ABCD......

What is the chance of GST rate changes when ALL State and the Federal Governments need to agree to it.?

Lots of talk by some, but no changes by those at the top...

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the GST won't - and can't - change unless there's political consensus.

The federal government had no plans to touch the GST "this term or next".
"It can't and it won't change unless all the states and territories agree," Mr Abbott said in a speech on Monday.
The base and the rate of the GST won't change this term or next, unless it's supported by Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and the Labor premiers, he added. GST won't change this term or next: Abbott


Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg stated that the Government has no plans to either increase the GST or broaden its scope, but that Dan Tehan (the person who suggested that GST should be looked at) is a valued member of the team, and he is entitled to his opinion.
News - Dan Tehan - Member for Wannon

Box 10.5: Administration of the GST base
Australia's Future Tax System

Clauses 32‑36 of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth‑State Financial Relations set out the administration arrangements applying to the GST. Any change to the rate or the base of the GST must be unanimously agreed by the Australian government and all the States. Purely administrative changes only require the majority support of the Australian government and the States.

These arrangements mean that the base and rate of the GST have been more stable than otherwise may have been the case. The rate of the GST has remained unchanged since introduction. This compares to countries such as New Zealand and South Africa, which increased their rates of similar value added taxes within three years of introduction. Further, there have been no major changes to the GST base since its introduction, which again is unusual when compared to other countries such as South Africa (where products such as basic foods and paraffin have been made GST free) and France (where the entire value added tax system was revised).

knockoff nige

Yep, it comes down to the states decision and thankfully it's not predominantly Liberal governments. But, the federal government can try and force their hand by cutting funding to these states which would mean they have to agree to a GST change to make up for losses. A reality that might come true if states agree to sell off assets which would then return no revenue.

Alan Collett

" ... if states agree to sell off assets which would then return no revenue."

And so the States - or more accurately taxpayers - will continue to pay interest on the borrowing eventuating from the profligacy of the ALP Governments.

Does no-one believe in balancing the books these days?

Best regards.

knockoff nige

Looks to me like the current government don't want to. Doubled out budget deficit in 17 months. If that's trying, I'd hate to see them on a shopping spree.

Balancing the books could get a good start by removing the carbon tax rebate payment to families that should have been removed at the time of the carbon tax repeal. Scrapping an insane PPL scheme is a sign that they realise they got it wrong. Let's see what they do next.

the troubadour

Look no further than the WA Conservative government for running up debt. You could look at policy of the Federal Government. Then look at QLD Conservative throwing away tax payers money with the Indian coal company, that admitted to not needing the money or the allowing of resource companies to dictate policy regarding mining tax and the list goes on.

Instead of ideologically charged statements blaming one ,side look at the bigger picture and general poor governance in Australia to get the full picture.

Sensible thinking people do not want money making assets to be sold off to private enterprise. It is not in the consumers general interest.

the troubadour

Selling of assets nothing but short term thinking. We need new thinking to replace a system very unsteady( and largely corrupted ) to regain balance and stand on its feet.
A radical overhaul no less is what is required. The complete failure of capitalism may result if not or at best a system that serves few .

Beoz

Um err ...... who created the debt? Who is now blocking every attempt to rid the debt? That would be your unionist mate Bill Shorten, short of ideas, and the rest of his clowns in the opposition.

knockoff nige

Created the debt? So if the debt grows to 20 times what it is now you'll still blame Labor? Labor didn't leave a surplus but they didn't leave this deficit either. It's growing faster than it did under Labor and that is a fact.

Why is it growing? We scrapped the carbon tax and kept the rebate to families. Should parliament just pass a budget riddled with bad ideas simply because it's a budget? There's a reason we have an opposition and thank God we have one. You should be thankful of them too.

Beoz

How about grants to the reserve bank, investment in transport infrastructure, cleaning up the carbon tax, border protection ....... all of which needed spending and took great neglect from the previous government. Don't forget the interest payments on the debt created by the previous government.

This is all typical though. We've seen it before both in Oz and the UK. Labour screws things up, the cons come in and clean it up and look bad doing it. Cleaners never look good.

knockoff nige

9 billion dollars to the reserve bank that they didn't ask for or need.

Investment in transport infrastructure where exactly? Labor already had plans for that and most infrastructure spending happens at state level.

By cleaning up the carbon tax do you mean removing tax revenue and keeping the family rebate? Removing the carbon tax wasn't a budget measure, it was seperate. It's also increased the deficit.

Border protection already had a cost.

How about a massive blow out in cost in NBN which is now more expensive and far inferior to Labors plan. How about the cost to reverse good working policy by Labor just to make your mark? That's what's got Tony Abbott on the ropes if you hadn't noticed. Bringing things like Knighthoods back that Labor scrapped.

How exactly are this government cleaning things up? There is no evidence that what they are doing is working. It's more evident that if Labor were still in government the deficit would be much lower as it wasn't growing this fast. Explain that to me.

Do you believe that states selling off assets is a good idea? I've accepted you don't like to answer my questions but I'll keep asking them anyway.

Beoz

Oh Nige . Oh dear. Oh No. Oh Labour. You work it out so simply yet so far from the mark.

Nite nite

knockoff nige

That's as good as Tony Abbott could do in response to anything so I guess that will have to do.

Remember this post for the next time you accuse me of running away from the facts.

Alan Collett

Suggest you might draw the distinction between the annual deficit and the cumulative debt.

$1bn deficit per annum for 5 years equals a $5bn debt after 5 years.

The Coalition Government is trying to get the annual deficit back into a surplus. Until it does that it will have an annual deficit that will add to the debt accumulated in earlier years.

The same is happening in the UK where the present Government still hasn't done enough to turn the annual deficit arising from the cods-up of a previous Labour administration into an annual surplus.

And so the cumulative debt increases from one year to the next.

I agree with you on one thing nige: there were tax reductions from 1 July 2012 to compensate for the introduction of the carbon tax - primarily the increasing of the tax free threshold of $6k to $18,200.

Withdrawing the carbon tax means that income tax should have reverted to the status quo ante.

However ... be thankful for the opposition? The one that when in power with Treasurer Swan promised a surplus I forget how many times, and completely failed to do so?

Socialists: great at spending money they don't have. Great at coming up with meaningless statements such as wanting everyone to pay their fair share of tax. Great at leaving the country in a worse state economically than it was when they came to power.

Heaven help Australia economically if that mob gets back into power.

That old headline from the 1992 UK election comes to mind in the context of the Kinnock led Labour Party: will the last person to leave the country please turn the lights off.

Onwards!

the troubadour

Neo Cons, great at looking after their mates at the top end and big business.
Hence the ever gaining amount of wealth at the top.

It is clear the [people don't want what is on offer by that side of politics. It would appear to be sweeping the world. Neo Conservative politics and economic theory play to elites and offer nothing but reductions in living standards, reduced to the bone safety nets, less if any work rights, reward those in power, less accountability, the list goes on.

As for the jibe about turning the lights out it was used as well in New Zealand for those escaping the economic policies of the right wing NZ party in power at the time.

A leash needs to be firmly around the neck of big business with regards undue influence over elected representatives of the people. Buying of influence and corruption of individuals with donations.

As noted the very existence of capitalism is at risk with the way it is dominating the political agenda. The rot needs to stop.

the troubadour

Facts play little part with the poster I'm afraid. hardwired brainwashed to the cause.