Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Governments are 'socialising' tax revenue gains and 'capitalising' tax revenue losses

By Geoff Carmody - posted Wednesday, 21 November 2012


A less volatile and risky alternative broad tax base is consumption.

This would share risks between taxpayers and government in proportion to the tax rate. The treatment of losses would not be an issue. The income tax bias against saving would disappear. Inflation adjustment issues would disappear. The tax instrument could be either a comprehensive GST or a comprehensive direct expenditure tax, which would tax income when it is spent.

Australia already has a GST, (which does allow refunds for net losses) but its base is increasingly leaky.

Advertisement

Increased reliance on the GST should involve three structural reforms.

First, more online trading (notably for imports) should be made GST-liable. If other countries (eg, the UK and Canada) can have dollar transaction thresholds as low as $20 or so, why on earth is Australia unable to reduce the current per transaction threshold of $1,000? This is a fast-growing avenue for avoidance.

Second, the GST base should be broadened to cover currently-exempted food, health and education. The additional billions raised from this reform should be used, first, to require the States to abolish the remaining inefficient transactions taxes (notably stamp duties on commercial property) included in the original GST deal between the Commonwealth and the States. Insurance stamp duties should be abolished as well.

Third, with a comprehensive GST base, a higher rate to finance cuts in income taxes should be considered.

Federal Labor refuses point-blank to broaden the GST tax base or raise its rate. The Henry Review of our tax system was barred from considering GST reform. Most recently, in rejecting sensible suggestions by Nick Greiner, both the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister have re-affirmed this position.

There are numerous arguments for shifting our tax system away from income taxes towards comprehensive consumption taxes. Fair sharing of revenue risk is just another.

Advertisement

Especially if governments persist with heavy reliance on volatile income taxes, they should not make large new spending plans, destined permanently to add to Budget expenses, until they are sure of the revenues needed to pay for them.

This means carefully counting their revenue chickens after they've hatched, not before the capacity of the hens to lay enough eggs has even been established.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

A version of this article was first published in the Australian Financial Review on November 12, 2012.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

7 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Geoff Carmody is Director, Geoff Carmody & Associates, a former co-founder of Access Economics, and before that was a senior officer in the Commonwealth Treasury. He favours a national consumption-based climate policy, preferably using a carbon tax to put a price on carbon. He has prepared papers entitled Effective climate change policy: the seven Cs. Paper #1: Some design principles for evaluating greenhouse gas abatement policies. Paper #2: Implementing design principles for effective climate change policy. Paper #3: ETS or carbon tax?

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Geoff Carmody

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 7 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy