Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

GST is not the answer.

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Servicesman

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to
I have read, I have listened, I have tried to be open-minded. I have
come to one conclusion. The GST is not the answer to Australia's
taxation problems.
How many people reading this post believe that only the people who say a
GST is the answer are more right than those that say it isn't? Why are
political and economic commentators divided? Why does more than half the
nation not want it? Why has every other country in the world that has
introduced it not benefited one zack from it? Why has every country
where it has been introduced had to increase it? Why does only one party
have to be right about it? Why are people so stubbornly opposed to it or
so stubbornly for it? Why cant there be a compromise on it? "All or
nothing" is not working. Why does everything come down to the economy
and the country when talking in public but down to me me me when in
private? Why is every expert saying that it is a regressive tax for
women? Why is every expert saying it will benefit 20% of the population?
Why is every expert saying that there will be an initial impact on jobs?
(Even the guy who did the modeling for the government, Chris Murphy)
Answer the above questions to the satisfaction of the Australian public
and the y might even vote for it. But hurry, you have less than 48
hours.


Servicesman

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to

Geoff wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:58:50 +1000, Servicesman <for...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I have read, I have listened, I have tried to be open-minded. I have
> >come to one conclusion. The GST is not the answer to Australia's
> >taxation problems.
>

> A lot of ALP types say this, but they offer no alternative.

No there are alternatives, they involve a mixture of VAT's and income tax
reform. No-one, not even "ALP types" believe that there is no need for tax
reform.

> And none of them can answer the basic question as to why services
> should be tax free yet goods should be taxed.

There are many answers to this question as well. They include taxation of
some services and not of others, just like some essential goods should not
be taxed, some essential services should not be taxed. In areas of job
growth, a smaller tax or phased in approach would be much better.

> After all, service industries are basically ununionised, and
> manufacturing industries are highly unionised. High WST is putting
> manufacturing workers out of jobs and forcing them into the service
> sector, where they no longer have to join unions.

> The ALP is cutting the Unions throats by not having a tax on services,
> yet the Unions just go belly-up, showing clearly the contempt that
> they have for their members.

Well if the above paragraphs were true, why would the unions be backing
the ALP? It stands to reason that they would disappear if they lost their
members. So therefore it wouldnt make sense for them to oppose a GST,
unless they also believed that there were other alternatives. Personally I
cant speak for them, I am not and never have been a member of a union but
I'd say at a guess that they probably think that there are other answers
too.

> *snip*
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Geoff (geoffatiwsd.tcomd.tau)
>
> "Detestation of the high is the involuntary homage of the low."
> Charles Dickens, 'A Tale of Two Cities'


Servicesman

unread,
Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98
to

Robert Crew wrote:

> Servicesman <for...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> 3613444A...@hotmail.com...


> >I have read, I have listened, I have tried to be open-minded. I have
> >come to one conclusion. The GST is not the answer to Australia's
> >taxation problems.

> >How many people reading this post believe that only the people who say a
> >GST is the answer are more right than those that say it isn't? Why are
> >political and economic commentators divided? Why does more than half the
> >nation not want it?
> >Why has every other country in the world that has
> >introduced it not benefited one zack from it?
>

> On what basis do you make this claim? Although New Zealand is now in
> recession, there is no causal relationship to be made between value-added
> taxes and recessions.
>
> The fact is the New Zealand has had a GST for a long time, and other factors
> are an influence. Not long after New Zealand introduced a GST, they paid
> off there national debt. Of course, governments and policies change and
> they are now in debt again. This can not be laid at the feet of the GST.


>
> >Why has every country
> >where it has been introduced had to increase it?
>

> This is not true, although it is close to the mark. The fact is, out of the
> 27 OECD countries, 25 have a value added tax of some description, and 23 of
> those have increased the rates over time.
> (www.oecd.org)

Thankyou. I was misinformed. Why have 23 increased it?

