From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:36:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.100050.165372@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au writes:
>yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga) writes:
>
>
>>I think this isn't a case of not making decisions, it is a case
>>of making a sensible decision not to charge differing rates.
>>The law should be rather simple to draft and implement. Having
>>to arbitrate rates on the basis of subjective worth to special
>>interest groups is a pretty nasty can of worms. Making "no decisions"
>>would leave us with the status quo, a situation you are defending,
>>this decsion to have a GST is a very strong one, and has met
>>with quite a deal of electoral cost to Dr J.
>Certainly it is hard to sell (I wonder why??), but after it

The GST is an IQ test for the media and the Australian population,
although the real dummies are the people in the Liberal Party
who thought that the average person in the community, and the majority
of the people in the newsgroup, would have the brains to understand it.
It was always impossible and should firmly stamp in the minds of
our leaders that reform through stealth is the preferred option
by the voting public.

>is implemented the govt can just retire from responsibility
>can't it. This was the point I am making.

You assume that they will, I don't.

>>Well gosh, if selling 1 tax isn't hard enough ... imagine trying
>>to sell a package that pin-points all avenues of taxation
>>that could conceivably occur in the next term of parliament
>>to allow the govt. to push things along in the direction they want.
>Actually it would be easier because each argument against it
>would be of no concern to other people in the community.

Are you kidding, the people and media can't understand the
thing now, what chance if you mention that some dodgy taxes will be
needed to fine tune the economy, scare campaigns are pretty easy
you know. Even with extreme detail the Government is able
to sell the line that EVERYTHING will cost 15% more, and most
of the voting people believe it. You have people in the community
who are asked how much they spend on their groceries each week
for which they say $80, when asked how much do you think a 15%
GST would increase this they answer 30 to 40 dollars, sheer bloody genius.
The typical voter couldn't give a shit about becoming informed,
so any appeal to the "easy option" will always win out.

>>Or would you prefer a global statement like "Of course other
>>tax charges may need to be levied to address and fundemental shifts
>>in consumption that may be detrimental to the Australian economy
>>as a whole", can you imagine the field day Keating would have on
>>that one ... please don't volunteer to run anybodys campaign, unless
>>of course you like them to lose.
>I certainly wouldn't phrase it in that way, but I would
>argue for an adaptive rather than cast in stone policy.

No party has policy cast in stone, they must however present this
image to get their general thrust through the media and to the
tiny percentage of the voting public that listens.

>>Good, if you think there is a better system, write it down
>>and post it to the net, we know that the current one is buggered
>>and you don't like the GST, so lets see your alternative, then
>>lets check out all the bits you've missed, then you can say
>>that a better system is possible.
>
>I being an employed person do not have the whole resources
>of a party or government to do this so it is a challenge
>that is absurd.

If you don't have the time to find out what is better, then how do
you know there is a better way? What conclusions do you come to
from the fact that most other countries have instituted this system?

>>The marketplace decides in this country, I think Labtam would
>>argue about indigenous computers not exceeding the utility of
>>imported PC's.
>Fine, but there are times when the market is not operating
>for the good of the country and when this is clearly the
>case we should be able to intervene. We should not have a
>religious block about doing so. Given that you think the
>market is perfect and its decisions should be considered
>gospel, how do you explain/justify the huge crash of 1987
>whose chock waves still resonate in the world recession.
>
>>Nice slogan, now prove it.
>Come one now, massive tax cuts for the rich, not so for the

The real rich are already paying 39 cents in the dollar or less ;-)
I doubt that they will enjoy the company tax being raised to
42% to match the new highest marginal rate. They will also not enjoy
paying taxes on food and clothing other items that escape the
current sales tax net.

>poor(because they already pay less tax). Taxing people who
>were never taxed before - an inability to compensate people

Who are you talking about? poor people have always paid
indirect taxes, just not on food and clothing, under the
fightback changes they are more than compensated.
Or are you talking about those in the cash economy, taxing them
sounds like a win to me.

>who have saved for the one off devaluation of their
>money.
Savings are given special tax treatment, Fightback also recognises the
need to address this area, but was not specific about how it was
to be done. At least it is on the books as needing assistance.

>>No one has robbed the poor more or created more poor than those responsible
>>for the 11.3% unemployment rate in this country. If you are talking
>>about a possible minor loss of real income across the board for the
>>prospect of lowering labour costs and therefore increasing the
>>prospects of employment of these 11.3%, then I'll gladly support it.
>I also support that principle, I do not think the GST
>embodies it. Those responsible for the 11.3% unemployment
>are several
>	The market (fall out from the crash, the poping of
>		the Japanese bubble).

we crashed long before the Japanese did., it was interest rates that
stuffed this economy long before the world wide slow down hit.

>	A lack of forsight in our management.
>	The fact that we are (I believe) begining another
>		industrial revolution and some are being
>		left behind.
>	Bad discisions by a government that insists that
>		the only way to control the economy is
>		through	blunt insturments like interest
>		rates because interference is a sin.
>
>>I don't own one of your crystal balls, I tend to vote purely
>>on the basis of past performance (in the case of governments)
>In that case you would vote labor I presume.

Hmmm, this would definitely require a deal of twisted logic?
You misunderstand I won't be voting for a party that has fucked
the economy of every entity that it has governed through the
1980's. A 100% record is too much to ignore.

Newsgroups: aus.politics