Scott Morrison has not specifically backed calls for the New Zealand-style GST but says everything is on the table.

The Australian Medical Association has called on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to rule out extending the GST to health services, saying it would penalise the country's poorest and sickest.   

The Rural Doctors Association of Australia has warned the move would encourage rural and remote patients to delay visits to the doctor and present at hospital emergency departments instead, placing a bigger burden on the health budget.

The rich will be paying far more GST if it goes up.

GST is listed on shopping receipts, have a look at how little you pay at the supermarket.

Health care must remain GST free, Tasmanian rural doctors warn
By Jane Ryan
ABC News
Posted Wed


Tasmanian doctors are calling on the Federal Government to rule out introducing tax on healthcare services if the GST is broadened.

On a state level, both major parties and the Greens have also voiced their opposition to any change that would see health services taxed.

Treasurer Scott Morrison said this week health was originally excluded from the GST for "very practical reasons" and "those practical issues remain as challenging as they were back then".

Tasmanian GP and immediate past president of the Rural Doctors Association of Australia (RDAA) Dennis Pashen said taxing health services would make it even harder for vulnerable people to afford care.   :(

"Pre-emptively we're saying to the Government, 'Reconsider the GST if you have to, but for Pete's sake leave health care out of the GST," he said.   :(

Dr Pashen said people in rural areas died younger and were sicker than people in metropolitan areas.

He said one-third of Tasmanians lived rurally and struggled to access services.

"There's significant barriers to access to care," he said.

"There's a downturn in the rural sector in Tasmania, with losses in forestry, mining and agricultural industry in Tasmania that have social impacts," he said.

"So anything that pushes up the cost of health care within a rural area will impact on access to care."   

He said if access to health care became more expensive, people would not seek primary intervention and they would get sicker and the cost of treating them would rise.

"It does impact downstream by causing more complications of chronic disease, more hospital admissions with more severe levels of illness," he said.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:19am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:27am: The identical topic to this. http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1446670021 Hey DNA... you are not alone!  There actually ARE other idiots unable to comprehend the notion of compensation.  ACOSS never has a nice word to say about any government and criticises everything they do unless they are raising the dole and jailing high earners.  They have no ones respect and no one's ear.

Wrong again.

Hardly surprising.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:53am:

The rich will be paying far more GST if it goes up.

and getting far more than that back in tax cuts  :D :D :D

This will encourage people to aspire to success.

If i have a herd of horses and gather them together and say.

lazy horses with poor performance will be getting less hay.
hard working horses who contribute to the success of the farm will be getting more hay.

can we not agree that this is a fair arrangement both in economic terms and in moral terms.

this is a true win/win situation and will encourage all to aspire to success.
Any loving society wants its members to aspire to success  and if you live in australia and you arent doing well..

you have...

Messed up.
(you need to clean that up )  ;)

Libs consider the GST hike precisely because the rich are unscathed but still perceived to be doing something.

These are the identical arguments we heard about the original GST and none of that happened either.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 9:32am:

These are the identical arguments we heard about the original GST and none of that happened either.

So you claim.

Kytro wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:32am: These are the identical arguments we heard about the original GST and none of that happened either. So you claim.

Were you an adult in 1998?  Do you have memory recall facilities? Do you remember 'the earth will fall in and poor will starve' arguments?  and what happened?  NOTHING.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:41am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:32am: These are the identical arguments we heard about the original GST and none of that happened either. So you claim. Were you an adult in 1998?  Do you have memory recall facilities? Do you remember 'the earth will fall in and poor will starve' arguments?  and what happened?  NOTHING.

I wasn't into politics at the time, so I didn't pay it much attention.

The point remains the GST absolutely does impact people with more disposable income less. It's unavoidable. Unless you have alternative modelling?

Reducing income tax and increasing GST is moving from progressive tax to a less progressive tax. If you have to compensate people, it means the tax isn't fair.

Kytro wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 10:00am: Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:41am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:32am: These are the identical arguments we heard about the original GST and none of that happened either. So you claim. Were you an adult in 1998?  Do you have memory recall facilities? Do you remember 'the earth will fall in and poor will starve' arguments?  and what happened?  NOTHING. I wasn't into politics at the time, so I didn't pay it much attention. The point remains the GST absolutely does impact people with more disposable income less. It's unavoidable. Unless you have alternative modelling? Reducing income tax and increasing GST is moving from progressive tax to a less progressive tax. If you have to compensate people, it means the tax isn't fair.

now you are TALKING ABOUT IMPACT..

it impacts on what you spend your income on..I havent bought a car in 15 years so I havent paid GST on a car in a loooooooog time..but I know plenty of people who seem to buy a new one every couple of years...and they would PAY A HUGE AMOUNT IN GST..

when was the last time you said you wont be buying a new car or mobile phone because I wont pay the GST.. ::) ::)


f you have to compensate people, it means the tax isn't fair.


did you say that when labor landed us with the CARBON TAX we would never have???>.....I dont recall you doing so.. ;D ;D

TAX will never be fair...who likes paying more TAX..

its time you turned your attention to WHAT THEY DO WITH THE TAX they do get????>.

if you think it was a good idea to get us into so much debt we are paying millions PER DAY IN INTEREST ALONE>..

then tell us.. you are proud of the spending....

dont whinge when they want you to pay more.. >:( >:(... you want a pay increase every year dont you???..


so do they.

Kytro wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 10:00am: Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:41am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:32am: These are the identical arguments we heard about the original GST and none of that happened either. So you claim. Were you an adult in 1998?  Do you have memory recall facilities? Do you remember 'the earth will fall in and poor will starve' arguments?  and what happened?  NOTHING. I wasn't into politics at the time, so I didn't pay it much attention. The point remains the GST absolutely does impact people with more disposable income less. It's unavoidable. Unless you have alternative modelling? Reducing income tax and increasing GST is moving from progressive tax to a less progressive tax. If you have to compensate people, it means the tax isn't fair.

re the highlighted bit. Then tell me ONE THING that doesn't impact the poor more than the rich?  It is an intrinsic part of the definition of poor!  By virtue of spending far more, the rich end up paying more GST - the tax that pays for many of the services and welfare the poor receive and the rich are often denied.

Your last sentence is idiotic. Tax is never 'fair'. It is a necessary evil that no one likes.

It is truly astonishing that virtually no one on these forums can conceive of 'compensation'. The concept simply eludes them.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 2:36pm: mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 10:00am: Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:41am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 9:32am: These are the identical arguments we heard about the original GST and none of that happened either. So you claim. Were you an adult in 1998?  Do you have memory recall facilities? Do you remember 'the earth will fall in and poor will starve' arguments?  and what happened?  NOTHING. I wasn't into politics at the time, so I didn't pay it much attention. The point remains the GST absolutely does impact people with more disposable income less. It's unavoidable. Unless you have alternative modelling? Reducing income tax and increasing GST is moving from progressive tax to a less progressive tax. If you have to compensate people, it means the tax isn't fair. re the highlighted bit. Then tell me ONE THING that doesn't impact the poor more than the rich?  It is an intrinsic part of the definition of poor!  By virtue of spending far more, the rich end up paying more GST - the tax that pays for many of the services and welfare the poor

The rich pay more in GST on a single purchase in some cases than what poor pay in total taxes.

NZ has a 15% GST on everything.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:05pm:

re the highlighted bit. Then tell me ONE THING that doesn't impact the poor more than the rich?  It is an intrinsic part of the definition of poor!  By virtue of spending far more, the rich end up paying more GST - the tax that pays for many of the services and welfare the poor receive and the rich are often denied. Your last sentence is idiotic. Tax is never 'fair'. It is a necessary evil that no one likes. It is truly astonishing that virtually no one on these forums can conceive of 'compensation'. The concept simply eludes them.

