Online Shopping Tax - The Great Australian Billionaire Protection Scheme

Lraphyg on 21/07/2015 - 13:57

I’m pretty pissed off. A couple of years ago, there were rumblings of protecting the earnings of some of Australia’s billionaires by introducing a new tax for online shopping by removing the $1000 import threshold. At the time, it appeared common sense prevailed when the Productivity Commission said that it would cost about $2000M to collect $500M and discussions about the online shopping tax ceased.

Unfortunately, the idea was not buried. Joe Hockey and Josh Frydenberg have been on a massive campaign lately and there have been many articles indicate that it’s a near certainty to happen. For example: http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/plan-to-add-gst-t…

This will have a huge negative impact on millions of Australian consumers as everything is going to get much much more expensive. Who will benefit from it? Billionaires like Solomon Lew and Gerry Harvey.

I wanted to raise a few points for discussion:

1. It’s more like a 50% tax

While it’s being masqueraded around as a “10% GST” tax, it’s actually going to be much more than that. Currently, when you buy something online from overseas that is over $1000, you will pay 0% GST and a customs clearance fee of about $75. So if I buy a $1000 product from Amazon, when it arrives I will be sent a bill by DHL/FedEx/AusPost for $175 ($100 for the 10% GST and $75 for the customs clearance fee) so it ends up costing me $1175 in total which is OK because chances are the same product is sold by local retailers for $2000+

Now imagine they lower the GST threshold to $20 (which is what they’re talking about) and you order a $25 product from Amazon. When it arrives in Australia, you will receive a bill for $77.50 ($2.50 for the GST and $75 customs clearance fee). So your total cost will be $102.50 for something that should have cost $25. Now that’s a mighty fine way to protect the margins of a few local retailers and ensure you don’t order online, Isn’t it?

2. Local Retailers will raise their prices

Due to the huge incentive not to buy online from overseas retailers (as you saw above, in many cases it will be a 300%+ tax) local retailers are going to get greedier and greedier as competition will be significantly reduced. They will no longer see international websites as competition because of the government mandated protectionism taxes that will be charged on online shopping. Less competition means complacency. Complacency means higher prices.

3. Josh Frydenberg and Joe Hockey

Josh Frydenberg was sworn in as Assistant Treasurer on 23 December 2014, and within a couple of days, his first official act was to announce that he plans to introduce the Online Shopping Tax (http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/dec/26/gst-th…). This was a bit of a weird move - surely this isn’t the single biggest economic issue facing our nation? A bit too weird, isn’t it? I’ve heard rumours that Solomon Lew is one of the biggest donors to Josh Frydenberg and Frydenberg enjoys rides in Solly’s private jet and Solly hosts fundraisers for Frydenberg.

So now this whole tax from which Solly will be one of the main beneficiaries makes sense! Frydenberg and Hockey are willing to sell out the entire Australian population just to ensure they secure a few donations from a few billionaires.

4. It’s not a “loophole”

One of the ways they are trying to sell this protectionism tax to the Australian public is by saying it’s fixing up a loophole and they want to “even the playing field” - this is just complete puffery and spin. It’s not a loophole because it’s something available to everyone - in fact, both Harvey Norman and Myer have set up their own international operations that sell products direct into Australia from overseas. It’s a business model that anyone is free to set up.

Is the fact that international stores need to pay huge shipping bills to get items to Australia while local retailers don’t a “loophole”? Should we make Solomon Lew and Gerry Harvey pay a special tax to ensure that all international shipments can have free shipping so that it becomes an “even playing field”?

5. It’s bad for the economy

Another argument being used to try and justify the Online Shopping Tax is that buying things online from international retailers doesn’t benefit the Australian economy at all. This is completely untrue. What makes this a bit weird is that that comment came from Joe Hockey - our Treasurer - surely the Treasurer of a nation should have at least a basic high school level understanding of economics? Here are just a few ways our local economy benefits from online shopping from international retailers:

  • When people save money, they have more money to spend. This means spending money at their local school fete, the local cafe, the local farmers market or the local pub.
  • The article I pasted a link to above shows that Australians spent $4B buying things from international online retailers. When someone chooses to buy from an international retailer and wait for a longer deliver window until the items arrives with lesser warranty rights, they are usually get a saving of 30%+. This means that Australian’s have an extra $1.2B+ to spend in the local economy thanks to money they save by shopping online.
  • Products don’t get magically delivered by the tooth fairy. There are many industries that are growing rapidly because of online retail. Even when a product is purchased from an international retailer, it must fly to Australia or travel here by ship, get processed at our airports or ports, and get delivered to your door by courier drivers. Most of these are Australian employees.
  • Increased competition benefits everyone. By putting in place a protectionist tax that will effectively mean that people stop shopping online with international retailers, you will dramatically reduce competition for local retailers. This means they’ll stop trying. They’ll stop innovating. *Everyone will lose and we will be the laughing stock of the global business community. Currently, local retailers are trying really hard because international retailers are increasing competition and keeping them honest.

