knockoff nige

Quite obvious what my point is. We need lower income earners to spend their money. If there is an increase to GST an applied to fresh food, there is less for them to spend...which is bad for all of us.

Beoz

Ok. Right that topic. Nothing to add here. Would need to wait the pros and cons discussion when it eventually happens.

knockoff nige

Pro and cons of what? Making necessities more expensive? It's good that you see the importance of lower income earners as well as higher income earners. Now, if all people are rightly paying their correct proportion of their earnings to income tax, we would have a far healthier budget.

I believe there should be a change to the GST to hit luxury items, as I've said. As you will probably realise, people from most of not all income levels will spend their money on luxury items such as 50 inch tv's and the latest smartphone. But, they wouls be less likely to if bread, bananas, milk, carrots, eggs etc are more expensive.

Also, you could have saved yourself some time and grief and made 'nothing to add here' your first post on this thread.

Beoz

Rubbish. Lower income earners love interest free 50 inch TVs, Foxtel, iphones, Xboxes, spending money hotting up their cars, and McDonalds. We've progressed from the luxury item tax because high and low income earners consume a wide range of goods and services and you cannot bracket things into luxury or not and discrimination is a nasty word. GST will increase because it has to and its fair.. Whether some items are exempt remains to be seen.

knockoff nige

Your post makes no sense. You say we've progressed from a luxury item tax because high and low income earners consume a wide range of goods. How does that make an iPhone 6 plus not a luxury item? Or a Tag Heuer Monaco? Or the latest Ferrari? Or even the latest smart TV? These items are being purchased by lower income earners because of the initial interest free options (which largely become high interest loans as they are often not closed off within the interest free period. The household debt in Australia is massive and it's ridiculous that no-one is addressing it, especially considering the GFC we just had.

Are you suggesting that being able to afford a new TV is the same need as being able to afford weekly groceries? Do you not see the difference? I didn't suggest that luxury items are only being bought by higher income earners. They are being bought by all levels. The lower income earners are actually buying more because of how much they outnumber the high end. My point is that they need to keep buying these things as that's how the economy works. The wealthy don't buy enough cars or couches to make up the difference.

the troubadour

There are no pro's making the poor spend more of probably what they don't have.
Further amply the wealth divide (you can't claim the wealthy necessary have class) All points you have expressed.
The main argument being how to raise more revenue without hitting placing a once again unfair burden on those less able to pay in order to satisfy those that don't want to pay their fair share.

Beoz

Jeez man. You gone round in circles. So if the poor are buying more and more luxury items then why tax it more as a luxury item. That goes against your theory of protecting the poor and means the poor, which you say are massive numbers, will buy less. Its a silly idea mate. Leave it alone.

the troubadour

You've got the idea just the wrong way around. ALP could hardly in wildest fantasy be called Socialist. Nor could Labour in UK. Part of the problem is by treading the middle path and becoming small c Tories they stand for very little.

Look at broken America if you want to look at non functioning capitalism without the European safety nets. (functions for a minority)

A new order awaits clearly to sweep away the failed 80's experiments that awarded a tiny minority of the population while making 1% own 40% and ever rising of the worlds wealth.

Beoz

Yes to a point. Its really about raising revenue fairly, not discriminately, without damaging already in place structures along the way. Its a tough question and not easily solved.

the troubadour

The poor are easily enticed into credit. Nothing to do with necessary affordability. They are targeted and easy pickings.

As such does not go against the theory of protecting the poor the poster commented on.

Result being if present consumption continues at the present rate the personal debt rate and future inability to pay will increase many fold.

the troubadour

It is hard as few in government want to really take the bull by the horns and tackle the problem. There is no doubt big changes need to happen in Australia and in place structures are going to have to be altered before we begin to get any where. This means those with wealth and sense of entitlement will have to be targeted.
You can only hit the poorest so hard for limited return at that. There is much than can be done but the will to do so is less than wanting at the moment.

knockoff nige

Hardly silly. Poorer people need to be able to afford the basics but the economy needs them to be able to afford the tv's and the smartphones. Increase GST and apply it to bread and milk, we'll see less spending in the 'luxury' items. If people feel like their money goes further, they will have more confidence in spending it.

A point I made many many pages back was on tourism and how that would be hit by a GST hike on everything. Australia is already seen as expensive.

Beoz

Nige. You are losing it. Ive never voiced an opinion on GST on fresh food. In fact I lean towards it being GST free because we as a society need healthy people so they aren't a burden on the health system.

You best go outside, take some deep breaths, have a G&T and relax.

knockoff nige

You're the one that's confused mate as we've been talking about this since page 1. It was pitched by the coalition to broaden the GST to fresh food.

What do you define as luxury items and basic/necessity items?

swans

Why keep repeating nonsense.Simple maths,1% of the worlds population is 70 million.If they have $1million each it is $7 trillion,if they have 10 million each it is $70 trillion,$100 million each then $700 trillion.Stop fooling yourself,reality isn't going to change.

Further simple maths,you quote 46% then change it to 40%.So any street in OZ between 40 and 50% of the houses would be owned by 'rich people'.Nonsense.

Shall we do the same for OZ,1% is 230,000 people,$1 million each is $230 billion.$10 million each is $2.3 trillion.None of them are super rich and yet you claim they have twice the GDP of Australia.The word bollox springs to mind.Australia may have 10 billionaires,it does not have 20,there are still very few rich people,the facts are still correct,the masses will always be wrong.

Further facts are as explained the largest company in OZ is still CBA.In round numbers 48% of the shares are owned by pension funds.The next largest share holding is further ordinary people,they own 23% of the company with an average holding of 2100 shares (approx. $200,000).Smaller shareholders have around 400 shares on average,all up they own 82% of the company.

202 entities own over 100,000 shares,are you going to fool yourself they are all individuals.

The facts are still the same a large number divided by a large number is a small number.A small number multiplied by a large number is a very large number,keep refusing to see it.

You want to get some of that wealth you claim is not shared around then facts are still the same.market opens on Monday morning,hand in pocket time,buy whatever you like.Of course you are quite welcome to keep fooling yourself that the wealth arises because the poor insist on giving money to the wealthy and it is all risk free.

You get taxes from taxing the masses,not the few.

Geordie downunder