Not just the poor - it's about the marginal utility of money, and it's why we have progressive income taxes in the first place.

I don't like tax, but I don't see it as unfair.

It's not that I don't understand compensation, it's just I don't see the benefit of reducing income tax, then increasing the GST and giving back money to some people. It adds more overhead than it removes.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS9uhkcUkAAbAkJ.jpg

The GST was not properly compensated for and now the boom is but a memory the GST is depressing demand, by 10%.

cods wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

now you are TALKING ABOUT IMPACT.. it impacts on what you spend your income on..I havent bought a car in 15 years so I havent paid GST on a car in a loooooooog time..but I know plenty of people who seem to buy a new one every couple of years...and they would PAY A HUGE AMOUNT IN GST.. when was the last time you said you wont be buying a new car or mobile phone because I wont pay the GST.. ::) ::) f you have to compensate people, it means the tax isn't fair. did you say that when labor landed us with the CARBON TAX we would never have???>.....I dont recall you doing so.. ;D ;D TAX will never be fair...who likes paying more TAX.. its time you turned your attention to WHAT THEY DO WITH THE TAX they do get????>. if you think it was a good idea to get us into so much debt we are paying millions PER DAY IN INTEREST ALONE>.. then tell us.. you are proud of the spending.... dont whinge when they want you to pay more.. >:( >:(... you want a pay increase every year dont you???.. so do they.

This was very disjointed and rambling.

If people can't afford the effect of the GST, they either don't buy a the thing they want, or get a cheaper version. Increasing the cost of things by 5% will obviously limit what people can spend.

An ETS is better than direct action, but it will increase costs to people, it depends on if you think one thing (less Co2) will ultimately lead to better outcomes than the other (increased costs).

Not wanting to pay tax does not make it unfair.

It's not like the coalition has made the debt situation any better.

Spending is necessary and in many cases useful. Not always, but I do think we should be raising taxes generally, just not regressive tax.

Everybody wants to be paid more.

Kytro wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:24pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 3:05pm: re the highlighted bit. Then tell me ONE THING that doesn't impact the poor more than the rich?  It is an intrinsic part of the definition of poor!  By virtue of spending far more, the rich end up paying more GST - the tax that pays for many of the services and welfare the poor receive and the rich are often denied. Your last sentence is idiotic. Tax is never 'fair'. It is a necessary evil that no one likes. It is truly astonishing that virtually no one on these forums can conceive of 'compensation'. The concept simply eludes them. Not just the poor - it's about the marginal utility of money, and it's why we have progressive income taxes in the first place. I don't like tax, but I don't see it as unfair. It's not that I don't understand compensation, it's just I don't see the benefit of reducing income tax, then increasing the GST and giving back money to some people. It adds more overhead than it removes.

Because it includes people in the cash economy. You can't get rid of the cash economy, but they all have to pay tax on it. Criminals may not pay income tax, but they pay GST.

As for progressive taxes... virtually every other tax is exactly that. Welfare payments are also progressive. So why the angst about just ONE non-progressive tax? The poor already get a largely free ride from the better-off so isn't just asking one thing from them reasonable and fair? And we are giving them the money back anyhow!

Longy thinks the black economy pays GST  :D :D :D

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

Maria thinks the black economy pays GST  :D :D :D

Where do people in the cash economy buy their GST-exempt food, clothes, cars and other goods and services?

You are a simpleton.

Where are you dumb monk?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:42pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 3:37pm: Maria thinks the black economy pays GST  :D :D :D Where do people in the cash economy buy their GST-exempt food, clothes, cars and other goods and services? You are a simpleton.

Longy the simpleton reckons people in the black economy pay GST. They don’t. When they buy their food etc they are not in the black economy. This is a distinction someone with severe brain impairment probably can’t make. We should pity those people, eh Longy you poor sod.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 3:33pm:

Because it includes people in the cash economy. You can't get rid of the cash economy, but they all have to pay tax on it. Criminals may not pay income tax, but they pay GST. As for progressive taxes... virtually every other tax is exactly that. Welfare payments are also progressive. So why the angst about just ONE non-progressive tax? The poor already get a largely free ride from the better-off so isn't just asking one thing from them reasonable and fair? And we are giving them the money back anyhow!

Avoiding GST in the "cash" economy is trivial, but larger businesses tend not to. Taxing spending also tends to reducing consumption, which reduces GDP.

Most taxes are progressive? You mean income tax.

If GST is increased and income tax is decreased even if the poorer are compensated it represent a shifting of burden away from the more well off towards the less well off. Unless you compensate everyone to varying degrees this conclusion is inescapable. Since the purpose is to increase revenue, the only reasonable inference is they want to do this in a way that reduces the current progressive nature of taxation.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 3:42pm: Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 3:37pm: Maria thinks the black economy pays GST  :D :D :D Where do people in the cash economy buy their GST-exempt food, clothes, cars and other goods and services? You are a simpleton. Longy the simpleton reckons people in the black economy pay GST. They don’t. When they buy their food etc they are not in the black economy. This is a distinction someone with severe brain impairment probably can’t make. We should pity those people, eh Longy you poor sod.

You are an idiot. You misinterpret everything to cover up for the chronic failings of your demented argument. I am so thankful that you failed to breed.

ACOSS and all antagonists of the GST, overlook whom actually BENEFITS THE MOST from the GST revenues?

Yes the GST is a "regressive" tax, BUT low income earners and those on Govt benefits are the very individuals that tax (of any kind) benefits the most.

Even without any rise in benefit payments as compensation the improvements brought on by extra funding to hospitals / public transport / schools that extra GST revenues would provide would benefit low income earners the most.

According to the last budget figures GST revenue was around $57 Billion dollars. At 15% it would return around $85.5 Billion. Imagine what an extra $28 Billion would do for GOVT services?

GST is efficient. The very regressiveness of GST allows the GOVT to collect revenues from the cash and black economy, from non-tax paying tourists, income tax evaders whenever they spend their cash.

Low income earners are a small spending demographic. Essentials are mainly exempt. The big spending is done by the rest of the consumer economic demographic. I don't have the figures, but how much of that $570 Billion in spending ($57B GST x 10) was made by low income earners compared to everyone else last year?

A large proportion of low incomes are actually accessed from tax revenues. Centrelink payments, heath concession cards, transport concessions, utilities bills concessions. ACOSS needs to factor those items into its modelling.

Low income earners would reap RETURN benefits in spades from a GST increase.

Swagman wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

ACOSS and all antagonists of the GST, overlook whom actually BENEFITS THE MOST from the GST revenues? Yes the GST is a "regressive" tax, BUT low income earners and those on Govt benefits are the very individuals that tax (of any kind) benefits the most. Even without any rise in benefit payments as compensation the improvements brought on by extra funding to hospitals / public transport / schools that extra GST revenues would provide would benefit low income earners the most.

This is "any tax". If more tax is collected and also spent on services used most by the poorest, then by definition it will help. It's not the GST specifically.


Swagman wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

According to the last budget figures GST revenue was around $57 Billion dollars. At 15% it would return around $85.5 Billion. Imagine what an extra $28 Billion would do for GOVT services?

Assuming no drop in Income tax, which is unlikely.


Swagman wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

GST is efficient. The very regressiveness of GST allows the GOVT to collect revenues from the cash and black economy, from non-tax paying tourists, income tax evaders whenever they spend their cash.

Tourists are entitled to claim back most GST.


Swagman wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Low income earners are a small spending demographic. Essentials are mainly exempt. The big spending is done by the rest of the consumer economic demographic. I don't have the figures, but how much of that $570 Billion in spending ($57B GST x 10) was made by low income earners compared to everyone else last year?

I agree, the GST still targets the wealthy the least, and so imposes a higher burden on everyone else. The entire point of raising the GST and lowering income tax is reduce the progressiveness of the tax system.



Swagman wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

A large proportion of low incomes are actually accessed from tax revenues. Centrelink payments, heath concession cards, transport concessions, utilities bills concessions. ACOSS needs to factor those items into its modelling. Low income earners would reap RETURN benefits in spades from a GST increase.

Higher income taxes on the wealthy could do the same without shifting the burden

Northern Territory news break tonight:-

Turnbull says any tax reforms will be fair..............

That means he will remove $50 a week from the poorest.. and $50 a week from the richest.... total equality, eh, bros?

"Low income earners are a small spending demographic. "   ;D  ;D  ;D ;D  ;D

Per individual perhaps, but as a demographic?  One low income earner family buys one microwave .... one rich family buys one microwave..... rich families are 1%.... therefore low income families buy 99 more microwaves than rich families..... the economy prospers when more 'low income families' buy microwaves....

Thank you for coming, Swag...... we luv ya... but you're off the planet.

You ARE a Labor shill, aren't you?  Like Andrei, if you were not, you simply could not be for real....

So Swag made a gaffe like Hockey?

stunspore wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 6:22am:

So Swag made a gaffe like Hockey?

No gaffe at all.


Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 1:04am:

rich families are 1%.

So now "rich" is defined as the top 1%?

The Govt defines poor as someone with an annual income under $18,200

That is when it deems an individual is "rich" enough to pay income tax.

Kytro wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: ACOSS and all antagonists of the GST, overlook whom actually BENEFITS THE MOST from the GST revenues? Yes the GST is a "regressive" tax, BUT low income earners and those on Govt benefits are the very individuals that tax (of any kind) benefits the most. Even without any rise in benefit payments as compensation the improvements brought on by extra funding to hospitals / public transport / schools that extra GST revenues would provide would benefit low income earners the most. This is "any tax". If more tax is collected and also spent on services used most by the poorest, then by definition it will help. It's not the GST specifically. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: According to the last budget figures GST revenue was around $57 Billion dollars. At 15% it would return around $85.5 Billion. Imagine what an extra $28 Billion would do for GOVT services? Assuming no drop in Income tax, which is unlikely. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: GST is efficient. The very regressiveness of GST allows the GOVT to collect revenues from the cash and black economy, from non-tax paying tourists, income tax evaders whenever they spend their cash. Tourists are entitled to claim back most GST. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Low income earners are a small spending demographic. Essentials are mainly exempt. The big spending is done by the rest of the consumer economic demographic. I don't have the figures, but how much of that $570 Billion in spending ($57B GST x 10) was made by low income earners compared to everyone else last year? I agree, the GST still targets the wealthy the least, and so imposes a higher burden on everyone else. The entire point of raising the GST and lowering income tax is reduce the progressiveness of the tax system. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: A large proportion of low incomes are actually accessed from tax revenues. Centrelink payments, heath concession cards, transport concessions, utilities bills concessions. ACOSS needs to factor those items into its modelling. Low income earners would reap RETURN benefits in spades from a GST increase. Higher income taxes on the wealthy could do the same without shifting the burden

Excuse me???  How do tourists get their GST back?

Kytro wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 10:07pm:

Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: ACOSS and all antagonists of the GST, overlook whom actually BENEFITS THE MOST from the GST revenues? Yes the GST is a "regressive" tax, BUT low income earners and those on Govt benefits are the very individuals that tax (of any kind) benefits the most. Even without any rise in benefit payments as compensation the improvements brought on by extra funding to hospitals / public transport / schools that extra GST revenues would provide would benefit low income earners the most. This is "any tax". If more tax is collected and also spent on services used most by the poorest, then by definition it will help. It's not the GST specifically. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: According to the last budget figures GST revenue was around $57 Billion dollars. At 15% it would return around $85.5 Billion. Imagine what an extra $28 Billion would do for GOVT services? Assuming no drop in Income tax, which is unlikely. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: GST is efficient. The very regressiveness of GST allows the GOVT to collect revenues from the cash and black economy, from non-tax paying tourists, income tax evaders whenever they spend their cash. Tourists are entitled to claim back most GST. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Low income earners are a small spending demographic. Essentials are mainly exempt. The big spending is done by the rest of the consumer economic demographic. I don't have the figures, but how much of that $570 Billion in spending ($57B GST x 10) was made by low income earners compared to everyone else last year? I agree, the GST still targets the wealthy the least, and so imposes a higher burden on everyone else. The entire point of raising the GST and lowering income tax is reduce the progressiveness of the tax system. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: A large proportion of low incomes are actually accessed from tax revenues. Centrelink payments, heath concession cards, transport concessions, utilities bills concessions. ACOSS needs to factor those items into its modelling. Low income earners would reap RETURN benefits in spades from a GST increase. Higher income taxes on the wealthy could do the same without shifting the burden

GST is a tax on spending therefore it targets the weathly the MOST.  Seriously, how hard is that to work out?

This topic I think has been discussed before.  There isn't any point I think trying to sway the other side - both sides are either firmly dogmatically attracted to their side of arguments/reasons or are paid to promote their team.

stunspore wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

This topic I think has been discussed before.  There isn't any point I think trying to sway the other side - both sides are either firmly dogmatically attracted to their side of arguments/reasons or are paid to promote their team.

There is a definite point to be made that the title of the thread is inaccurate.

Nobody is unscathed by the GST unless everything you buy is exempt?

stunspore wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:28am:

This topic I think has been discussed before.  There isn't any point I think trying to sway the other side - both sides are either firmly dogmatically attracted to their side of arguments/reasons or are paid to promote their team.

NOBODY is paid to 'promote their team' on here. What retarded party would pay anyone to post on a forum with a couple dozen members?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

Excuse me???  How do tourists get their GST back?

you don't think everyone makes crap up just because you do , do you Maria? :D :D

http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/prepare/departures/tourist-refund-scheme.aspx

double

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 10:07pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: ACOSS and all antagonists of the GST, overlook whom actually BENEFITS THE MOST from the GST revenues? Yes the GST is a "regressive" tax, BUT low income earners and those on Govt benefits are the very individuals that tax (of any kind) benefits the most. Even without any rise in benefit payments as compensation the improvements brought on by extra funding to hospitals / public transport / schools that extra GST revenues would provide would benefit low income earners the most. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: According to the last budget figures GST revenue was around $57 Billion dollars. At 15% it would return around $85.5 Billion. Imagine what an extra $28 Billion would do for GOVT services? Assuming no drop in Income tax, which is unlikely. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: GST is efficient. The very regressiveness of GST allows the GOVT to collect revenues from the cash and black economy, from non-tax paying tourists, income tax evaders whenever they spend their cash. Tourists are entitled to claim back most GST. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Low income earners are a small spending demographic. Essentials are mainly exempt. The big spending is done by the rest of the consumer economic demographic. I don't have the figures, but how much of that $570 Billion in spending ($57B GST x 10) was made by low income earners compared to everyone else last year? I agree, the GST still targets the wealthy the least, and so imposes a higher burden on everyone else. The entire point of raising the GST and lowering income tax is reduce the progressiveness of the tax system. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: A large proportion of low incomes are actually accessed from tax revenues. Centrelink payments, heath concession cards, transport concessions, utilities bills concessions. ACOSS needs to factor those items into its modelling. Low income earners would reap RETURN benefits in spades from a GST increase. Higher income taxes on the wealthy could do the same without shifting the burden Excuse me???  How do tourists get their GST back?

