Australian Politics Forum - Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #135 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:49am

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.

Your retelling of history is always inventive. The states were doing things like 'planning' to remove charges like FID 'within 5 years' and other such waffling. After Costellos threat, most of these charges and taxes were removed within a month.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 59242
Here
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #136 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:40am

mariacostel wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

Your retelling of history is always inventive. The states were doing things like 'planning' to remove charges like FID 'within 5 years' and other such waffling. After Costellos threat, most of these charges and taxes were removed within a month.

After Costellos threat, most of these charges and taxes were removed within a month.

Costa in NSW scheduled one tax to be removed over several years.

The items that Costello wanted removed were largely the same taxes that he removed from the deal when food was removed from the GST by the Democrats.

Absolutely all the taxes that had been scheduled to be removed had been removed. The taxes that had not been removed were scheduled to be reviewed but there was never a commitment to remove any of them.

Costello's claims at the time were different to what the actual deal had been.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 59242
Here
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #137 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:48am

Quote:

The Howard Government's original plan for the GST envisaged the states abolishing a swag of financial taxes, which in effect would be replaced by the GST. They included:

The financial institutions duty.
The bank accounts debits tax.
The NSW accommodation tax.
Conveyancing duties on transfer of business property.

A range of other stamp duties on leases, mortgages, sales of shares, cheques and credit arrangements.What was the deal?

Then came the GST deal with the Democrats, which removed the GST on food, knocking a big hole in the revenue forecasts. The Democrats proposed that it be filled by paring back the income tax cuts and increasing taxes on petrol — thereby leaving the original agreement with the states intact.

Howard and Costello chose a different course. They decided to keep the states' stamp duties to pay for the lower GST collections. Under the new deal announced by Howard on May 31, 1999, just three state taxes were earmarked for immediate abolition: the financial institutions duty, the accommodation tax and the stamp duty on transfer of shares. A fourth tax, the bank accounts debits tax (dubbed the BAD tax) would be removed from July 1, 2005.

But removal of all the stamp duties, including conveyancing duties on business property, were deferred indefinitely.

Otherwise, under the agreement, the Commonwealth would have had to underwrite the costs of abolishing them if GST revenue fell short — something it was unwilling to do.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Getting-to-the-bottom-of-the-GST/2005/03/...

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #138 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:47pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:40am:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 7:49am:

Your retelling of history is always inventive. The states were doing things like 'planning' to remove charges like FID 'within 5 years' and other such waffling. After Costellos threat, most of these charges and taxes were removed within a month.

After Costellos threat, most of these charges and taxes were removed within a month.

Costa in NSW scheduled one tax to be removed over several years.

The items that Costello wanted removed were largely the same taxes that he removed from the deal when food was removed from the GST by the Democrats.

Absolutely all the taxes that had been scheduled to be removed had been removed. The taxes that had not been removed were scheduled to be reviewed but there was never a commitment to remove any of them.

Costello's claims at the time were different to what the actual deal had been.

The DNA version of history is quite at odds with reality. You have this real problem with GST and so in every single debate or discussion you simply HAVE TO question some fact in order to somehow justify your insane hatred of it.

The worst offenders were SA and VIC if I recall and the FID example was rectified very quickly.

You, really, really, need to move on from your hatred of the GST. It is make you look like a twit.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #139 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:51pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:48am:

Quote:

The Howard Government's original plan for the GST envisaged the states abolishing a swag of financial taxes, which in effect would be replaced by the GST. They included:

The financial institutions duty.
The bank accounts debits tax.
The NSW accommodation tax.
Conveyancing duties on transfer of business property.

A range of other stamp duties on leases, mortgages, sales of shares, cheques and credit arrangements.What was the deal?

Then came the GST deal with the Democrats, which removed the GST on food, knocking a big hole in the revenue forecasts. The Democrats proposed that it be filled by paring back the income tax cuts and increasing taxes on petrol — thereby leaving the original agreement with the states intact.

Howard and Costello chose a different course. They decided to keep the states' stamp duties to pay for the lower GST collections. Under the new deal announced by Howard on May 31, 1999, just three state taxes were earmarked for immediate abolition: the financial institutions duty, the accommodation tax and the stamp duty on transfer of shares. A fourth tax, the bank accounts debits tax (dubbed the BAD tax) would be removed from July 1, 2005.

But removal of all the stamp duties, including conveyancing duties on business property, were deferred indefinitely.

Otherwise, under the agreement, the Commonwealth would have had to underwrite the costs of abolishing them if GST revenue fell short — something it was unwilling to do.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Getting-to-the-bottom-of-the-GST/2005/03/...

ah... the Age. It simply never manages to tell the whole truth when part can do the job of criticising the Libs. Did you notice the complete and total ignoring of sales tax and wholesale tax (excluding properties?) And other things as well.

Never let facts get in the way of a pro-labor story. And just for the record, the BAD tax was a federal tax and not a state one and therefore not part of the GST deal in the first place.

