What a load of shit. That’s not a bold new step… It’s a bold-faced lie.
Consumption taxes tax the poor, the most (proportionally). Taxing the poor and corporate whores… Name a more iconic duo!
Oh fuck off Kate.
Any time the “blue ribbon” teals talk about what is good for the economy we must remember that to them “the economy” = rich arseholes yachts. Their constituents are wealthy and economically conservative, and in no way want things to become fair.
So raising the GST will be worse for everyone who works for a living and have negligible effect on those who have accumulated wealth.
This is bad policy for everyone except the high income earners. You can bet that $3300 per year won’t be adjusted for inflation and we’ll just end up paying more tax.
Remember when governments took bold steps – deregulating the dollar, introducing the [GST]…
Clearly the Australian electorate agrees with Kate and that is why the Australian Democrats are the third largest parliamentary grouping behind Labor and the Coalition.
Yet our GST is among the narrowest and lowest in the OECD. It applies to just 7.5% of the economy, compared with an OECD average of over 11%, and its rate is half the OECD average.
I don’t think anyone on the ground level of the OECD is arguing in favour of their higher rates
Jordies is not on board either
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu19s6dmwA0
Quick diagram for those new to politics.
Generating disproportionate levels of money comes from destroying nature.
Politics needs lots of money.
Politicians continually struggle to do anything to protect nature.
Under our model, the GST rate would increase to 15% and exemptions would be removed. To ensure equity, every Australian adult would receive a $3,300 annual payment, effectively making the first $22,000 of spending GST-free. PBO modelling shows this could leave the bottom 60% of income earners better off, even before accounting for the personal income tax cuts enabled by the additional $24bn in revenue.
I whole heartedly support this. Spot on.
I don’t believe it. They pitched the GST to us in 1999 as “You’ll receive more money in your pay packet and that will offset the 10% GST”. Sounds a lot like this.
I was making about $35k in 2000, and that extra money? It amounted to about $18/week. Needless to say, it did not go far at offsetting the 10% on stuff.From this experience, I learned that governments are like people when it comes to getting paid: Nobody ever asks for a pay cut.
If they’re changing tax laws, it’s to end up with more money at the end. Taxes are never cut, they’re shuffled around in a way to make the government more money.deleted by creator
Weird take.
In a democracy, you can see exactly how your tax money is spent.
In the interceding years your income taxes would be much higher if not for GST.
If they’re changing tax laws, it’s to end up with more money at the end.
In this case, this is true. Quite obviously the intention is to get more money from companies and less from low income earners.
that extra money? It amounted to about $18/week.
In this case, it’s $3,300 a year - enough to pay the tax on the first $22k of expenditures. It’s right there in the proposal. No one is saying “I support 15% GST in return for a vague hand wavy notion of lower taxes”.
GST first. Payments come later.
Much. Much later.
I dont think that would get much support, do you?
The term “velveting shrimp with baking soda” comes from the silky texture that the shrimp (or other proteins) develop after undergoing this process in aussie forum, akin to the texture of velvet fabric. This technique is also used with other proteins like chicken, beef, or pork in Chinese cooking to achieve similar results of tenderizing and sealing in moisture.
