States like Tasmania and Vic need to develop their own sources of income, and stop replying on money from states like QLD and WA, Why? What happens when the mining booms ends and WA ends up going back to where it was before, before the mining boom? it will be worst off than Tasmania?

Who's then going to subsidise 60% of Tasmanians government (which is currently being funded by the GST)? and the huge spending of the eastern states?

The mining boom is slowing and you can already feel it in WA, yet it share of GST to help the soft landing isn't increasing but is deceasing?

It doesn't seem to make sense or even fair, with the mining boom slowing and dying off, the percentage of WA gets back from GST decreasing? Its a double hit that isn't fair.

Pantheon wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

States like Tasmania and Vic need to develop their own sources of income, and stop replying on money from states like QLD and WA, Why? What happens when the mining booms ends and WA ends up going back to where it was before, before the mining boom? it will be worst off than Tasmania? Who's then going to subsidise 60% of Tasmanians government (which is currently being funded by the GST)? and the huge spending of the eastern states? The mining boom is slowing and you can already feel it in WA, yet it share of GST to help the soft landing isn't increasing but is deceasing? It doesn't seem to make sense or even fair, with the mining boom slowing and dying off, the percentage of WA gets back from GST decreasing? Its a double hit that isn't fair.

If you're going to be slagging off other states, it would be more convincing if your facts were correct. They are not.

Victoria is like WA - a net payer of GST (not to the same degree in percentages, but comparable in amounts).
Queensland is like Tasmania - a net taker of GST.

I am not unsympathetic to WA's position on the GST, but it shouldn't be an excuse for running a lazy budget. It's easy to be lavish when money is rolling in, but when the revenue drops some prudence is required. The states also need to reform the GST distribution.

The problem is a lack of revenue to pay for services. Further reforms like tax cuts and budget cuts are mostly played out. We should look at increasing taxes by abolishing tax loopholes and using additional non-GST sources of revenue for the states.

Want to go it alone, WA? Good luck with that (Excerpt)

Quote:

WA along with New South Wales and Victoria are getting a smaller cut of GST revenue than they would if we just divvied it up according to population. This is nothing new for NSW and Victoria. They have generally received a lower share of Commonwealth funding than their population sizes would demand since the end of WWII. But it is new territory for Western Australia. Up to WWII it was the poor, white trash of Australia. And once the Federal Government took over income tax in 1942, and massively increased the disbursement of revenue to the states, WA has for most of that time received more than its "fair share" When looking at total general revenue assistance paid to the states, as late as 2008, WA was getting as much over its population share as was South Australia, and from the end of WWII till the middle of the 1980s, it consistently received a bigger relative slice than did either Queensland or South Australia.

Pantheon wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

States like Tasmania and Vic need to develop their own sources of income, and stop replying on money from states like QLD and WA, Why? What happens when the mining booms ends and WA ends up going back to where it was before, before the mining boom? it will be worst off than Tasmania? Who's then going to subsidise 60% of Tasmanians government (which is currently being funded by the GST)? and the huge spending of the eastern states? The mining boom is slowing and you can already feel it in WA, yet it share of GST to help the soft landing isn't increasing but is deceasing? It doesn't seem to make sense or even fair, with the mining boom slowing and dying off, the percentage of WA gets back from GST decreasing? Its a double hit that isn't fair.

Who's then going to subsidise 60% of Tasmanians government And WA.

It will be NSW Vic and Qld just like it was the previous 200 years.

WA GST share.

When the transition was going the other way and it was NSW and Vic struggling and complaining when WA income was increasing and they were taking more GST revenue as well all that WA were saying was gee that's bad luck.

Is the balancing act wrong  - YES

Did WA care when the same situation was benefiting them to the disadvantage of other states  - NO

http://cf.datawrapper.de/Nj6SI/1/?abcnewsembedheight=400
An interesting chart. If all Commonwealth revenue is considered, WA has been receiving a per capita ratio of revenue greater than 1 until 2008.

WA ... sponging off the Eastern states for 108 years!

Dnarever wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 2:26pm:

Pantheon wrote on Apr 15th, 2015 at 11:33am: States like Tasmania and Vic need to develop their own sources of income, and stop replying on money from states like QLD and WA, Why? What happens when the mining booms ends and WA ends up going back to where it was before, before the mining boom? it will be worst off than Tasmania? Who's then going to subsidise 60% of Tasmanians government (which is currently being funded by the GST)? and the huge spending of the eastern states? The mining boom is slowing and you can already feel it in WA, yet it share of GST to help the soft landing isn't increasing but is deceasing? It doesn't seem to make sense or even fair, with the mining boom slowing and dying off, the percentage of WA gets back from GST decreasing? Its a double hit that isn't fair. Who's then going to subsidise 60% of Tasmanians government And WA. It will be NSW Vic and Qld just like it was the previous 200 years.

Are you forgetting the mining boom will be gone? States like Tasmania has grown huge governments that no one will be able to support when the easy mining cash drys up.

