Goods And Services Tax : Australia

In this view governments are small, protectors of individual choice and focussed on the wealth creation that will trickle down to the more vulnerable. This Strategy was commissioned by the State Government but it only has some of the policy levers to tackle cost of living. Income support is a Australian Government matter as are most of the macroeconomic levers influencing the cost of living. Also taxation revenues are dominated by the Australian Government, and state taxation accounts for only a small proportion of total government revenues. Nevertheless there are goods and services over which the State Government has some control of pricing policy. Within these constraints, the Strategy focuses on feasible options for the State Government to pursue. The aim is to identify a framework and set of actions that can be delivered in the context of an already tight State Budget. This is especially important given that the State's revenue base is already largely regressive, that is the poor pay relatively more. In times of fiscal constraint where State Government departments and Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) are to find savings, they often turn to strategies, which are also regressive. In recent months we have witnessed an array of responses by departments and GBEs designed in part to improve their bottom lines. These responses include increases to user charges such as public housing rents and adult education fees,

One benefit of government intervention in Australia is the more efficient allocation of resources in the market. Australia’s current policy for this reallocation of resources is to take money from select industries using taxes and

Since its legislative inception in 1999 by the Liberal/National Howard government, the GST has formed a central role in Australia’s taxation regime. In 2014-15, revenue from the GST

Having arrived in Australia under a WHVs a number of years ago I have the first-hand experience of how difficult it is to understand a new tax regime, especially one which is obscured by myths, hearsay and misleading information. For many backpackers, this is their first experience of tax and may be their first job which just makes things worse!

Tax reform is the smarter strategy rather than reducing the debt burden and it will grow the GDP faster. A dollar devoted to reducing marginal tax rates or to reducing the tax penalty against saving and investment will yield a higher return to the Australian economy, and thus to future generations, than a dollar used for retiring debt

We do a lot of things online, from watching movies, learning, to shopping or even buying groceries. People shop online because the prices are cheaper, which is reasonable. Even though the government might be foregoing income by not taxing overseas products bought online, it is important to note that it costs even more for the government to collect these taxes. The Productivity Commission predicted that the removal of the current $1000 tax-free threshold will generate revenue of $600 million. This value is still contended, with the Conference of Asia Pacific Express Carriers suggesting it could be lower than $315 million. However it is important to note that the government will be collecting these taxes at the cost of well over $2 billion, borne by businesses, consumers and the government. One of the main reasons for why it is so expensive is the fact that the Australia Post and Customs would need to employ a lot more people to sort out the taxes. It is estimated that there are over 47.5 million international mail parcels coming into Australia every single

Taxes are a necessary component for operating a government, however, they are also the source of great debate within our society. Especially when considering what types of taxes to use, and how much to tax the population without negatively impacting the economy. Income taxes are currently one of the biggest sources of income for the government, but are also one of the biggest concerns given the level of complication involved with the current tax system. Although many argue that the current progressive tax system contributes to our country’s economic growth, research indicates there may be benefits for simplifying the income tax system without stalling growth. One theory indicates implementing a flat tax system would not only provide consistency for businesses and consumers, it would positively impact economic growth. If given the appropriate considerations, including an equitable rate, a flat tax would increase consumer confidence and lead to an increase in consumption, and ultimately growing real gross domestic product (GDP).

Mr Abbot stated, “The point I’m making is that we cannot remove the GST without the states and territories.” Though a number of state leaders indicate that they are not opposed or either supports the removal of GST. In August 2015 states and federal tressures failed to come to a unanimous agreement needed to remove the GST on sanitary products. From the government’s perspective they are concerned about the countries economy and the effects to which the removal of the GST will have on Australia economy, though the GST on feminie hygiene products creates minimal revenue in Australia, so there would be no real consequences. According to a Seven News report in May 2015, each year, the GST from sanitary products brings in less then 0.05% of the 60 billion dollars the total GST on all goods and services creates annually. An example to which large companies in Australia have even made a change towards this GST is in 2009, Coles Supermarket that they would lower the price of sanitary products by 10%, effectively paying the GST for customers. This decision was made following market research showing that 3 out of 4 women considered the GST unfair. If a profit-driven corporation such as Coles is able to forego the revenue gained by taxing sanitary products, then Australian governments should