>
>
> The issue is not that taxes can rise, which is universal; the issue is that
> in our case, which is unique, a system will be put in place to make it
> extremely difficult.

Why do taxes have to rise? If they have to rise then they cant have been right
in the first place. If they werent right in the first place the government has
either mislead the public or doesnt know what it is doing. Why should we elect
either?

> > Why does only one party have to be right about it?
>

> It doesn't _have_ to be that way, but it is.

Are you sure? Would you bet your house on it? (Hes gonna say yes anyway)

> >Why are people so stubbornly opposed to it or so stubbornly for it? Why
> cant there be a >compromise on it?
>

> There is a simple one-word answer to this. It is 'fear'. People fear the
> idea of a value-added tax because it is new. The ALP has played to this
> fear in a cynical manoevure at the expense of our future.

What about fear that it might be wrong?

> >"All or
> >nothing" is not working. Why does everything come down to the economy
> >and the country when talking in public but down to me me me when in
> >private? Why is every expert saying that it is a regressive tax for
> >women?
>

> 'Regressive' does not mean bad, it means flat, as in a flat rate. For
> example, a GST which applies at 10% on feminine hygiene products is called
> 'regressive', while a WST which charges 32% on the same products is
> 'progressive'. These are academic terms which have different meanings than
> when used in a conversational context.
>
> Currently we have a 'progressive' tax which classes tampons and panty
> shields as a luxury. This is obviously not true.

The issue was regressive for women workers I believe. I didnt see the whole
report but essentially it was (The GST) deemed regressive to women workers.

> >Why is every expert saying it will benefit 20% of the population?
>

> Every expert? I think you are exagerating for effect.
> The fact is that under the new system, 80% of the population wil pay less
> than 30% income tax. Currently, a worker on average wages pays 43%.
> Everyone who earns less than $70,000 per year will benefit, while anyone who
> earns more than that, will not. Combined with the increase of the tax-free
> threshold, which benefits everyone who earns a wage, and the changes ot
> social security, which benefits everyone who doesn't earn a wage, your
> statement is clearly fraudulent.

No my statement is fact. I havent seen one Liberal politician refute that 20% of
people will benefit more than the rest. Instead they recite the above paragraph.
But well done, you've obviously been listening to them.

> >Why is every expert saying that there will be an initial impact on jobs?
> >(Even the guy who did the modeling for the government, Chris Murphy)
> >Answer the above questions to the satisfaction of the Australian public
> >and the y might even vote for it. But hurry, you have less than 48
> >hours.
>

> You haven't stated what impact? Will it be positive or negative? Clearly
> there will be an impact, and I believe it will be positive.
>

No again. The initial effect will be negative particularly in the service
industry. As stated by all economists. There is expected to be positive jobs
growth after the implementation but this is not expected for anything from 2 - 7
years.

> --
> Robert Crew
> darw...@underpants.hotmail.com
> (remove underpants for a personal reply)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Opinions expressed are my own
> ----------------------------------------------------------------


Robert Crew

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
Servicesman <for...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
3613444A...@hotmail.com...
>I have read, I have listened, I have tried to be open-minded. I have
>come to one conclusion. The GST is not the answer to Australia's
>taxation problems.
>How many people reading this post believe that only the people who say a
>GST is the answer are more right than those that say it isn't? Why are
>political and economic commentators divided? Why does more than half the
>nation not want it?
>Why has every other country in the world that has
>introduced it not benefited one zack from it?

On what basis do you make this claim? Although New Zealand is now in
recession, there is no causal relationship to be made between value-added
taxes and recessions.

The fact is the New Zealand has had a GST for a long time, and other factors
are an influence. Not long after New Zealand introduced a GST, they paid
off there national debt. Of course, governments and policies change and
they are now in debt again. This can not be laid at the feet of the GST.

>Why has every country
>where it has been introduced had to increase it?

