Abbott Government to deliver message that tax reform imminent — either higher GST or hike in income tax

    Renee Viellaris
    The Courier-Mail
    July 04, 2014


AUSTRALIANS will be softened up in the coming months to accept changes to the GST or face paying more income tax.

The Federal Treasury Department has exclusively told The Courier-Mail that if Australians wanted to keep receiving government services they needed to make a choice – pay more income and company tax or take more pain at the bowser and supermarkets.      :(




“If Australians continue to demand/expect the same or a greater level of services from government, revenue to fund these services will need to be found from somewhere,’’ a Treasury spokesman said.


“If we do not change our tax mix, Australians will need to pay more income tax. That is, given we are seeing a decline in the proportion of indirect taxes (such as) excises and the GST, and absent any other tax changes, income taxation will need to be larger.’’

The comments have gone further than the speech by Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson to the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies on Wednesday.

Dr Parkinson urged for tax reform, signalling without change the system could have dire consequences for the states and the public. Speculation is mounting the Abbott Government’s white papers on tax and federation reform, due by the end of next year, will include broadening the GST, and encouraging the states to dump inefficient taxes such as stamp duty.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann told The Courier-Mail yesterday revenue had to be raised the most efficient way.



“We are also committed to a review of our tax system to ensure government revenue is raised in the most efficient way possible,’’ he said.


A spokeswoman for the Newman Government said, “The Premier has made it clear he believes Australians pay enough tax”.

“His push is to ensure a fair share of the tax Queenslanders pay comes back to the state to fund the infrastructure and services a growing state needs.’’

Dr Parkinson hinted in his speech on Wednesday that the public would be regularly massaged about the need for broader-based taxes.

He said without conscious change the economic cost of raising tax from the current tax mix would increase.

“For the community to embrace change in this area, the case for reform has to be compelling and well understood.

“Reform proposals should highlight medium-term economic pay-offs (such as) the positive impacts they will have on individual effort, investment and growth.’’
Originally published as Higher GST or income tax hike — you choose

Peter      

How else do we ensure that income in > expenditure?  Whatever decision is made, there is no doubt it is going to hurt.  But maybe we are all living beyond our means with our wants being greater than our needs.

Ben    

Raise GST as our income tax base is too small and only shrinking with an aging population. Its not sustainable. We need serious tax reform despite its political unpopularity.

Sean    

He hasn't fulfilled one pre-election promise and here he is, offering choices which we should not have to make! You had all the answers leading up to the election now start putting your money where your mouth is!

Andrew    

Why not fix the GST first? Remove the exemptions for food, health, education and government fees. Remove the exemption for Exports, why should the rest of the world pay less for Australian goods, than Australians? Make imports, particularly software, music and video subject to GST, and companies like Amazon, Google and Microsoft can pay some Company Tax.

Depends on what those 'government services' are they are discussing.  I get the more than distinct feeling that there are indeed some areas of 'government services' we could do without.

This is the same bullshit line offered by Scandal Newman in Queenslund -

>  we can sell off the farm

>  we can raise taxes

>  we can cut services

Not one word about generating revenue by putting people back into work and reducing their own expenditure on non-items, not one word about unnecessary politician perks that go on for life, not one word about overpriced public servants and 'privatised' corporations such as the submarine thing.... all digging deep enough into the public purse to feed 100-200 pensioners or unemployed at least.... and all just jobs for the cronies in reality.

Disgusting.

We need a REAL commission of audit and not the Ideas of March commission of idiots.

Cancel free trade deals that do not benefit us, impose a proper taxation regime on resources investment and a proper taxation regime on development, cancel the perks of the rich, mandatory local investment percentage in all such resource developments... you know the list by now....

I say boot the lot out now and let's start again....

How about we get business moving by ditching the GST and thus allowing them to generate more revenue and thus pay more tax... oh - sorry - the big boys don't pay tax..... back to the drawing board....

Maybe ditching the GST would encourage business to employ more people and thus generate a larger income tax base.... no.. that wouldn't work.. business would just soak in the warm sunshine of greater profits....

Nope - we don't need a tax change - we need a change of government to the style of government that actually works for the people in the long term and develops genuine industrial etc infrastructure so as to ensure stability, security and prosperity for its own FIRST... off-shore business last... you listening, Andrei?

I'd have my line of retreat organised if I were you... the days of wine and roses are over here.... Tony said so, but he didn't understand the full ramifications of his mindless rhetoric.... it's over for ALL of you.. fat cats first.

has anyone ever asked..

can we eat our cake and have it too.??..

thats the way aussies think..

the real saying is..

you cannot have your cake

and eat it too...

get real we want more and more and more.....
but we want to do less and less to get it..

and we also dont want to pay for it...

$7 for a doctor visit... to save god knows how many from terminal illness...

and the world comes crashing in...

we are a nasty greedy  grabbing b unch of parasites.

Dear cods,  please explain' 'having your cake and eating it too' in terms of what we the people are currently receiving from government. 

Governments present and past have been making the rules - for the simple reason that those rules suit them best - and now that they find their efforts of the past thirty years have been a total and abject failure, they want to keep their cake while eating yours.

That's a more apt use of words there.

Do you really think that the only way out of this government generated impasse for government is to beat up on the pensioners and the unemployed while feeding their fat mates?  Are you serious?

How about:-  Continuing to pump, push and promote women into the workforce by giving them every advantage including huge payouts for sitting at home with the kid while whining about 'keeping talented women in work' etc even when they are already doing well when countless hundreds of thousands have little to nothing... how about THAT 'entitlement'?

THAT one, my dove , is one entitlement long overdue for the scrapheap - it has been the most damaging impact on Western society, culture and economies in history, ans shows no signs of any 'sunset clause' yet, just more endless whining over 'oppression' and 'victim status'.

How is being a fat cat woman handed privilege after privilege more 'oppressive' than having no future, no job and no hope because the job market is flooded with entitlement princes and princesses who want double all while others get nothing?

We don't want a $7 GP co payment.  Mr Abbott, we don't want your doctor tax.      :(            

What is this 'more and more' that pensioners and unemployed want?  Costs of living are running away from them almost daily - you are condemning them for wanting to keep up?  And you're happy to pay some Corrmanator from Belgium with his failed European ideas $350k a year plus perks plus his incomes from his other 'work' to tell you you need to tighten your belts?  And pay Tony half a lazy mill to hum and har his way through any question put to him?  And Joe to stand there and utter banalities and rubbish and strut neo-Fascist mindset to everyone publicly daily and cop his lazy heap of spending money?

"Hello, Occupants....."

cods wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:36am:

has anyone ever asked.. can we eat our cake and have it too.??.. thats the way aussies think.. the real saying is.. you cannot have your cake and eat it too... get real we want more and more and more..... but we want to do less and less to get it.. and we also dont want to pay for it... $7 for a doctor visit... to save god knows how many from terminal illness... and the world comes crashing in... we are a nasty greedy  grabbing b unch of parasites.

Yes the Ochlocrats are indeed out in force with their sticky noses in the public trough.

Clive, the Greens, Labor are all offering political boiled lollies to con them over.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/snouts_in_the_trough-1.jpg

Suckers for pork barrelling..... :(

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Futuretaxpayers.jpg

Clive, the Greens and Labor all want to sweep debt under the carpet so that future generations have to pay for it.   :(

The net tax-payer is in the minority.  The net tax payer is under represented in the parliament.  :(

The net tax-payers are slaves to the Ochlocrats, the eco-socialists and the bums.  :(

Well before either tax is increased, some reforms to close income tax loopholes would be appropriate.

"The Federal Treasury Department has exclusively told The Courier-Mail that if Australians wanted to keep receiving government services they needed to make a choice – pay more income and company tax or take more pain at the bowser and supermarkets.  "

If that's true the head of dept should be made resign. That's an example of public servants making political statements in the press.

That's one issue, but making purposely misleading and self servicing political statements is a hanging offense - hang the bastard  >:(.

The issue is the broadening gap between revenue and expenditure. And the govt  can close the gap in a number of ways other than more taxes including a broader and more equitable tax base - get rid of many of the concessions.

Swagman wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 9:40am:

cods wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:36am: has anyone ever asked.. can we eat our cake and have it too.??.. thats the way aussies think.. the real saying is.. you cannot have your cake and eat it too... get real we want more and more and more..... but we want to do less and less to get it.. and we also dont want to pay for it... $7 for a doctor visit... to save god knows how many from terminal illness... and the world comes crashing in... we are a nasty greedy  grabbing b unch of parasites. Yes the Ochlocrats are indeed out in force with their sticky noses in the public trough. Clive, the Greens, Labor are all offering political boiled lollies to con them over. http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/snouts_in_the_trough-1.jpg Suckers for pork barrelling..... :( http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Futuretaxpayers.jpg Clive, the Greens and Labor all want to sweep debt under the carpet so that future generations have to pay for it.   :( The net tax-payer is in the minority.  The net tax payer is under represented in the parliament.  :( The net tax-payers are slaves to the Ochlocrats, the eco-socialists and the bums.  :(

Swaggy, saying the same thing time and time again is a sign of insanity  :D  ;D.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:29am:

"The Federal Treasury Department has exclusively told The Courier-Mail that if Australians wanted to keep receiving government services they needed to make a choice – pay more income and company tax or take more pain at the bowser and supermarkets.  " If that's true the head of dept should be made resign. That's an example of public servants making political statements in the press.

That is not a political statement. A political statement would say "only the Coalition will do that for you'" or "only Labor can do it for you".

That statement is reality. You choose your level of taxation and budget for that level of taxation. You want more from your taxes- you have to increase them.

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 10:29am: "The Federal Treasury Department has exclusively told The Courier-Mail that if Australians wanted to keep receiving government services they needed to make a choice – pay more income and company tax or take more pain at the bowser and supermarkets.  " If that's true the head of dept should be made resign. That's an example of public servants making political statements in the press. That is not a political statement. A political statement would say "only the Coalition will do that for you'" or "only Labor can do it for you". That statement is reality. You choose your level of taxation and budget for that level of taxation. You want more from your taxes- you have to increase them.

That is not the reality; "The issue is the broadening gap between revenue and expenditure. And the govt  can close the gap in a number of ways other than more taxes including a broader and more equitable tax base - get rid of many of the concessions. "

The statement and its intention are not fair statement and are meant to mislead.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:34am:

Swagman wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 9:40am: cods wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 6:36am: has anyone ever asked.. can we eat our cake and have it too.??.. thats the way aussies think.. the real saying is.. you cannot have your cake and eat it too... get real we want more and more and more..... but we want to do less and less to get it.. and we also dont want to pay for it... $7 for a doctor visit... to save god knows how many from terminal illness... and the world comes crashing in... we are a nasty greedy  grabbing b unch of parasites. Yes the Ochlocrats are indeed out in force with their sticky noses in the public trough. Clive, the Greens, Labor are all offering political boiled lollies to con them over. http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/snouts_in_the_trough-1.jpg Suckers for pork barrelling..... :( http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/Futuretaxpayers.jpg Clive, the Greens and Labor all want to sweep debt under the carpet so that future generations have to pay for it.   :( The net tax-payer is in the minority.  The net tax payer is under represented in the parliament.  :( The net tax-payers are slaves to the Ochlocrats, the eco-socialists and the bums.  :( Swaggy, saying the same thing time and time again is a sign of insanity  :D  ;D.

The message is the same Crustyone.


Quote:

Either Higher GST Or Hike In Income Tax

They didn't add going into more debt by paying the bills with the credit card.....

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/MAXEDOUTCARD2.jpg

Swagman wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 12:32pm:

The message is the same Crustyone. Quote: Either Higher GST Or Hike In Income Tax They didn't add going into more debt by paying the bills with the credit card..... http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/MAXEDOUTCARD2.jpg

And it's been shown to be bullshot how many times  :D.

You're not Tony Abbott masquerading are you? You have the same bullshot technique of repeating lies in the hope they'll come true.

As I said, a form of insanity  :D.

We don't need more GST and we don't need to raise tax

Stop subsidising super,
stop subsidising private industry, including health and eduication
Clsoe the loop holes that allow foreign companies to pay little/no tax

and there is more than enough money in the till to pay for services

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 12:23pm:

That is not the reality; "The issue is the broadening gap between revenue and expenditure. And the govt  can close the gap in a number of ways other than more taxes including a broader and more equitable tax base - get rid of many of the concessions. " The statement and its intention are not fair statement and are meant to mislead.

So get rid of concessions- are they meaning business concessions, so that they pay more tax.

That is a mechanism. We can increase taxes by closing loopholes or by increasing tax rate.

We can reduce expenditure. My favourite way would be by reducing the number of politicians. With modern communications and transport- do we need as many? It would be more cost effective to reduce parliamentarians and increase staffers; staffers don't cost as much, both while employed or retired.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

and there is more than enough money in the till to pay for services

With an ageing population, meaning less taxpayers and greater retired numbers, is that necessarily true? Or do you want reduced services?

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

That statement is reality. You choose your level of taxation and budget for that level of taxation. You want more from your taxes- you have to increase them.

No - simple answer - you have a REVENUE problem - you resolve the discrepancies in REVENUE - you do not attack spending on established lines of debt to the public.

To approach this issue in the way currently envisaged is nothing but class war by those currently masquerading as the government on those they think cannot defend themselves and are too beaten down to do so.  WRONG!

Taking a firm grip on the economy for a change and resolving YOUR revenue issues is far less likely to upset the applecart than taking from those who spend in the economy.

Pretty simple to me.

Now - about those tax dodges, rorts and concessions for the fat.....

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:48pm: and there is more than enough money in the till to pay for services With an ageing population, meaning less taxpayers and greater retired numbers, is that necessarily true? Or do you want reduced services?

That's down the track, not tomorrow and not next years.

BUT the $30bil in tax concession etc is every year. How about we get that sorted, get the equality equation right and it will be right this year and in 30 years time. And it will get the budget in balance now and into the future so that in the future we might have an reserve to deal with an aging pop and any future GFC.

And there are other taxes bases that can be taxed for greater equality starting with the religions.

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 12:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:48pm: and there is more than enough money in the till to pay for services With an ageing population, meaning less taxpayers and greater retired numbers, is that necessarily true? Or do you want reduced services?

rubbish .... the subsidies to super will in the near future cost us far far more than we spend on welfare

besides, all these old people on pensions will die off, leaving less numbers of retired.

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:55pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:48pm: and there is more than enough money in the till to pay for services With an ageing population, meaning less taxpayers and greater retired numbers, is that necessarily true? Or do you want reduced services? That's down the track, not tomorrow and not next years. BUT the $30bil in tax concession etc is every year. How about we get that sorted, get the equality equation right and it will be right this year and in 30 years time. And it will get the budget in balance now and into the future so that in the future we might have an reserve to deal with an aging pop and any future GFC. And there are other taxes bases that can be taxed for greater equality starting with the religions.

The impact of the aging population has already started.

The largest population increase was between 1945 to 1955.  Those born in 1945 are already getting the pension.  This will increase significantly over the next 10 years.

They stop paying tax and start being tax dependent.

You can't wait for 10 years to address this.  Every year the situation will get more dire.

Remove the tax concession on super and people won't put money into super.  They won't save, and they will have to be cared for by the tax-payer instead of being self funded.

Swagman wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:

OldnCrusty wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 1:14pm: lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:55pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 12:48pm: and there is more than enough money in the till to pay for services With an ageing population, meaning less taxpayers and greater retired numbers, is that necessarily true? Or do you want reduced services? That's down the track, not tomorrow and not next years. BUT the $30bil in tax concession etc is every year. How about we get that sorted, get the equality equation right and it will be right this year and in 30 years time. And it will get the budget in balance now and into the future so that in the future we might have an reserve to deal with an aging pop and any future GFC. And there are other taxes bases that can be taxed for greater equality starting with the religions. The impact of the aging population has already started. The largest population increase was between 1945 to 1955.  Those born in 1945 are already getting the pension.  This will increase significantly over the next 10 years. They stop paying tax and start being tax dependent. You can't wait for 10 years to address this.  Every year the situation will get more dire. Remove the tax concession on super and people won't put money into super.  They won't save, and they will have to be cared for by the tax-payer instead of being self funded.

What a load of absolute croc .... by far the biggest rort to concessions on superannuation are SMSF's .... the average person does not have a SMSF ... they are used by the rich as a form of tax evasion, these people aren't going to claim a pension later on anyway.

Can they access their funds Smithy?  Why the hell would you contribute to super if there are zero incentives?

Swagman wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 2:02pm:

Can they access their funds Smithy?  Why the hell would you contribute to super if there are zero incentives?

the rich don't need super ...they're rich ...SMSF's are just a tool in their tax evasion war chest.

I've given this example before, so sorry if I'm repeating myself, but i know someone who makes OVER $300 000 a year on his super and pays no tax ....... and that's not touching the principle of millions he has invested in various portfolios

you think if he had no super he'd be on a pension?  ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 2:09pm:

i know someone who makes OVER $300 000 a year on his super and pays no tax

Not even the mandatory 15%? Must be tax evasion. Dob him in.

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 2:09pm: i know someone who makes OVER $300 000 a year on his super and pays no tax Not even the mandatory 15%? Must be tax evasion. Dob him in.

for what? he's retired?

Swagman wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:

The impact of the aging population has already started. The largest population increase was between 1945 to 1955.  Those born in 1945 are already getting the pension.  This will increase significantly over the next 10 years. They stop paying tax and start being tax dependent. You can't wait for 10 years to address this.  Every year the situation will get more dire.

Keating knew this 25 years ago. It's why he started compulsory superannuation.

The Liberals still haven't worked this out. It's why they didn't increase compulsory superannuation at all during 11 long, wasted years under Howard and why the Liberals oppose increases now.


Quote:

Remove the tax concession on super and people won't put money into super.  They won't save, and they will have to be cared for by the tax-payer instead of being self funded.

So does that mean you are opposed to taxing superannuation contributions by low-income earners at a higher rate than their top marginal tax rate?

A flat 15% tax rate is idiocy. It's blatantly unfair, does nothing to encourage saving by those that are most in need of encouragement, and only creates a vehicle for rorting taxation by the wealthy.

Swagman wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 2:02pm:

Can they access their funds Smithy?  Why the hell would you contribute to super if there are zero incentives?

They can if they have reached the age of 60 or so.

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 4:23pm:

lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 3:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 2:09pm: i know someone who makes OVER $300 000 a year on his super and pays no tax Not even the mandatory 15%? Must be tax evasion. Dob him in. for what? he's retired?

You didn't say that. "I know someone who makes over $300k on his super and pays no tax", is different to "I know someone who draws down $300k pa on his super and pays no tax."

lee wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 4:23pm: lee wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 3:27pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 2:09pm: i know someone who makes OVER $300 000 a year on his super and pays no tax Not even the mandatory 15%? Must be tax evasion. Dob him in. for what? he's retired? You didn't say that. "I know someone who makes over $300k on his super and pays no tax", is different to "I know someone who draws down $300k pa on his super and pays no tax."

:D :D :D :D

Direct income tax in Australia is too harsh on the middle and GST is too light.
I'd increase it to 17.5% and widen the tax brackets with a drop in the middle tier.

It would flatten the tax structure somewhat and encourage skilled migration.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 7:08pm:

Direct income tax in Australia is too harsh on the middle and GST is too light. I'd increase it to 17.5% and widen the tax brackets with a drop in the middle tier. It would flatten the tax structure somewhat and encourage skilled migration.

just what we need, more Indian hairdressers  ;D ;D ;D

wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 6:05am:

Quote: AUSTRALIANS will be softened up in the coming months to accept changes to the GST or face paying more income tax.

Translation - Australians can expect to be bombarded with fallacious propaganda.

The logical fallacy is black or white

Quote:

Australians will be presented with two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist. Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.

Quote:

AUSTRALIANS will be softened up in the coming months to accept changes to the GST or face paying more income tax.

More & more tax so the Govt. can waste our money on more public servants.