Support NeoGAF

[DrSlek]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...he-federation-tax-system-20141027-11caaw.html

Oh wow. A possible GST increase. I did not see that coming. No siree...

 

[markot]

It's good because there poor don't suffer from gst increases as much as the rich would.

 

[hidys]

I'm not against a GST increase but Abbott wanting a mature debate on tax is a bit rich.

I imagine Labor will stand against it knowing full well a 2.5% increase is needed but will fight against it for political reasons (albeit reasons which Abbott fully deserves).

 

[Fredescu]

I'm not against a GST increase

Why not?

Also

 

[hidys]

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ember-10-as-abbott-government-bypasses-senate

In a sense I'm actually glad this happened. The Greens resistance on this made no sense.

Why not?

Also

Because a 2.5% increase which doesn't broaden what is covered by GST (assuming that's how Abbott deals with this) will barely have any impact on cost of living and will be a massive boost to state revenue.

 

[markot]

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...ember-10-as-abbott-government-bypasses-senate

In a sense I'm actually glad this happened. The Greens resistance on this made no sense.




Because a 2.5% increase which doesn't broaden what is covered by GST (assuming that's how Abbott deals with this) will barely have any impact on cost of living and will be a massive boost to state revenue.

Whos?

 

[Fredescu]

Because a 2.5% increase which doesn't broaden what is covered by GST (assuming that's how Abbott deals with this) will barely have any impact on cost of living and will be a massive boost to state revenue.

The biggest impact will be felt by the poorest people. The GST is a regressive tax.

 

[hidys]

Whos?

The biggest impact will be felt by the poorest people. The GST is a regressive tax.

This is sadly true, but there is nothing wrong with a consumption tax if it is part of a broader progressive taxation plan (not to say our system couldn't be more progressive). Most countries have them and many have them higher than ours.

I just hope they keep the exemptions the Democrats negotiated in 98.

 

[Arksy]

No. State governments levy income tax. Feds get GST at 10%. They collect enough tax as it is.

 

[hidys]

No. State governments levy income tax. Feds get GST at 10%. They collect enough tax as it is.

lol

 

[Fredescu]

This is sadly true, but there is nothing wrong with a consumption tax if it is part of a broader progressive taxation plan (not to say our system couldn't be more progressive).

Lets say your broader taxation plan involves cutting tax to miners and polluters and paying for those cuts by giving the poorest people a 2.5% pay cut. Do you reckon supporting a GST increase might make sense in that situation?

 

[Arksy]

lol

What? So much for mature debate *crosses arms*

Income tax was meant to be a state thing...the feds took over income tax in WW2 for you know...the war..and never gave it back.

Edit: I meant overall tax burden. GST is highly regressive and probably shouldn't be increased. Taxes should be moved around...not blatatnly increased.

 

[hidys]

Lets say your broader taxation plan involves cutting tax to miners and polluters and paying for those cuts by giving the poorest people a 2.5% pay cut. Do you reckon supporting a GST increase might make sense in that situation?

Obviously the two examples you mentioned were a mistake and there is a good political argument towards Abbott favoring regressive taxes that don't hurt his mates.

But that doesn't change the fact that States need revenue and that their fiscal outlook is largely grim.

What? So much for mature debate *crosses arms*

Income tax was meant to be a state thing...the feds took over income tax in WW2 for you know...the war..and never gave it back.

Edit: I meant overall tax burden. GST is highly regressive and probably shouldn't be increased. Taxes should be moved around...not blatatnly increased.

I'm aware of the history of income tax in Australia but it doesn't change the fact that giving them income tax revenue would be a bureaucratic mess. In fact it would be easier to kill the states than giving them back income tax revenue.

Also how would you suggest it be distributed between the states? Does each state get what they collect or is there some kind of fiscal equalization? Either way the whole exercise would be a colossal waste of time and lead to less/inferior government services overall.

 

[Fredescu]

But that doesn't change the fact that States need revenue and that their fiscal outlook is largely grim.

Why does the mechanism need to be a GST increase?

 

[hidys]

Why does the mechanism need to be a GST increase?

There could be a whole range of thing. That just happens to be the most efficient and raise a shitton of revenue while having minimal cost of living issues.

It needs to be said that virtually all state revenue comes from regressive taxation and I'm all for doing something about that. For example this is something all states SHOULD BE FUCKING DOING:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-01/janda-stamping-out-inefficient-duties/4496356.

 

[Fredescu]

I'm all for land tax and I'm all for the states getting more revenue. I just don't like downplaying the cost of living effects of a consumption tax. It won't affect me personally much, but that's not the point.

 

[hidys]

I'm all for land tax and I'm all for the states getting more revenue. I just don't like downplaying the cost of living effects of a consumption tax. It won't affect me personally much, but that's not the point.

Again I find it difficult to believe that a 2.5% increase in GST is going to have any meaningful impact. I imagine when it was initially introduced it would have been a problem but raising it by that much isn't going to have that much impact.

Spoiler

BTW this is all assumption and I have absolutely no idea what Abbott intends to do I'm just saying what I personally would be okay with. He could just abandon the whole thing upon realizing that he will be shitcanned for it.

EDIT: Frankly I would like to hear some suggestions as to how the states are supposed to raise revenue.

 

[Fredescu]

Again I find it difficult to believe that a 2.5% increase in GST is going to have any meaningful impact. I imagine when it was initially introduced it would have been a problem but raising it by that much isn't going to have that much impact.

Raising the same amount of money through income tax will have even less impact, and allow a progressive structure. Yes I get that it would be administratively more difficult to implement in terms of distribution to the states, but I don't care. Ultimately the GST should be abolished.

 

[hidys]

Raising the same amount of money through income tax will have even less impact, and allow a progressive structure. Yes I get that it would be administratively more difficult to implement in terms of distribution to the states, but I don't care. Ultimately the GST should be abolished.

The GST in this country is actually fairer than sales taxes in most countries. Even the Nordic countries have them. There is no way the GST could or should be abolished. It raises too much revenue for what is ultimately very little financial pain. Truth be told we should probably raise both income tax and GST.

Worth noting you would have to raise income taxes by a lot more to get the same amount you would get from a GST increase. I'm not one to always trade equity for efficiency but that fact should not be overlooked.

 

[Fredescu]

There is no way the GST could or should be abolished. It raises too much revenue for what is ultimately very little financial pain.

We're in the world of fantasy just discussing the possibility, so while we're there, a decent Georgist land tax similar to what is discussed in the article you linked would do away with the need I reckon.

I mean, I don't need to explain marginal utility to you right? You get that concept but you still think consumption tax is fine, and should be raised? I'm not having a go, I'm just wondering if you could go into more detail beyond "I don't think it causes much pain". I'm no expert myself, but it seems like a cynical way to tax welfare recipients for example. Land and income taxes don't have that problem.

 

[Myansie]

The cartoon of the baby Abbott above sums it up nicely.

A year ago Abbott and company were singing about the dangers of putting a tax on specialised parts of the economy with negative environmental effects. Now they want to put a tax on everything. Even the goods and services we want to be encouraging. Electricity good and bad comes to mind.

Ironically enough 2.5% GST increase will amount to more than $550 a year for most families.

Meanwhile the coal miners do very well.

 

[Arksy]

Here's a good idea. Change the constitution to make any political mention of a tax rise punishable by exile. Done.

 

[hidys]

We're in the world of fantasy just discussing the possibility, so while we're there, a decent Georgist land tax similar to what is discussed in the article you linked would do away with the need I reckon.

I mean, I don't need to explain marginal utility to you right? You get that concept but you still think consumption tax is fine, and should be raised? I'm not having a go, I'm just wondering if you could go into more detail beyond "I don't think it causes much pain". I'm no expert myself, but it seems like a cynical way to tax welfare recipients for example. Land and income taxes don't have that problem.

Considering a 2.5% increase in GST would raise about 1% of GDP on its own so I highly doubt a land tax would be enough to completely offset the GST. We're not completely in the world of fantasy here considering others have made this proposal.

To be honest a full blown Henry George style land tax might be a good idea (though obviously not as the only tax as he proposed).

Again key to stress that most necessities aren't taxed under GST and that when it was introduced it abolished a number of already existing sales taxes and came with an increase in welfare payments. I guess a the burden of a 2.5% increase in GST could be added to welfare payments. Also female hygiene products should probably made exempt as well. Compensations could also be made if they decided to broaden to GST to include more things.

 

[markot]

Considering a 2.5% increase in GST would raise about 1% of GDP on its own so I highly doubt a land tax would be enough to completely offset the GST. We're not completely in the world of fantasy here considering others have made this proposal.

To be honest a full blown Henry George style land tax might be a good idea (though obviously not as the only tax as he proposed).

Again key to stress that most necessities aren't taxed under GST and that when it was introduced it abolished a number of already existing sales taxes and came with an increase in welfare payments. I guess a the burden of a 2.5% increase in GST could be added to welfare payments. Also female hygiene products should probably made exempt as well. Compensations could also be made if they decided to broaden to GST to include more things.

haha

 

[hidys]

haha

I should have clarified rent, fresh food, education, medical expenses, water (but not other utilities) others as well. Probably not most but enough to at least keep the tax. I don't think it is quite comprehensive enough but its not terrible either.

 

[Myansie]

Just finished reading the fuel excise story. The hypocrisy is off the charts. The ABC news front page...

Tony Abbott has defended the government's decision to bypass the Senate and push through a fuel tax increase, saying the Coalition has a mandate to fix the budget.

Two paragraphs later...

The Government says "every cent" will be spent on new roads.


OK, thanks for the Carbon Tax II!

 

[hidys]

Just finished reading the fuel excise story. The hypocrisy is off the charts. The ABC news front page...

Tony Abbott has defended the government's decision to bypass the Senate and push through a fuel tax increase, saying the Coalition has a mandate to fix the budget.

Two paragraphs later...

The Government says "every cent" will be spent on new roads.


OK, thanks for the Carbon Tax II!

Basically Australia gets fuel re-indexed and Abbott cops a bollocking.

I am left immensely satisfied.

I just hope they don't do this with the rest of the budget.

 

[Myansie]

I have my issues with the fuel index and gst. I don't view them as fair. They disproportionately target lower socio economic people. But I can compromise on them. What really irritates me is the circumstances they are being brought in under.

They're essentially compensating for the removal of the carbon and mining taxes. I'd love to see a poll done with the question "Which do you hate more? The carbon and mining tax combo or the GST, fuel index combo?".

 

[Arksy]

Tax bypassing the Senate means it's not law, meaning that no one is actually obliged to pay it.

 

[hidys]

Actually given that it still has to get the support of enough crossbenchers retroactively this was probably a political mistake.

A hilarious political mistake.

It's good to know that this terrible budget will still have political windfall at least 12 months later.

Tax bypassing the Senate means it's not law, meaning that no one is actually obliged to pay it.

You can't really avoid it until the Senate votes against it.

You should keep your receipts for a while I guess.

 

[bomma_man]

800 public service jobs gone from Tasmania.


????


Infinite revenue!

 

[hidys]

800 public service jobs gone from Tasmania.


????


Infinite revenue!

Tasmania doesn't have an unemployment problem so they should be fine.

 

[bomma_man]

Tasmania doesn't have an unemployment problem so they should be fine.

No brain drain either

 

[hidys]

No brain drain either

So everything is fine.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I'm not against things like indexing the excise to inflation in principal, but if I was a Senator I'd probably be weighing that up against the context of the Government's other proposals. Indexing taxes to inflation whilst pushing wage and pension/benefit rises below it is no bueno. I also have issues with things like the GP payment or fuel excise increase that disproportionately affect rural areas, especially when they're already being hit by virtue of being poorer in general.

Just finished reading the fuel excise story. The hypocrisy is off the charts. The ABC news front page...

Tony Abbott has defended the government's decision to bypass the Senate and push through a fuel tax increase, saying the Coalition has a mandate to fix the budget.

Two paragraphs later...

The Government says "every cent" will be spent on new roads.


OK, thanks for the Carbon Tax II!

Haha, noticed this as well. Maybe the new roads will have exorbitant tolls to ensure that no future Australian government will have a debt and deficit disaster.

 

[Arksy]

Actually given that it still has to get the support of enough crossbenchers retroactively this was probably a political mistake.

A hilarious political mistake.

It's good to know that this terrible budget will still have political windfall at least 12 months later.



You can't really avoid it until the Senate votes against it.

You should keep your receipts for a while I guess.

They're using a customs tariff to collect the tax, if I had a bucket of money I'd have already lodged submissions to the High Court.

 

[markot]

The senates being mean though. Meanies.

 

[Arksy]

In all seriousness, yes there is a tax imbalance....but it's fucking absurd to answer the imbalance with yet more tax. It's so unbelievably absurd that I'm at a loss as to how to analogise it.

The answer is to move the taxes around so that states control more taxation and the federal government controls less. Your statement that it would be a bureaucratic mess is a weird position, considering it already is a bureaucratic nightmare.

We're talking about reforming the whole federation here, let's actually get some functioning localism where States have real power over their responsibilities instead of no power over them.

 

[bomma_man]

Let's not beat around the bush, we should just abolish the states full stop.

 

[markot]

What about redistribution between states?

 

[Arksy]

Let's not beat around the bush, we should just abolish the states full stop.

To be honest, if we were to have really strong local councils I'd be all up for it....so we should abolish these monstrosities of states for smaller ones. Council sized.

Unfortunately you'll never be able to abolish the states. We're stuck with them...so to make best of a bad situation, let's at least do states properly. I'm keen for a Canadian settlement where the states have enumerated powers.

What about redistribution between states?

I personally don't mind.

 

[markot]

Well the Federal government was meant to be the largely limited one. Its just World War 2 happened and they got the money and decided theyd keep it >.<

Id like to see income taxes go back to states, but with some distribution for the poorer and less populated states.

Federal government has too much power.

 

[Dryk]

Looks like Senator Lambie is introducing a bill making it illegal to cover your face in public without a lawful excuse. And EXTRA illegal to cover your child's face in public without a lawful excuse.

I'm still unaware of any crime epidemic in this country that requires taking a small subset of the population and mandating their nudity (from their perspective) in public to solve.

 

[markot]

Looks like Senator Lambie is introducing a bill making it illegal to cover your face in public without a lawful excuse. And EXTRA illegal to cover your child's face in public without a lawful excuse.

I'm still unaware of any crime epidemic in this country that requires taking a small subset of the population and mandating their nudity (from their perspective) in public to solve.

Would you be criticising her so much if it wasnt for her rich Aboriginal heritage?!

 

[Jintor]

rekt

 

[bomma_man]

Well the Federal government was meant to be the largely limited one. Its just World War 2 happened and they got the money and decided theyd keep it >.<

Id like to see income taxes go back to states, but with some distribution for the poorer and less populated states.

Federal government has too much power.

Nah power creep started with the engineers case.

I really think the federal government is a lot better equipped to handle expensive programs like health and education. We'd be better off if the commonwealth had direct power in those areas. I think the weird dichotomy between who is meant to provide the services and who actually provides the services creates a lot of problems.

 

[Arksy]

Nah power creep started with the engineers case.

I really think the federal government is a lot better equipped to handle expensive programs like health and education. We'd be better off if the commonwealth had direct power in those areas. I think the weird dichotomy between who is meant to provide the services and who actually provides the services creates a lot of problems.

It's definitely a mess right now where we have federally funded schools managed by the states....federally funded hospitals run by the states. Where we differ is that I want less federal government. I don't mind some sort of equalizing mechanism. It's more the case that I want each region to be able to better cater towards various idiosyncrasies which get ignored when a national approach is taken.

 

[Myansie]

It's definitely a mess right now where we have federally funded schools managed by the states....federally funded hospitals run by the states. Where we differ is that I want less federal government. I don't mind some sort of equalizing mechanism. It's more the case that I want each region to be able to better cater towards various idiosyncrasies which get ignored when a national approach is taken.

The states are useless for that as well. I agree with what you said above, local and federal is ideal.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It's definitely a mess right now where we have federally funded schools managed by the states....federally funded hospitals run by the states. Where we differ is that I want less federal government. I don't mind some sort of equalizing mechanism. It's more the case that I want each region to be able to better cater towards various idiosyncrasies which get ignored when a national approach is taken.

I do think there is an argument to be made for National Health and Education Standards because the reasonably safe demographic and political alignments of some states give them incentive to pander to their special interests in those areas. And the only way you can (fairly) enforce National Standards is to provide some level of funding (which is also pretty much the only reason I think private schools should get public funding).

I don't necessarily mean micromanaging here but more like oversight that makes sure Health isn't underfunded in rural/regional/city areas and that our science curriculum doesn't become Texas.

 

[Fredescu]

Can someone explain the appeal of @Rudd2000 and the whole imagen kevern thing? I took a long break from Twitter after the election, and I see they're launching the book based on the account today.

So I read through the timeline a bit today, as I've attempted to do in the past, and I still don't get it. It's going way over my head.