The author firstly points out the problems of tax system. Too complicated, too many special allowances and specific taxes, and too much money drained out of the pockets of working Australians. The author cites many examples, such as national insurance, tax accountancy guides called ToUey's, the Byzantine complexity, the final report, The Single Income Tax, to state the necessity to propose a very radical yet necessary change to how the government raises taxes, aimed at making the system cheaper, fairer and more legitimate. The cost of complexity is high and, in addition, complexity has led to the tax system having lost legitimacy as many people do not even really understand how much tax they should pay, let alone how much others should pay. That opacity, a direct consequence of complexity, inevitably leads many to suspect others of not paying their fair share. Data is listed to support the view that the complicity of tax system has damaged the legitimacy of the

Taxes are accumulated from the people for two main purposes in today’s world. First, they are used to provide for a number of public goods, such as infrastructure and public education. Second, these taxes are used to redistribute income from the economically successful to the less successful. Taxes are a massive component for any country; they are used to help grow and provide for a number of sufficient facilities to its numerous citizens. Without taxes in our country, it is extremely hard to fund the systems that are a necessity for society to operate as it should. Tax rates depend upon a country’s economic and social goals. In the following paragraphs, the views of America’s liberals, conservatives, and then my personal views on this topic will be shown.

The most obvious and enduring argument for supporting this reform agenda of increasing the GST’s rate and broadening the base is that it will increase federal taxation revenue by an estimated $44 billion. Proponents argue that this increased revenue could be put to productive use by state governments through covering shortfalls in education and healthcare budgets and that it would ultimately act to make the budgetary outlook in Australia more sustainable. Moreover, many adherents suggest that the issue of repairing Australia’s current account position has become far more urgent in recent years as a result of the large Keynesian stimulus expenditures performed in response to the Global Financial Crisis (Karunaratne 2010). Paradoxically, through using budgetary repair as the primary justification for this reform, supporters of modifying the GST are subtly undermining their own argument once the corresponding weaknesses of the Grattan plan are examined. Due to the aforementioned regressive nature of sales taxes, the GST reform package includes targeted compensatory payments and tax cuts that are designed to ensure that the bottom 20% of households by income are not severely crippled by the increased tax burden that a higher GST would produce in isolation. This necessity to

ATO – The ATO ensures the Australian taxation and superannuation structures are met and managed effectively. This means helping Australians understand their rights and obligations which improve the ease of compliance and access to benefits such as issuing HELP debt and workers compensation while ensuring employers deduct PAYG, child support (if applicable) and issuing superannuation to employees. The ATO is the governments main revenue collection body by receiving GST, medicare levy, income tax and company

The proposed GST tax rate is expected to be around 23 to 25 percent which is a cumulative total of all the tax applicable in the country. However, the number is expected to come down over the years as the GST structure stabilises and the authorities get accustomed to it. Comparing it with the world average which is around 10 percent, the implementation might not significantly improve business sentiments since due to the high tax structure.

GST is one indirect tax for the whole nation, which will make India one unified common market. It will remove all other indirect taxes like central excise duty, vat, service tax, luxury tax, entertainment tax, purchase tax etc.

Back on 8 March, 2000, Mr, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, who severed as Financial Secretary, fifth budget for the Finance Year 2000-2001 in Legislative Council of Hong Kong stated that it is an issue of broadening the tax base. 3 month later, HKSAR Government promulgate that a 16 members Advisory Committee on New Broad-Based Taxes Is formed, lead by Mr Moses Cheung. Mr Donald Tsang also announced that the Advisory Committee is to advise on several question, involve what types of broad-based tax may suitable for Hong Kong, and should it be introduced including a consumption-based tax. A formation of Task Force to Review the Public Finances is also announced, and is responsible to exam the details that government’s from 1998-19999 and 1999-2000 up to 2002-2003 on the tax base,