GST won't be part of tax reform: Chris Bowen      

    by: LAUREN WILSON
    From: The Australian
    July 07, 2013


TREASURER Chris Bowen has ruled out reviewing the base or rate of the GST, despite stating the need for further discussions with the states on tax reform.

Speaking on Sky News' Australian Agenda, the newly-appointed Treasurer said Australia's taxation system could be made more efficient, but a rethink of the GST was not on the table.      

“I don't think there is a case for increasing the GST and I don't think there is a case for broadening the base,” Mr Bowen said.      

“I think there is a case for talking to the states about a more efficient tax system and reducing the number of taxes we have in Australia which don't raise very much money but are a compliance burden for business and an administrative burden for government,” he said.

“That is a very important discussion to be had.”

Since returning to the Prime Ministership, Kevin Rudd has pledged to develop a better working relationship with the business community.

Mr Bowen said Labor would also be a party that looks after small business, but he would not comment on whether the Rudd government would look to give small business tax relief in the medium term.

“I think the approach both the Prime Minister and I would take would be a pro-small business approach,” he said.

“We want the Labor Party to be, frankly, a party that small business is comfortable with because we see small business as the engine room of the economy.”

Mr Bowen reiterated that he was not looking to make changes to the government's fiscal parameters, as outlined in the May budget handed down by former Treasurer Wayne Swan, which has Australia returning to surplus in 2015-16.

“The budget remains the government's budget - it is treasurer Swan's budget but I stand by it as the new treasurer,” he said.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:


They already cut direct tax and increased a consumer based one.  It was called a carbon tax.

If you increase the GST those on the lowest incomes are hit the hardest as the tax free threshold is now $18,200.  It would directly punish those on incomes less than that with no compensation measures

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 8:14pm:


On your salary why do you need a tax cut?

Ive never got one either, but Im not begrudging those that need it more than what I do.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Considering you didnt pay any last time you were here you have a bit of a hide to complain about paying anything, all the while collecting your baby bonus

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 8:32pm:


Wow, you really are a self centered rightious prick.

Probably because in this country we care about all the people and try and shorten the gap between rich and poor by providing basic services.

Considering the state of the american economy I find it amusing you are still bragging about how much better it is there.  Once again, only thinking about yourself.

And if you start talking about income earners in the $150-200k bracket as "Rich" then you really are falling for that tonne of class war horse sh*t I see and hear so much.

Rich people do not have a mortgage. I had a $4k per month one.

Rich people do not budget for holidays.

Rich people do not calculate how much schooling will be v other areas.

Rich people are David Beckham who was on $210,000 per week.

I was on the same figure per year. Therefore Beckham earned 52 times what I did.

Middle income is not rich.


PS - David Beckham paid 19% income tax according to the latest PWC declaration in the court case.

Flatenning tax is not a bad thing.

It should never be a policy to penalise people who achieve and reward those who drop out.

Everyone has a chance in life, its up to you whether you allow those challenges to defeat you or make you.

The job of funding a country should not fall on one demographic.

Australia unfortunately has too many non contributors.
The prior poster being one example.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 7^th, 2013 at 9:27pm:


It should never be a policy to penalise people who achieve and reward those who drop out.

Nor should it be policy to penalise those who are worst off for the benefit of those who are doing well.