Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
From: mjp@itd.dsto.gov.au
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:00:48 CST

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

>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.

>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.

>>>from the fact that importers will bring in border line cases
>>There will always be border line cases, but no system is
>>perfect. I just want a BETTER system than a flat GST.
>>Strangely enough as much as the so called rationalist would love to
>>pigeon hole everything into a perfect rigid structure,
>>humans just don't work that way. Neither therefore does the
>>economy.

>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.

>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
poor(because they already pay less tax). Taxing people who
were never taxed before - an inability to compensate people
who have saved for the one off devaluation of their
money.

>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).
	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.

>and of announced policies (both sides). I wouldn't mind putting
>money on your Hewson/Coalition forecast, changing leaders
>or breaking apart won't win them the election, so you are
>pretty far off the mark.

As I said to you privately, I wasn't expecting this to
happen but it would not surprise me at all. Based on past
performances the liberals seem intent on self sabotage, and
seeing their group is more of a cadre than a party it
wouldn't surprise me at all.

Michael
--
Michael Pilling				Phone: +61 8 259 7017
DSTO ITD/SE 171 Labs          		Fax: +61 8 259 5589
PO Box 1500				Telex: AA82799
Salisbury SA 5108, Australia		michael_pilling@itd.dsto.gov.au