This is not true, although it is close to the mark. The fact is, out of the
27 OECD countries, 25 have a value added tax of some description, and 23 of
those have increased the rates over time.
(www.oecd.org)

The issue is not that taxes can rise, which is universal; the issue is that


in our case, which is unique, a system will be put in place to make it
extremely difficult.

> Why does only one party have to be right about it?

It doesn't _have_ to be that way, but it is.

>Why are people so stubbornly opposed to it or so stubbornly for it? Why


cant there be a >compromise on it?

There is a simple one-word answer to this. It is 'fear'. People fear the
idea of a value-added tax because it is new. The ALP has played to this
fear in a cynical manoevure at the expense of our future.

>"All or


>nothing" is not working. Why does everything come down to the economy
>and the country when talking in public but down to me me me when in
>private? Why is every expert saying that it is a regressive tax for
>women?

'Regressive' does not mean bad, it means flat, as in a flat rate. For
example, a GST which applies at 10% on feminine hygiene products is called
'regressive', while a WST which charges 32% on the same products is
'progressive'. These are academic terms which have different meanings than
when used in a conversational context.

Currently we have a 'progressive' tax which classes tampons and panty
shields as a luxury. This is obviously not true.

>Why is every expert saying it will benefit 20% of the population?

Every expert? I think you are exagerating for effect.
The fact is that under the new system, 80% of the population wil pay less
than 30% income tax. Currently, a worker on average wages pays 43%.
Everyone who earns less than $70,000 per year will benefit, while anyone who
earns more than that, will not. Combined with the increase of the tax-free
threshold, which benefits everyone who earns a wage, and the changes ot
social security, which benefits everyone who doesn't earn a wage, your
statement is clearly fraudulent.

>Why is every expert saying that there will be an initial impact on jobs?


>(Even the guy who did the modeling for the government, Chris Murphy)
>Answer the above questions to the satisfaction of the Australian public
>and the y might even vote for it. But hurry, you have less than 48
>hours.

You haven't stated what impact? Will it be positive or negative? Clearly
there will be an impact, and I believe it will be positive.

--

Lawrie Waller

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to

Servicesman wrote in message <3613444A...@hotmail.com>...
:I have read, I have listened, I have tried to be open-minded. I have

:come to one conclusion. The GST is not the answer to Australia's
:taxation problems.

:How many people reading this post believe that only the people who say a
:GST is the answer are more right than those that say it isn't?

And those against it are more left than those who say it is?

Yep this devestating line of argument convinces me! I'm just not sure of what.

Why are
:political and economic commentators divided? Why does more than half the
:nation not want it? Why has every other country in the world that has

:introduced it not benefited one zack from it? Why has every country
:where it has been introduced had to increase it? Why does only one party
:have to be right about it? Why are people so stubbornly opposed to it or
:so stubbornly for it? Why cant there be a compromise on it? "All or


:nothing" is not working. Why does everything come down to the economy
:and the country when talking in public but down to me me me when in
:private? Why is every expert saying that it is a regressive tax for

:women? Why is every expert saying it will benefit 20% of the population?
:Why is every expert saying that there will be an initial impact on jobs?

:


Bannor

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to

Servicesman wrote in message <36137438...@hotmail.com>...

>
>
>Geoff wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:58:50 +1000, Servicesman <for...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I have read, I have listened, I have tried to be open-minded. I have
>> >come to one conclusion. The GST is not the answer to Australia's
>> >taxation problems.
>>
>> A lot of ALP types say this, but they offer no alternative.
>
>No there are alternatives, they involve a mixture of VAT's and income tax
>reform. No-one, not even "ALP types" believe that there is no need for tax
>reform.

Totally correct, its just JH version we reject.

>> And none of them can answer the basic question as to why services
>> should be tax free yet goods should be taxed.


services are allready taxed because the money you give the provider of
the service attracts income tax.

