Ha. For me it was creditrating.
You understand what they are used for donāt you?
You understand that there is no choice in the matter donāt you?
You understand they are for health and hygiene donāt you?
How does it open a Pandoraās box? Itās hardly a set and forget piece of legislation, demonstrated by both sides of the divide willing to change the rate.
If the tax is only worth a few dollars why do we need it?
Crawl back under your rock and stay there
Good post, apart from the last line.
Reckon you should read the whole piece of legislation that was voted down.
It was not about tampons; this is just the emotional bit that the Greens are playing politics with.
The Greens are the ones who need to crawl back under the rock.
Good governments make amendments to bills to try and make them work before voting them down
Wasnāt having a go at the legislation having a go at the poster who sees this as an insignificant matter.
The bill itself was ridiculous but it is becoming the norm with this Government.
is that to me? If so fair enough.
Just did a bit more reading into it, and Razors and Condoms are exempt from GST. No words really.
Pauline Hanson wants to get rid of kids with Autism from main stream schools
I do agree.
I just donāt think abuse furthers the conversation.
I know Iām the last one to say that, as I do get very very cross sometimes.
W TF?
School injections.
I guess she doesnāt want them getting worse.
The bag of crap that the ordinal GST law is, stems from the deal done between John Howard and Meg Lees. Costello even thought it was a pile of manure.
GST is not a fair tax unless it applies to all goods and services.
I probably should quit while Iām behind, but Iāll respond.
It was the accountant in me, not me being male that posted what I did.
Of course I would support this change in isolation. As posted above Condoms being GST free whilst tampons arenāt doesnāt make much sense.
However my general position is Iām against exemptions from GST, as it makes it complex, leads to weird outcomes like condoms vs tampons and I can see further campaigns where new items are advocated to be removed.
Some other examples
Sunscreen is GST free whilst Sunglasses are not. Our our eyes not as important as our skin?
Lollies pretty clear as why they should have GST. But hey lollies to a diabetic could be seen as life saving medicine.
And a finally a totally ridiculous one. Whatās the difference between a tampon and toilet paper? Both products are absorbent to deal with bodily fluids, both unavoidable, both health and hygiene related. The fact the government taxes our bowell movements doesnāt quite create the same headlines as taxing the reproductive system.
Again Iād be happy to make the change, Iād be even happier to make a more substantive difference to inequality like guaranteed super payments throughout maternity leave, which Iād happily pay more taxes to do.
But itās a regressive tax anyway, and shouldnāt have been brought in in the first place. Especially while fat rich fukz, big business and multiās get away with paying stuff all &/or nothing.
I remember thinking at the time, ā¦ that they could bring it in on everything, and then make low income earners exempt, ā¦ like they do (did?) for Farmers on certain goods, ā¦ and continue to do for Mining coās on diesel etc.
Regressive yes, but the government can and should do things to offset, like you say.
But itās best feature is itās unavoidable. So that fat rich guy who pays no tax cause he uses trusts etc. they canāt avoid GST. Even more relevant in the coming decades is the new class of retiree/pensioner who is rich with substantial super balances. A rich retiree can have a mill in super earning tax free revenue whilst a working class person toils away on minimum wage paying tax. At least the rich person with super pays GST.
Regressive vs Progressive is an interesting tax discussion, but mostly redundant.
Fair vs Unfair is a better argument.
At least the rich person with super pays GST.
On any stuff they donāt order online from overseas vendors.
And on any stuff that their companies donāt pay for and then claim back as ālegitimate business expensesā
Poor people spend a higher percentage of their money on the basic necessities of life than rich people do. Food, power, water, transport, communications. And richer people are more likely to be able to bypass the GST in various ways - as mentioned above, by getting freebie entertainment or travel etc as work perks, or by spending their money overseas where GST is not applied.
Tax avoidance by the rich using trusts etc is an argument against trusts, not an argument for a GST.
I agree with what your saying.
But having a GST is efficient, even though people pay it, itās the responsibility of thousands of business to collect at point of sale and give it to the government. It collects a lot of cash, with the cost of doing so bourne by business not government. Its really really hard to close down and police loopholes, you have to legislate for each one going through opposition and media campaigns each time and have an army of bueracrats policing. The morally superior method sometimes doesnāt work as well in practice.
You can design the tax system to asssist poor people. Easiest way is having a high tax free threshold, which is why the Gillard government increased it when the carbon tax was introduced. Increasing the tax free threshold puts extra money in peoples pockets at an equal amount per person. As opposed to reducing tax rates where the majority of benefits lie with high earners. For those who earn no money increase Centrelink payments. Yes I know, good luck getting a government to increase the dole etc.
Pretty farked when I consider what kind of chance something like this would have of ever eventuating in the ādemocracyā I live in. The clever country.