With Mining prices falling its WA that needs help for a soft landing, its coming off a huge high and instead getting help its burden is increase to help lower the burden on states like NSW and support growing governments in Tas and SA.

Bam wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 2:09pm:

Want to go it alone, WA? Good luck with that (Excerpt) Quote: WA along with New South Wales and Victoria are getting a smaller cut of GST revenue than they would if we just divvied it up according to population. This is nothing new for NSW and Victoria. They have generally received a lower share of Commonwealth funding than their population sizes would demand since the end of WWII. But it is new territory for Western Australia. Up to WWII it was the poor, white trash of Australia. And once the Federal Government took over income tax in 1942, and massively increased the disbursement of revenue to the states, WA has for most of that time received more than its "fair share" When looking at total general revenue assistance paid to the states, as late as 2008, WA was getting as much over its population share as was South Australia, and from the end of WWII till the middle of the 1980s, it consistently received a bigger relative slice than did either Queensland or South Australia.

In 1933 WA held a referendum for independence, in which independence won the majority of the votes, however the British Parliament ruled it invalid from memory.

This is why i think instead of another referendum for independence that might just be called invalid again, they want to go for Disengagement.

Have a look.. State shares of GST revenue

http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/bp3/image/bp3_main-7.gif

Yes NSW and Victoria could have a few billion taken off them, WA is about to come down off a huge high, it will official become Australia's 3rd largest city in a few years due to huge growth rates, and yet? the GST which is mean to aid states like WA is now facing less GST revenue? Why? this is the time it will need it as the mining boom ends.

Bam wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 4:55pm:

http://cf.datawrapper.de/Nj6SI/1/?abcnewsembedheight=400 An interesting chart. If all Commonwealth revenue is considered, WA has been receiving a per capita ratio of revenue greater than 1 until 2008. WA ... sponging off the Eastern states for 108 years!

Thats my point, WA shouldn't be sponging off the Eastern states, because then WA doesn't develop its own economy, now its the Eastern states thats sponging off the mining states.

WA should secede, build a few nuke power stations and nuke powered desalination plants, export the power to the Eastern States and Asia and use desal water to irrigate a big piece of the arid interior to grow food to export.

:)

Swagman wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 5:48pm:

WA should secede, build a few nuke power stations and nuke powered desalination plants, export the power to the Eastern States and Asia and use desal water to irrigate a big piece of the arid interior to grow food to export. :)

Now that sounds like a Prosperous capitalist society that had originally been responsible for the rise and successfulness of the West.

Pantheon wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 5:57pm:

Swagman wrote on Apr 15th, 2015 at 5:48pm: WA should secede, build a few nuke power stations and nuke powered desalination plants, export the power to the Eastern States and Asia and use desal water to irrigate a big piece of the arid interior to grow food to export. :) Now that sounds like a Prosperous capitalist society that had originally been responsible for the rise and successfulness of the West.

Yes, the Nation of West Oz could ally itself with the USA who could establish a huge nuke submarine base on the west coast.  WA could lever off this technology and manufacture warships / submarines and use nuke weapons and mega navy to protect its mega wealth.  An Indian Ocean super power....

WA ... sponging off the Eastern states for 108 years!

If you consider the rust belt industries that have been subsidised and also protected by tariffs over the years you may understand WA has been paying its way before 2008.

If we could have imported the gear we needed (tariff free) we would be streets ahead.
Also our exports also suffered from retaliatory tariffs because of our protectionist position on goods mainly produced in the south east corner.

The other problem WA is having at the moment is the need for new infrastructure to accommodate internal migration.

Swagman wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 6:14pm:

Pantheon wrote on Apr 15th, 2015 at 5:57pm: Swagman wrote on Apr 15th, 2015 at 5:48pm: WA should secede, build a few nuke power stations and nuke powered desalination plants, export the power to the Eastern States and Asia and use desal water to irrigate a big piece of the arid interior to grow food to export. :) Now that sounds like a Prosperous capitalist society that had originally been responsible for the rise and successfulness of the West. Yes, the Nation of West Oz could ally itself with the USA who could establish a huge nuke submarine base on the west coast.  WA could lever off this technology and manufacture warships / submarines and use nuke weapons and mega navy to protect its mega wealth.  An Indian Ocean super power....

I've already offered you all the GAIA in the Pilbara.... complete with industries close to resources, ship-building (now a nuclear sub base whacko!), tax haven status for those who wish to park money here for a FEE, organised gambling/casinos etc ... and all powered by wind/solar/shelf gas/nuclear backup.....

The Independent State of Gaia (based on Grapplerville) will import its machinery etc tariff free and so forth and will start from scratch for all its people... immigration closely controlled..... sorry....  the world's lifeboat can only take the best..... it's tough out there....

Finders's fee - $50m thank you... direct deposit  into my Bahamas account....

ADDS:- What amazes me is that some of you think I'm joking..... or am just playing the class clown..... a position that only a true genius can do well and get away with.....

tell WA that they are dreaming...  ::)

the GST should be shared on the basis of per capita...

therefore you'll see that Victoria are subsidising other states like QLD because successive Labor governments spent money like drunken sailors putting them in massive debt...

then... all resources and income from that should have always been going back to the Federal Government... 

income coming from mining belong to all Australians, not just the state that they are in...

this is fair...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 16^th, 2015 at 6:53am:

tell WA that they are dreaming...  ::) the GST should be shared on the basis of per capita... therefore you'll see that Victoria are subsidising other states like QLD because successive Labor governments spent money like drunken sailors putting them in massive debt... then... all resources and income from that should have always been going back to the Federal Government...  income coming from mining belong to all Australians, not just the state that they are in... this is fair...

From each according to his ability to each according to his need? ;)

the GST should be shared on the basis of per capita...

That is as random as paying GST on a square kilometre basis.

Dont forget WA is not asking for your money, they are asking to keep more of their own.

Can't the States create their own State based GST?

So, when we are discussing welfare it is fine to support the poor, even when they are perennial non-contribitors, but when discussing GST splitups it should be based on any criteria OTHER than need?

Some of you are playing both sides of the same argument.

miketrees wrote on Apr 16^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

the GST should be shared on the basis of per capita... That is as random as paying GST on a square kilometre basis. Dont forget WA is not asking for your money, they are asking to keep more of their own.

Focusing on the GST is cherrypicking and grossly misleading. The states receive other sources of Federal revenue as well. When these other sources of revenue are considered WA has done much better.

For nine out of 16 years that the GST has been in place, WA has been a net taker of Federal money.

For 94% of the time that the Federation has been place, WA has been a net taker of Federal money.

Those subsidies for WA's mining industry also came from Federal money and most of that was paid for by other states.

So if you look a little more closely, WA's case doesn't look so good now, does it?

50% guaranteed to each state and pool and split the rest accordingly.

Bam wrote on Apr 16^th, 2015 at 10:39am:

miketrees wrote on Apr 16th, 2015 at 8:23am: the GST should be shared on the basis of per capita... That is as random as paying GST on a square kilometre basis. Dont forget WA is not asking for your money, they are asking to keep more of their own. Focusing on the GST is cherrypicking and grossly misleading. The states receive other sources of Federal revenue as well. When these other sources of revenue are considered WA has done much better. For nine out of 16 years that the GST has been in place, WA has been a net taker of Federal money. For 94% of the time that the Federation has been place, WA has been a net taker of Federal money. Those subsidies for WA's mining industry also came from Federal money and most of that was paid for by other states. So if you look a little more closely, WA's case doesn't look so good now, does it?

its a good point. WA has taken money from the rest most of the time. Now is literally time to pay back some of that. If mining disappeared they would be back to being takers and then, would we complain?

WA has taken money from the rest most of the time.

Once again you are not taking into consideration the huge disadvantage placed on WA by tariffs and the subsidies to manufacturing based in the east in the past.

miketrees wrote on Apr 16^th, 2015 at 6:50pm:

WA has taken money from the rest most of the time. Once again you are not taking into consideration the huge disadvantage placed on WA by tariffs and the subsidies to manufacturing based in the east in the past.

Irrelevant, because the tariffs have been mostly removed over the last 42 years starting with the Whitlam government's abolition of the Tariff Board.

I'll state again, I am not unsympathetic to WA's position. However, we need to look at the bigger picture, and a focus on the GST does not do that.

EDIT: 7.30 an ABC will include this. I expect it will be interesting.

Swagman wrote on Apr 16^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

Can't the States create their own State based GST?

not if they want to win the next election  :D :D :D

miketrees wrote on Apr 16^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

the GST should be shared on the basis of per capita... That is as random as paying GST on a square kilometre basis. Dont forget WA is not asking for your money, they are asking to keep more of their own.

they are asking to keep more of their own

When the boot was on the other foot and NSW were asking for the same thing guess who wasn't standing with them, in fact WA liked the fact that they were getting more money from NSW and were arguing in favour of this same system when it was to their advantage.

WA had no problem when they were benefiting from the unfair way that the system is balanced over time.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2015 at 9:55am:

So, when we are discussing welfare it is fine to support the poor, even when they are perennial non-contribitors, but when discussing GST splitups it should be based on any criteria OTHER than need? Some of you are playing both sides of the same argument.

a)  abolish the GST and there is no argument - Moskva Rules - no tax - no problem.

b) perhaps the fairest way is to remove all other federal funding for states and give them a per capita return on GST - as long as it lasts...

All this furore over GST just goes to show it was never a good idea in the first place.

Far better to rationalise all the taxes and work out a real system for a change without all the excessive complications and multitudes of taxes.

Swagman wrote on Apr 15^th, 2015 at 5:48pm:

WA should secede, build a few nuke power stations and nuke powered desalination plants, export the power to the Eastern States and Asia and use desal water to irrigate a big piece of the arid interior to grow food to export. :)

Good plan. I reckon you should see an income stream from all that in aboutttttt ahhhhhh 200 years.