So you earn money, you pay income tax, whats left over buys you a service
and the service provider pays income tax,

>There are many answers to this question as well. They include taxation of
>some services and not of others, just like some essential goods should not
>be taxed, some essential services should not be taxed. In areas of job
>growth, a smaller tax or phased in approach would be much better.
>
>> After all, service industries are basically ununionised, and
>> manufacturing industries are highly unionised. High WST is putting
>> manufacturing workers out of jobs and forcing them into the service
>> sector, where they no longer have to join unions.

what a load of bollocks ,, mate i thought it was because of the amount of
modernisation and automization that was cutting jobs in manufacturing.
but now i find that according you the WST is responsible,, hahahhahah
sorry but of all the stupid statements i have seen in the news group this is
one of the best 8)


>> The ALP is cutting the Unions throats by not having a tax on services,
>> yet the Unions just go belly-up, showing clearly the contempt that
>> they have for their members.


lovely emotional clap trap

sc...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98
to
Tomorrow is election day for Australia. What is the real issue: LIBERAL or
LABOUR? GST or NO GST? HOWARD or BEAZLEY? The 3 are interrelated. Australians
are divided on the issue of GST. The reasons on both sides are varied.
Anti-GST founded on ignorance, confusion, fear of increase in food prices and
tax of services, prejudice, self-centeredness or selfishness, low income
groups etc. There will be many whose views will never change unless they can
see immediate and direct benfits FOR THEMSELVES. Australia cannot afford to
have these people in the majority. The same people do not or cannot
understand the present tax system. Or because they are already in the low tax
bracket, they just simply do not care about the tax system. They will same
the rich can afford to and should pay mre. But how much more?? Are they not
entitled to retain a proportionate share of their hard-earned income without
have to pay a penalty? Compare a single income household of $60,000.00 with a
dual income household of also $60,000.00. Two families with the SAME
household income and the same household needs and expenses. The big
difference is that the dual income household (say each spouse earning
$30,000.00) will pay several thousand less tax than the single income
household. Where is the fairness and equity? This has resulted in income
splitting for business people. Why should those not in business lose out.
Australians must realise that the present tax system is in an absolute mess
and unless something DRASTIC is done about it, it can only get worse. The
mess has been perpetuated over the years and the tax system is now in its
final throes. No incumbent political party had the courage and conviction to
do the unthinkable - restructure the tax system. GST is a broadbased taxation
system. It takes the pressure off personal income tax. Without GST, there is
no hope in the world for personal tax coming down. The government needs more
and more money for social security and medicare etc and if personal income
tax does not go up then most certainly other taxes will either go up or be
imposed (does it like GST to you?). If there is such a thing as honesty
integrity in policits, then I say Howard is an honest and deserves our utmost
respect. The opposition makes fun and ridicules his GST. The reality is the
opposition are committed to oppose GST because not to oppose means the death
of them. It is important that Australians realise that. Be wary of promises
which run contrary to economic trends. Those who are the most eloquent and
outspoken are almost without exception peddlers of snake oil - the cure all
that cures nothing but you pay the price. If you listen and analyse every
word they say you will be surprised to find that they were actually telling
you nothing. I don't know about you. But I believe Howard is Australia's
future. If he is rejected, there will never be another saviour. In that event
Australia will get what she deserves. Future generations will put their
figure on YOU. I trust in your judgment.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Michael Simons

unread,
Oct 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/4/98
to
On Thu, 01 Oct 1998 18:58:50 +1000, Servicesman <for...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I have read, I have listened, I have tried to be open-minded. I have
>come to one conclusion. The GST is not the answer to Australia's
>taxation problems.

You must have a better idea then...

>How many people reading this post believe that only the people who say a
>GST is the answer are more right than those that say it isn't?

Well, those that oppose it never put up an alternative idea to the
mess that is the current unfair, incentive sucking tax system.

> Why are
>political and economic commentators divided?

