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


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:


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.

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


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.

Longy thinks the black economy pays GST 

Where are you dumb monk?

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


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.

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.