Through a tourist GST refund scheme.  After you clear the customs at the airport, you can go to this help desk.  There you fill out a form, show them your receipt, and GST will then refund to your bank / cc, or check mailed to you.
This is "any tax". If more tax is collected and also spent on services used most by the poorest, then by definition it will help. It's not the GST specifically.

tickleandrose wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 8:15am: Kytro wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 10:07pm: Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: ACOSS and all antagonists of the GST, overlook whom actually BENEFITS THE MOST from the GST revenues? Yes the GST is a "regressive" tax, BUT low income earners and those on Govt benefits are the very individuals that tax (of any kind) benefits the most. Even without any rise in benefit payments as compensation the improvements brought on by extra funding to hospitals / public transport / schools that extra GST revenues would provide would benefit low income earners the most. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: According to the last budget figures GST revenue was around $57 Billion dollars. At 15% it would return around $85.5 Billion. Imagine what an extra $28 Billion would do for GOVT services? Assuming no drop in Income tax, which is unlikely. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: GST is efficient. The very regressiveness of GST allows the GOVT to collect revenues from the cash and black economy, from non-tax paying tourists, income tax evaders whenever they spend their cash. Tourists are entitled to claim back most GST. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Low income earners are a small spending demographic. Essentials are mainly exempt. The big spending is done by the rest of the consumer economic demographic. I don't have the figures, but how much of that $570 Billion in spending ($57B GST x 10) was made by low income earners compared to everyone else last year? I agree, the GST still targets the wealthy the least, and so imposes a higher burden on everyone else. The entire point of raising the GST and lowering income tax is reduce the progressiveness of the tax system. Swagman wrote on Nov 5th, 2015 at 7:29pm: A large proportion of low incomes are actually accessed from tax revenues. Centrelink payments, heath concession cards, transport concessions, utilities bills concessions. ACOSS needs to factor those items into its modelling. Low income earners would reap RETURN benefits in spades from a GST increase. Higher income taxes on the wealthy could do the same without shifting the burden Excuse me???  How do tourists get their GST back? Through a tourist GST refund scheme.  After you clear the customs at the airport, you can go to this help desk.  There you fill out a form, show them your receipt, and GST will then refund to your bank / cc, or check mailed to you. This is "any tax". If more tax is collected and also spent on services used most by the poorest, then by definition it will help. It's not the GST specifically.

Never heard of it. I doubt though that you could recover all the GST you paid since it is on everything. I wonder how many tourists know of this?

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 8:15am:

Excuse me???  How do tourists get their GST back?

Via the the tourist refund scheme.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 9:16am:

Never heard of it. I doubt though that you could recover all the GST you paid since it is on everything. I wonder how many tourists know of this?

No, it only covers goods (not services) over $300

Kytro wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 9:16am: Never heard of it. I doubt though that you could recover all the GST you paid since it is on everything. I wonder how many tourists know of this? No, it only covers goods (not services) over $300

So it only covers the really big stuff. Thanks. I was not aware of its existence and it does not materially affect the claim that tourists pay the GST.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:16am:

Kytro wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:17am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 9:16am: Never heard of it. I doubt though that you could recover all the GST you paid since it is on everything. I wonder how many tourists know of this? No, it only covers goods (not services) over $300 So it only covers the really big stuff. Thanks. I was not aware of its existence and it does not materially affect the claim that tourists pay the GST.

I'd be interested in seeing how much they generally contribute, but it's not altogether clear from a quick search.

Kytro wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 11:36am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 11:16am: Kytro wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 10:17am: mariacostel wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 9:16am: Never heard of it. I doubt though that you could recover all the GST you paid since it is on everything. I wonder how many tourists know of this? No, it only covers goods (not services) over $300 So it only covers the really big stuff. Thanks. I was not aware of its existence and it does not materially affect the claim that tourists pay the GST. I'd be interested in seeing how much they generally contribute, but it's not altogether clear from a quick search.

We are a big tourist destination. It is fair to think that it is a reasonable amount. A 15% GST would obviously increase that.

Removing the tax exemption on super would yield over $50Bn, much more than any stupid increase in the stupid GST!

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 3:15pm:

Removing the tax exemption on super would yield over $50Bn, much more than any stupid increase in the stupid GST!

do you have superfund monk????? ;D ;D

its usually those who dont have it that nominate it.... ;) ;)

it doesnt matter what they do someone will be against it....or they will think up some other way.. they NEED THIS MONEY.. you cannot expect to pay the same taxes year in year out and expect all the same services for it....

it just cant happen..

the most stupid idea was paid maternity leave.. it was/is a shocker.....like most things it would blow up out of all proportion.


its the same with HECS.. its free University....hardly any one pays it back....

yet all those LECTURERS want to be paid.. who do you reckon pays them??????

thats right the stooopid tax payer...plus they demand all new equipment... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 3:15pm:

Removing the tax exemption on super would yield over $50Bn, much more than any stupid increase in the stupid GST!

dearest monk, we have a national savings problem.
we simply are some of the worlds worst savers.
50 billion left in super adds to the national wealth.
it is an asset (even though privately held) but it still an asset held WITHIN the australian economy and is available in the future.

If you take that 50 billion and give it to the poor to make them less poor (i dispute this anyway, as the poor  in australia , by world standards are very very well off)  , but if you give it to them, will they save it or spend it??

Now pansi going to thailand on holidays or an unemployed person buying a PS2 or a pensioner taking a cruise to fiji is just taking that 50 billion and pisssing it away.

So, in the national interest it should stay exactly where it is . it is part of our "future fund"

The government has said it won't increase the total tax take.

This means if they increase the GST and reduce income taxes,  it will benefit the richer the most. If they are to compensate the poor, then by not increasing total tax take, they must by definition increase spending.

cods and Walter Mitty,

You are very misinformed.

The super tax exemption does not encourage savings for investment. It is a tax dodge idiot Howard put in shortly before he got the double boot. It benefits the super rich who can salary sacrifice $100K and the like.

I suggest you read a bit wider than old self help books and/or the Daily Toilet.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:47pm:

cods and Walter Mitty, You are very misinformed. The super tax exemption does not encourage savings for investment. It is a tax dodge idiot Howard put in shortly before he got the double boot. It benefits the super rich who can salary sacrifice $100K and the like. I suggest you read a bit wider than old self help books and/or the Daily Toilet.

so you dont want to admit you havent got superfunds and probably havent had to squirrel anything away... ::) ::)

it isnt rocket science if I had a million dollars in the bank I would pay tax on the interest it makes......

if I am to be expected to save that million dollars [instead of taking a cruise every year] for my old age I would expect some incentive...

oh I know I should pizzzzzzz it up against the wall that way I would be paying tax via the booze and do my bit for the country...

well it makes sense to some. :(

Kytro wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:43pm:

The government has said it won't increase the total tax take. This means if they increase the GST and reduce income taxes,  it will benefit the richer the most. If they are to compensate the poor, then by not increasing total tax take, they must by definition increase spending.

Not a lot of logic in that position. Who said 'total take' was nationally? What about individually? Compensation will make everyone's tax grab largely the same. BUT the cash economy will be paying 5% more and as the original GST found out, the cash economy is bigger than anyone anticipated.  Nationally, it WILL increase the tax take.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 6^th, 2015 at 4:56pm:

Kytro wrote on Nov 6th, 2015 at 4:43pm: The government has said it won't increase the total tax take. This means if they increase the GST and reduce income taxes,  it will benefit the richer the most. If they are to compensate the poor, then by not increasing total tax take, they must by definition increase spending. Not a lot of logic in that position. Who said 'total take' was nationally? What about individually? Compensation will make everyone's tax grab largely the same. BUT the cash economy will be paying 5% more and as the original GST found out, the cash economy is bigger than anyone anticipated.  Nationally, it WILL increase the tax take.

A difficult proposition when you don't know what an individual's GST spending is.

Personally I'd like a "proper" tax review, not a partisan stitch up. It's not so much I think GST is bad as it is I think the poor make easy targets. Basically a review where they told to assume that no taxes exist, now build a system.