Pravda on the Yarra aka The Age.

Back to top

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 59242
Here
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #140 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:54pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:48am:

Quote:

The Howard Government's original plan for the GST envisaged the states abolishing a swag of financial taxes, which in effect would be replaced by the GST. They included:

The financial institutions duty.
The bank accounts debits tax.
The NSW accommodation tax.
Conveyancing duties on transfer of business property.

A range of other stamp duties on leases, mortgages, sales of shares, cheques and credit arrangements.What was the deal?

Then came the GST deal with the Democrats, which removed the GST on food, knocking a big hole in the revenue forecasts. The Democrats proposed that it be filled by paring back the income tax cuts and increasing taxes on petrol — thereby leaving the original agreement with the states intact.

Howard and Costello chose a different course. They decided to keep the states' stamp duties to pay for the lower GST collections. Under the new deal announced by Howard on May 31, 1999, just three state taxes were earmarked for immediate abolition: the financial institutions duty, the accommodation tax and the stamp duty on transfer of shares. A fourth tax, the bank accounts debits tax (dubbed the BAD tax) would be removed from July 1, 2005.

But removal of all the stamp duties, including conveyancing duties on business property, were deferred indefinitely.

Otherwise, under the agreement, the Commonwealth would have had to underwrite the costs of abolishing them if GST revenue fell short — something it was unwilling to do.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Getting-to-the-bottom-of-the-GST/2005/03/...

ah... the Age. It simply never manages to tell the whole truth when part can do the job of criticising the Libs. Did you notice the complete and total ignoring of sales tax and wholesale tax (excluding properties?) And other things as well.

Never let facts get in the way of a pro-labor story. And just for the record, the BAD tax was a federal tax and not a state one and therefore not part of the GST deal in the first place.

Pravda on the Yarra aka The Age.

And you say that I re write history, I am wrong - I post an article from the time supporting what I had said and then the article is wrong.

Of course they don't need to mention the removal of sales tax that was the primary outcome - that was never in doubt or under discussion.

It is a fact that when Costello insisted that more taxes be removed that it was not originally part of the deal.

Back to top

IP Logged

mariacostel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7344
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #141 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:11pm

Dnarever wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 6:54pm:

mariacostel wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 4:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:48am:

Quote:

The Howard Government's original plan for the GST envisaged the states abolishing a swag of financial taxes, which in effect would be replaced by the GST. They included:

The financial institutions duty.
The bank accounts debits tax.
The NSW accommodation tax.
Conveyancing duties on transfer of business property.

A range of other stamp duties on leases, mortgages, sales of shares, cheques and credit arrangements.What was the deal?

Then came the GST deal with the Democrats, which removed the GST on food, knocking a big hole in the revenue forecasts. The Democrats proposed that it be filled by paring back the income tax cuts and increasing taxes on petrol — thereby leaving the original agreement with the states intact.

Howard and Costello chose a different course. They decided to keep the states' stamp duties to pay for the lower GST collections. Under the new deal announced by Howard on May 31, 1999, just three state taxes were earmarked for immediate abolition: the financial institutions duty, the accommodation tax and the stamp duty on transfer of shares. A fourth tax, the bank accounts debits tax (dubbed the BAD tax) would be removed from July 1, 2005.

But removal of all the stamp duties, including conveyancing duties on business property, were deferred indefinitely.

Otherwise, under the agreement, the Commonwealth would have had to underwrite the costs of abolishing them if GST revenue fell short — something it was unwilling to do.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Getting-to-the-bottom-of-the-GST/2005/03/...

ah... the Age. It simply never manages to tell the whole truth when part can do the job of criticising the Libs. Did you notice the complete and total ignoring of sales tax and wholesale tax (excluding properties?) And other things as well.

Never let facts get in the way of a pro-labor story. And just for the record, the BAD tax was a federal tax and not a state one and therefore not part of the GST deal in the first place.

Pravda on the Yarra aka The Age.

And you say that I re write history, I am wrong - I post an article from the time supporting what I had said and then the article is wrong.

Of course they don't need to mention the removal of sales tax that was the primary outcome - that was never in doubt or under discussion.

It is a fact that when Costello insisted that more taxes be removed that it was not originally part of the deal.

They got so much wrong in the article they even talked about the BAD tax - a federal tax that was never part of the GST.

It was a typical biased article that missed a lof of the salient points, got some facts wrong and still didnt address the question at hand.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75137
Gender: male

Re: Premier Andrews Opposes Any GST Increase
Reply #142 - Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:14pm

mariacostel wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:11pm:

They got so much wrong in the article they even talked about the BAD tax - a federal tax that was never part of the GST.

It was a typical biased article that missed a lof of the salient points, got some facts wrong and still didnt address the question at hand.

still flapping your gums I see Roll Eyes

you could of course provide your own links from non 'Age' sources to verify your claims.

My money is on you running away or telling me how I don't understand Cheesy

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged