Australian Politics Forum - Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #120 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 8:45am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 7:22am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything.

A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

But any tax concessions or subsidies do not apply evenly across the board, while company tax does. And if it is revenue neutral, how does that help anyone at all?

Not all profits are distributed to shareholders. Companies have a retained earnings component. While its true that the forgone franking credits are picked up as ordinary income tax but its not quite revenue neutral. More about that later.

By reducing the tax payable on retained earnings it leaves more capital available for capital stock, machinery and technology rollout and therefore growth in labour productivity.

This is the reason that company taxes fall most heavily on the workers rather than the owners of the capital since any diminution of productivity stunts real wages growth.

With regards to revenue neutrality you need to also consider the deadweight losses associated with the various tax regimes. Company taxes have nearly the double the deadweight losses of income tax. For this reason it is not quite revenue neutral. Every dollar of company tax costs the local economy $1.40 with that extra 40c coming out of yours and my pocket. ( Marginal excess burden and deadweight loss is the same thing )

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #121 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:12am

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything.

A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

Which concessions did you have in mind ?

Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses.

Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries.

Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate.

Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

bogarde73 Gold Member Offline Anti-Global & Contra Mundum Posts: 18443 Gender:	Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase Reply #122 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right? Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.
Back to top	Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism. IP Logged

bogarde73

Gold Member

Offline

Anti-Global & Contra Mundum

Posts: 18443
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #123 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:41am

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. - Bam

You make it sound as if it is some trick recently discovered by avoiders Bam. and that Australian law has been deliberately structured to provide for it.

In fact it relies on a principle as old as the joint stock companies of the early 19th century. That is, every corporate entity is a separate legal entity just like an individual is. So there is no fiction in one company in a group borrowing from another company in the group.
Governments have to legislate for "related entities" to be treated otherwise and this is where very complex and difficult legal complications can come into play.

Back to top

Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #124 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44am

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right?

Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #125 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:48am

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything.

A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

Which concessions did you have in mind ?

Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses.

Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries.

Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate.

Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

Might not be so easy. All primary producers are eligible for the concession. Like it or not, miners are primary producers.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #126 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:10am

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything.

A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

Which concessions did you have in mind ?

Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses.

Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries.

Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate.

Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

So basically just follow your ideology and bias?

Back to top

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #127 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 11:41am

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:41am:

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. - Bam

You make it sound as if it is some trick recently discovered by avoiders Bam. and that Australian law has been deliberately structured to provide for it.

In fact it relies on a principle as old as the joint stock companies of the early 19th century. That is, every corporate entity is a separate legal entity just like an individual is. So there is no fiction in one company in a group borrowing from another company in the group.
Governments have to legislate for "related entities" to be treated otherwise and this is where very complex and difficult legal complications can come into play.

It is a fiction (an accounting fiction) because one entity controls both sides of the deal.

It's not a real debt because the Australian arm of the corporation has no discretion to borrow money from elsewhere at a lower rate. It borrows money from the foreign arm of the corporation in a fictitious transaction that has only one purpose - to get money out of Australia without that money being taxed.

I notice though that you have made no constructive suggestions on ways to fix this problem. Why is it? Do you like foreign multinationals collectively avoiding tens of billions of dollars of tax a year?

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #128 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 11:49am

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:48am:

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything.

A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

Which concessions did you have in mind ?

Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses.

Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries.

Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate.

Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

Might not be so easy. All primary producers are eligible for the concession. Like it or not, miners are primary producers.

There's no reason why farmers and miners should be lumped together as "primary producers" and given the same generous subsidies. Farming and mining are very different. Farmers can raise crops on the same patch of land over and over. Miners can only mine the same minerals once.

We should not be subsidising fossil fuels at all. That is the problem - subsidising an industry that is clearly not in need of subsidy.

Abolition of the fossil fuel subsidy does not necessarily mean nothing replaces it. We can remove excise from renewable fuels, to encourage investment in those fuels as a new industry. When the market share of renewable fuels reaches 25%, we can start reapplying the excise. We can be self-sufficient for renewable fuels, it only takes political will to make it happen.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59186
Here
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #129 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:44pm

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44am:

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right?

Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement.

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #130 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 1:37pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44am:

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right?

Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement.

They can say what they like. What they're allowed to do is another matter. Just for your edification you may like to read section 81 of the constitution. All revenues go to consolidated revenue. The proposition that there is a special GST fund for the purposes of funding the states is expressly proscribed by the constitution. It is merely a gentleman's agreement.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #131 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 5:06pm

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 11:49am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:48am:

Bam wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:01am:

Bam wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2015 at 6:19pm:

stunspore wrote on Nov 21^st, 2015 at 8:21am:

Be smarter to get businesses doing tax dodges to stop doing that and actually pay tax.

So many dodges altogether: super, CGT, NG, the FBT needs an overhaul. If big corporations don’t pay enough tax, use the payroll tax and hit big corporations. Stuff can be done, Libs don’t have the guts!

Reduce the corporate tax rate and there will be less incentive to dodge anything.

Reduce corporate tax concessions and there would be less ability to dodge anything.

A good approach is to do both: pay for corporate tax cuts by axing corporate tax concessions. If done properly, the net effect would be broadly revenue neutral.

Which concessions did you have in mind ?

Start with any concession that fits the mechanism of privatising profits and socialising losses.

Some corporate subsidies also would need to be axed such as fuel tax concessions for the mining industry. 85% of the mining industry is foreign owned, so that tax concession only fattens the profits of foreign shareholders. We spend almost as much money in the Federal budget subsidising rich foreign shareholders of mining companies as we spend providing foreign aid to poor countries.

Also take a close look at what's coming out of the Senate inquiry into corporate tax avoidance.

One example - used extensively as a profit-shifting measure by multinational corporations - is for the Australian arm of that business to "borrow" money from a foreign arm of the same corporation at exorbitant interest rates that effectively send money overseas without being taxed. The "debt" is pure fiction - the company is "borrowing" money from itself - but it is currently legal under Australian law. We need measures to stop this, such as requiring all businesses doing business in Australia that borrow money to borrow that money from an Australian bank, or to have a deemed interest rate for foreign corporate borrowings that is closely aligned to the average corporate interest rate but discounted by the corporate tax rate.

Other similar measures are possible that combat corporate tax avoidance. The findings of the Senate inquiry will be revealing.

Might not be so easy. All primary producers are eligible for the concession. Like it or not, miners are primary producers.

There's no reason why farmers and miners should be lumped together as "primary producers" and given the same generous subsidies. Farming and mining are very different. Farmers can raise crops on the same patch of land over and over. Miners can only mine the same minerals once.

We should not be subsidising fossil fuels at all. That is the problem - subsidising an industry that is clearly not in need of subsidy.

Abolition of the fossil fuel subsidy does not necessarily mean nothing replaces it. We can remove excise from renewable fuels, to encourage investment in those fuels as a new industry. When the market share of renewable fuels reaches 25%, we can start reapplying the excise. We can be self-sufficient for renewable fuels, it only takes political will to make it happen.

What renewable fuels? the 5 litres of biodiesel Audi have produced? Laudable technology but hardly one that is in production and available.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #132 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 5:08pm

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44am:

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right?

Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement.

They can say what they like. What they're allowed to do is another matter. Just for your edification you may like to read section 81 of the constitution. All revenues go to consolidated revenue. The proposition that there is a special GST fund for the purposes of funding the states is expressly proscribed by the constitution. It is merely a gentleman's agreement.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

When the states were refusing to remove some of the taxes and charges that the GST was supposed to remove, Peter Costello told them that he would withhold corresponding amounts from their GST allocations. It was his decision.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59186
Here
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #133 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:08pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 5:08pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44am:

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right?

Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement.

They can say what they like. What they're allowed to do is another matter. Just for your edification you may like to read section 81 of the constitution. All revenues go to consolidated revenue. The proposition that there is a special GST fund for the purposes of funding the states is expressly proscribed by the constitution. It is merely a gentleman's agreement.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

When the states were refusing to remove some of the taxes and charges that the GST was supposed to remove, Peter Costello told them that he would withhold corresponding amounts from their GST allocations. It was his decision.

Costello was bluffing and Bull shiting - all the taxes that were meant to be removed had been - Costello was sneakily claiming that the deal was different to the one he had made.

Back to top

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #134 - Nov 25^th, 2015 at 11:04pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 10:08pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 5:08pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 1:37pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:

crocodile wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:44am:

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 25^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

So it only takes one state to oppose changes to the GST, is that right?

Though I suppose we don't have politicians who like to stand alone.

That has worked its way into the narrative. In reality it is horseshit. The feds don't have to hand over the GST to the states at all if they don't want to. They do not need approval from the states to change the rate. A nice sales pitch at the time but that's about it.

It is written into the GST legislation and the federal government is still saying that it will respect the terms of the agreement.

They can say what they like. What they're allowed to do is another matter. Just for your edification you may like to read section 81 of the constitution. All revenues go to consolidated revenue. The proposition that there is a special GST fund for the purposes of funding the states is expressly proscribed by the constitution. It is merely a gentleman's agreement.

Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act

81. All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.

When the states were refusing to remove some of the taxes and charges that the GST was supposed to remove, Peter Costello told them that he would withhold corresponding amounts from their GST allocations. It was his decision.

Costello was bluffing and Bull shiting - all the taxes that were meant to be removed had been - Costello was sneakily claiming that the deal was different to the one he had made.

I recall that but it may be hazy. From memory, Peter Costello reminded Michael Costa that he was meant to get rid of land taxes and stamp duty. In return Costa argued that NSW collects more GST revenue than it receives while Qld got a bigger share and therefore cannot do anything about it. In the end Costello backed off and stamp duty remains. More the pity. It is one of the worst taxes ever invented. Unbelievable that governments want to put a brake on people wanting to do business with each other.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged