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

GST reform discussion requires facts and analysis, not ideology

By Geoff Carmody - posted Monday, 14 April 2014


Why? Because the rich spend many more dollars on the exempted products than the poor.

Opposition to a higher GST rate to finance lower income taxes, if anything, is even sillier. Relative to a higher GST rate, a lower GST rate confers a dollar concession on the top income quintile nearly three times as large as for the bottom quintile.

The top 60% of households account for about 74% of total expenditure on goods and services. Just over one-quarter is accounted for by the bottom 40%.

Advertisement

Exemptions from taxes on products cannot be quarantined to the poor if everybody buys those products. Worse, the poor get proportionately less of the Budget cost of the concessions than the rich.

By opening up large holes in the GST tax base in areas such as health that are growing faster than the economy, these exemptions also undermine the efficiency and revenue-raising capacity of the GST itself. This means we are forced into more reliance on less efficient taxes, such as income tax in all its variants.

Labor opposition to GST reform implies it supports very inefficient and wasteful ways of trying to help the poor. It also delivers a very inefficient and leaky tax system overall.

What GST reforms are worth investigating?

Eliminate most exemptions and have a broader GST tax base. A New Zealand model would be a good start. For online imports, lower the exemption threshold from $1,000 to something like the current UK and Canadian thresholds (about $20 - $30 or so). Consider raising the GST rate (again, the New Zealand model is worth a close look).

This is not an argument to raise the tax/GDP share in Australia. That depends on progress in rationalizing and reducing public spending. But it is an argument about how to collect current tax levels less inefficiently.

Advertisement

For the states, extra GST revenue should be used in the first instance to replace their remaining inefficient state transactions taxes (notably stamp duties on property and insurance).

If the Commonwealth Budget allows, extra GST revenue (and consequent scope for lower grants to the states) should be used to pay for lower income tax rates.

Labor's GST position is unsustainable. GST reform should be considered, along with reducing income tax.

That combination would improve the efficiency of our tax system. Let's at least talk about it.

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

A version of this article was published in the Australian Financial Review.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 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 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy