From: speednut@werple.apana.org.au (Mark Jose)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 19:29:11 +1100
Organization: werple public-access unix, Melbourne
NNTP-Posting-Host: werple.apana.org.au

Original Message From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Original Subject: Re: GST - double tax?
 
>Like I said, where did you pick up 10.6? Is it the Fightback number
>of 4.4% increase in CPI taken from the 15%GST? Didn't Treasury come
>up with 3.8%? If that is the case are you then saying that this 4.4%
>(3.8%) statistic is the sales tax/GST variation only? Are you telling
>me that the model that was used was so simplistic as to ignore any of
>the reductions in costs of production that will occur due to the
>removal of payroll tax, the removal petrol levies and their consequent
>transport costs etc.? If so, then maybe this statistic is bogus.
 
Well I'll tell you what. I am quite confused as to the REAL figures that
are to be believed. This person's model says this and this person's
model says that but when all is said and done it is theory and many
problems have been caused by believing in theories. Of course the
reverse is also true.
 
Anyway, my main "problem" with the Fightback package is its assumption
that the savings in fuel, reduced manufacturing costs etc etc will be
passed onto the consumer. If at the present time I am able to quite
easily sell my goods at the X price, then why not continue to sell
at X rather than Y. If I am in direct competition with an imported good
then I will have to pass on the saving, but otherwise how can I be made
to pass on the saving. Believe it or not there are still quite a few
products which could fall under this scenario. Even the humble farmer
could not be blamed for pocketing the difference in order to catch up on
that mortgage.
 
But wait, that's not all. What of the "proposal" to eliminate payroll
tax. How do they propose to achieve this? Correct me if I am wrong but
the tax is a state tax and unless they use the foreign affairs section
of the constitution (is there an international treaty on standard taxes
???? :-> ) they cannot force the states to drop payroll tax.
 
The real problem (to me) is that the Fightback package relies heavily on
everything integrating perfectly. It relies on micro-economic reform
(jeez I hate that term! - Why do I use it?), industrial reform,
reduction of tariffs, co-operation of the states (taxes) and so on. If
one of these sectors/sections doesn't come to the party, are we up the
proverbial creek????
 
 
>(Of course if you believe this 4.4% has taken all that into account
>then even a pinhead like yourself should have capitalised on that to
>reduce the sales tax component of that 10.6%.)
 
 
Politics does bring the worst out in us, doesn't it???!!!
 
 
>I summed this up with "the Labor states have stuffed their ecomonies
>and Federal Labor is stuffed", the real reason that we were stuffed
>was that the accord process locked the govt in to a wages strategy
>thus locking up one variable in the economy, an election was brewing
>in 1990 so they couldn't move early enough to slow the economy without
>an electoral backlash, so when they actually did it they used monetary
>policy as a bludgeon, too late and too deep. They also promised a few
>tax cuts and expansion of programs which meant that any Fiscal restraint
>was out the door.
 
Can't disagree with this. In my memory, (Gough and '72), all the Labor
party is good for is building up the debt for succeeding governments to
inherit and reduce. Big governments, big social welfare and no money to
pay it. MAINTAIN THE RAGE!
 
>Well how come you didn't leave years ago? After all the real income of
>the average worker has declined in the past few years ... and it will
>get worse regardless of who gets in, the point is who gives us the
>best mid to long term prospects?
 
This is the real problem, the social ramifications for the middle class
of Australia. Once the country of "Middle-Classers" we now have two
distinct categories - "The Haves" and the "Have Nots". While the wages
of "average workers" were being constricted, middle management and
upwards were handing each other pay rises. What productivity gains are
they meeting?
 
From not so impersonal experiences, middle management and many senior
managers are indeed unable to manage properly. They are unable to handle
their workers, unions and "restructuring". Some would be hard pressed to
know the basics of a manager. Just because you are an Accountant or a
MBA or whatever doesn't necessarily mean you will be a good manager. Too
few of them know how to get the best out of their workers. After all we
have known for years that you can lead a horse to water but you can't
make him drink, so why is it taking so long for management to awaken to
this fact.
 
Even under the current government's agenda, I can see the various
industries becoming competitive in the workplace but not in the board
rooms and offices.
 
>I am certainly of the opinion that "steady as she goes" is not going
>to get us anywhere I want to be in the next few years.
 
 
Yes well glorious old social reformer "Aunty" Joan Kirner ran on this
very platform and was tossed out on her left-wing backside. Is this an
omen, perhaps?
 
Newsgroups: aus.politics