Most of the sheep that pass for "economic commentators" that you get
to see in this country are Labor Party apologists.

Phone up your accountant and ask him/her about the current system and
whether they think a GST would make things better than the current
mess.

>Why does more than half the
>nation not want it?

Because they don't understand it.

>Why has every other country in the world that has
>introduced it not benefited one zack from it?

Give examples where this has happened.

> Why has every country
>where it has been introduced had to increase it?

Prove that **every** country that has introduced it has increased it.

What I'd like to know is why does Labor keep increasing WST, why did
Paul Keating want to increase the general sales tax rate to 25%, why
arent income tax thresholds indexed, etc etc etc.

>Why does only one party
>have to be right about it?

Labor knows we need it. That's why Paul Keating wanted one at 12.5 %.
Labor's answer was to expand the WST system. I would love to have seen
Kim hounded by your economic commentators as to whether Labor had any
intention of taking the "W" out of "WST".

8^) I'd say Labor would love the Coalition to introduce it's GST so
they can reap the revenue stream if they win the next election, and
spend the next 10 or 15 years blaming the Libs for its introduction.
That's why Labor prentends the GST can't be scrapped - they want it,
but they can't admit it. If John Howard can abolish WST and a heap of
other taxes, why can't Kim abolish the GST if he wanted to?

>Why are people so stubbornly opposed to it or
>so stubbornly for it?

Some don't understand it, those that do know it will make things
better.

>Why cant there be a compromise on it? "All or
>nothing" is not working.

This tax system is already a mismash of fixes and patch ups. Too many
loopeholes making it easy for some to take advantage of them and shirk
their tax responsibilites. We need a new, simple system. What could be
easier than a single rate, universally applied GST?

Labors answer to all our tax problems is take the sales tax off orange
juice (which they put on in the first place) and increase the tax on
4WD vehicles. Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? I'm
sorry, but the tax system is more buggered than that...

>Why does everything come down to the economy
>and the country when talking in public but down to me me me when in
>private?

I give up, why?

>Why is every expert saying that it is a regressive tax for
>women?

Name one "expert" saying this.

> Why is every expert saying it will benefit 20% of the population?

Name one "expert" saying this. I'd say the long overdue income tax
cuts, that are part of the reform plan, that will benefit 80% of
workers, blows any moron saying this away.

>Why is every expert saying that there will be an initial impact on jobs?

Every expert is not saying this. Some are, and it probably will have
some initial impact, but the long term benefit will improve job
creating activity.

Most manufacturers (for example) have to add 22% ST to everything they
make. I suppose this dosen't have a detrimental effect on jobs? Give
me a 10% GST any day.

>(Even the guy who did the modeling for the government, Chris Murphy)

Taken out of context he was. But what do you expect from the ABC and
Laurie Oakes?

>Answer the above questions to the satisfaction of the Australian public
>and the y might even vote for it. But hurry, you have less than 48
>hours.


Well, they didn't fall for the Labor lies after all.

Regards Mike

Sean Kellett

unread,
Oct 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/4/98
to
On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 08:29:47 GMT, ve...@world.net (Michael Simons)
wrote:

>>Why are people so stubbornly opposed to it or
>>so stubbornly for it?
>
>Some don't understand it, those that do know it will make things
>better.
>

How can a regressive, unfair tax make things better? It simply defies
logic to tax all goods and services at the one level. Is it so hard
for the conservatives among us to understand that certain goods
and services are essential and that perhaps there should be some
consideration for this? Food for example ...

>>Why cant there be a compromise on it? "All or
>>nothing" is not working.
>
>This tax system is already a mismash of fixes and patch ups. Too many
>loopeholes making it easy for some to take advantage of them and shirk
>their tax responsibilites. We need a new, simple system. What could be
>easier than a single rate, universally applied GST?
>

So you equate 'simpilicity' with 'better' do you? Perhaps it is easier
for the simple-minded to comprehend the GST, but that does not
make it a better system. As for people shirking their tax
responsibilities, you aren't seriously suggesting that the GST will
fix this are you? A GST is a heaven-send for those willing to
use the black market, and given the increasing use of Internet
commerce, people can simply buy direct from another country -
thereby 'shirking' their tax responsibilities. ( this second point is
going to a problem no matter who is in government, but to
suggest that the GST might somehow help in this area is just
lunacy )

>Labors answer to all our tax problems is take the sales tax off orange
>juice (which they put on in the first place) and increase the tax on
>4WD vehicles. Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? I'm
>sorry, but the tax system is more buggered than that...
>

There are problems, no one is claiming otherwise. But by introducing
a GST you will simply replace one set of problems with a new set.

>
>>Answer the above questions to the satisfaction of the Australian public
>>and the y might even vote for it. But hurry, you have less than 48
>>hours.
>
>
>Well, they didn't fall for the Labor lies after all.
>

They fell for a new tax package masquarading as a plan for a
nation. How embarrassing it is that, given the problems and issues
that need to be tackled for the future well-being of this country,
the best the Howard Government could come up with was a
new tax. Quite pitiful really.

Sean.

ralph buttigieg

unread,
Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98
to

Sean Kellett wrote in message <36177b7b...@news.eisa.net.au>...

>On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 08:29:47 GMT, ve...@world.net (Michael Simons)
>wrote:
>
>>>Why are people so stubbornly opposed to it or
>>>so stubbornly for it?
>>
>>Some don't understand it, those that do know it will make things
>>better.
>>
>
>How can a regressive, unfair tax make things better? It simply defies
>logic to tax all goods and services at the one level. Is it so hard
>for the conservatives among us to understand that certain goods
>and services are essential and that perhaps there should be some
>consideration for this? Food for example ...
>

This is the bludgers copeout. The people who want to use more and more
government services are the ones who are complaining the most. If you want a
government service then expect to pay tax for it. By being universal the GST
picks ups up the bludgers as well as the rich.
Of course there is an alternative. Cut government expenditure.

>
>So you equate 'simpilicity' with 'better' do you? Perhaps it is easier
>for the simple-minded to comprehend the GST, but that does not
>make it a better system. As for people shirking their tax
>responsibilities, you aren't seriously suggesting that the GST will
>fix this are you? A GST is a heaven-send for those willing to
>use the black market, and given the increasing use of Internet
>commerce, people can simply buy direct from another country -
>thereby 'shirking' their tax responsibilities. ( this second point is
>going to a problem no matter who is in government, but to
>suggest that the GST might somehow help in this area is just
>lunacy )

The internet tax loophole is a real one but only applies to virtual products
and services. Import a physical object and the GST will get you.

ta

Ralph

Charles Esson

unread,
Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98
to
Sean Kellett wrote:

> They fell for a new tax package masquarading as a plan for a
> nation. How embarrassing it is that, given the problems and issues
> that need to be tackled for the future well-being of this country,
> the best the Howard Government could come up with was a
> new tax. Quite pitiful really.

And are you suggesting labor offered something, anything. If labor want
government back they are going to have to think a little not try and
recycle past failures.

>
>
> Sean.


Sean Kellett

unread,
Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98
to
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998 06:58:53 +1000, "ralph buttigieg"
<ral...@zip.com.au> wrote:

>>
>>How can a regressive, unfair tax make things better? It simply defies
>>logic to tax all goods and services at the one level. Is it so hard
>>for the conservatives among us to understand that certain goods
>>and services are essential and that perhaps there should be some
>>consideration for this? Food for example ...
>>
>
>This is the bludgers copeout. The people who want to use more and more
>government services are the ones who are complaining the most. If you want a
>government service then expect to pay tax for it. By being universal the GST
>picks ups up the bludgers as well as the rich.
>Of course there is an alternative. Cut government expenditure.
>

What has this got to do with having the ability to differentiate
between essential and non-essential items for taxation purposes?
Universality is beside the point, surely we want a taxation system
that above all makes all citizens pay their *fair share* of tax? It
has been well established that people with low incomes spend a
greater percentage of their income on goods and services than do
wealthier people. This naturally implies that these people will
pay a greater percentage of tax ( compared to their income ) than
the wealthy!! This makes it a regressive tax! How can one
justify this position?

<>
>
>The internet tax loophole is a real one but only applies to virtual products
>and services. Import a physical object and the GST will get you.
>

Firstly, of course, services is the growth area, and will continue to
be for quite some time. Secondly, the government can't possibly
police all Australian ports and airports. Besides, given the
ability of people to import illegal drugs into this country, I can't
see why 'black market' goods would be any different.

Just as an aside, if I buy a CD from an Internet retailer outside
Australia, how is the government going to add on the GST?
I can't see how they could without the aid of the either the
credit card company or the retailer.

Sean.

Prosper

unread,
Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98
to
>How can a regressive, unfair tax make things better? It simply defies
>logic to tax all goods and services at the one level. Is it so hard
>for the conservatives among us to understand that certain goods
>and services are essential and that perhaps there should be some
>consideration for this? Food for example ...

Oh I forgot the WST is so much less regressive isnt it. Toothpaste, toilet
paper, sunscreens (yes even those protectors of skin cancer!), soft drinks,
soaps, shaving cream and shavers, combs and brushes, detergents - everyday
items, for rich and poor - all taxed at 22%. Fruit and veg juices, biscuits,
confectionary, flavoured milk, ice cream - all taxed at 12%

And those big bad rich man luxury items - cameras, radios, televisions,
record players, tape and video receorders and watches and clocks - all taxed
at 32%

Shit man, Labor really did know how to distinguish between luxuries and
necessities didnt they.

>>This tax system is already a mismash of fixes and patch ups. Too many
>>loopeholes making it easy for some to take advantage of them and shirk
>>their tax responsibilites. We need a new, simple system. What could be
>>easier than a single rate, universally applied GST?
>>
>

>So you equate 'simpilicity' with 'better' do you? Perhaps it is easier
>for the simple-minded to comprehend the GST, but that does not
>make it a better system.

A simpler system is better. Whether its regressive is NOT the only issue. If
it was the WST is just as bad.

As for people shirking their tax
>responsibilities, you aren't seriously suggesting that the GST will
>fix this are you? A GST is a heaven-send for those willing to
>use the black market, and given the increasing use of Internet
>commerce, people can simply buy direct from another country -
>thereby 'shirking' their tax responsibilities. ( this second point is
>going to a problem no matter who is in government, but to
>suggest that the GST might somehow help in this area is just
>lunacy )


A GST will not hugely impact on the black market, agreed. Hoever you pay tax
when you spend, on pretty much everything with a GST. Hence more people will
pay tax.

>>Labors answer to all our tax problems is take the sales tax off orange
>>juice (which they put on in the first place) and increase the tax on
>>4WD vehicles. Is that the sort of compromise you're talking about? I'm
>>sorry, but the tax system is more buggered than that...
>>
>
>There are problems, no one is claiming otherwise. But by introducing
>a GST you will simply replace one set of problems with a new set.


Disagree. GST will at least create a level field amongst goods and services,
services are currently getting a free ride. Problems will alwyas exist, the
world isn't perfect. A flate rate GST on everything (minus the few
exceptions) will have far less problems than the WST.

>They fell for a new tax package masquarading as a plan for a
>nation. How embarrassing it is that, given the problems and issues
>that need to be tackled for the future well-being of this country,
>the best the Howard Government could come up with was a
>new tax. Quite pitiful really.


The well being of this country will only increase when business, the creator
and supplier of jobs, is given the opportunity to grow further. A new tax
sytem is a step in the right direction.

0 new messages