6. Aren’t local retailers embarrassed?

Local retailers should be embarrassed if someone can deliver an item half way across the globe for much cheaper than they can provide the item for to someone who walks into their store. We all know that the 10% GST is not the problem here. Australian retailers have been taking customers for a ride for too long. We’re the only tourists in the word for whom “shopping” is a major tourist attraction no matter what country we land in - that’s because our local retailers haven’t pulled their finger out and got with the program. Now the government is proposing a tax that will protect their laziness and lack of innovation.

7. The next pink batt scheme

If this tax goes ahead, it won’t completely cut out online shopping from international retailers. It will stop people buying from trusted retailers like Amazon and ASOS and cause them to start using smaller dodgy retailers that are willing to under-declare purchases when they ship them. This will mean more and more Australians will be defrauded by dodgy websites and the use of “fly by night” retailers will mean that nobody will ever have their warranty honoured. All in all, millions of Aussie consumers will be hurt even more.

As you can see, I’m not happy with what's about to happen. What’s worse is that it’s all sort of silently happening in the background and I can’t believe there hasn’t been any consumer uproar over it yet. Even though the pollies have probably made their mind up already, I think it’s important for Aussie consumers to let them know that we may not be the ones holding fundraisers for them and donating millions, but we know how to vote on election day and this action won’t go unnoticed.

I have written emails to both the offices of Hockey and Frydenberg - it’s easy to do. I think you all should do the same if you feel strongly about this issue. Their emails are:

Josh Frydenberg - [email protected]

Joe Hockey - [email protected]

I’m also going to write to a few of my favourite international stores (Amazon, ASOS, EastBay) and see if they will put up a blog to encourage their customers to do the same.

Poll Options

  • 110
    I disagree with the new Online Shopping Tax
  • 8
    I agree with the new Online Shopping Tax
General Discussion

Comments

  • raphyg on 21/07/2015 - 14:51
    +3

    Also, I forgot to mention, if anyone has any other idea (other than emailing the ministers) as to what we can do to combat this? If we do nothing, the impact will be horrible.

    • 2ndeffort on 21/07/2015 - 17:32
      +3

      what is happening is that the wholesalers and retailers (who contribute to party election funds) argue that they are forced to charge GST on anything they sell by law but that overseas competitors dont charge GST. As a result the Government is penalizing Australian Business through taxation and as a result stopping jobs growth etc.

      Now I know that most of the stuff I buy from overseas is way more than 10% cheaper so any penalty suffered is minimal at least but from a structural perspective there is a point there.

      What I hate most about the situation is that it is protectionism by stealth. It screams "My business is uncompetitive government so please protect me by finding ways to make it harder for Australians to buy from those companies that are competitive".

      The other thing that I hate is the insinuation that we should all go out and pay the asking price for local stuff out of some kind of social justice sentiment or patriotism. IF the Australian distributers of some of the stuff I buy werent sending their kids to Brighton Grammar and driving around in a Porsche there may be some credence in that argument, not unlike the doctors that complain strongly against government medical funding cuts, and ask all of us to become active in lobbying government on their behalf to increase medicare spend………..then they exit stage left to jump into their leased Maserati and head home to their multi million dollar Camberwell pad. I have kids and i want there to be jobs for them but I hate the concept where governments are lobbied by millionaires to throw up more barriers and protect their noncompetitive margins. I once bought a ski jacket online and picked it up in my hotel when i arrived in the US, cost me USD$200 delivered. Same ski jacket was being sold here in Australia for around AUD $800, no joke, tried it on in a shop whilst i had the exact same one hanging in my cupboard at home. The ski shop wasnt making that margin, the bloke with the Oz rights to Spyder ski apparel is making that margin.

    • bchliu on 22/07/2015 - 20:29
      +2

      Ok.. I've been in Retail for many years and can honestly say that the majority of the blame actually isnt with greedy retailers - who work realistically on "Cost+" model these days since no one buys "RRP" anymore realistically. The "Cost+" model comes in from Wholesalers and Australian distributors with a certain percentage whacked on top. Generally, Computers stuff is about <10% on top of cost, Electrical is about <20%, Furniture is about <40% - all in proportion to the "consumerability" of these sold (eg. You buy a computer every 2 years, 5 years for a TV and 10 years for that piece of sofa as an example).

      What amazes me after many years of working for a big chain is how much the wholesalers and distributors actually sell goods to the stores. One can argue that there are funny money involved (eg. Rebates etc) - but those actually ARE the profit margins of retailers when everything gets dropped to "Cost" or "below cost".

      The middle men are where all the money is at. As an example - A Samsung Galaxy Phone is made in China, but then shipped to Australia by Samsung Australia (who think the Australian market is too small and puts a higher cost to offset lower sales). They do not sell direct, but already have licensing policies with various distributors who also needs a sizable cut. Retailers will then be able to purchase the goods through these "agents" with the product already inflated by both the localised manufacturer and their distribution agents. So the goods you pay for on the shop floor have gone through 3 sets of hands. This is applicable to virtually all imported products from overseas.

    • raphyg on 24/07/2015 - 15:03

      I've set up a petition to help have us heard - please sign and share around: https://www.change.org/p/australian-shoppers-stop-the-austra…

  • mooney on 21/07/2015 - 15:00
    +3

    I totally agree with almost all of your sentiment though I think your point 6 isn't overly balanced, it implies local retailers are creaming super profits out of the Australian customer, which I don't think is the case.

    There are a few factors in play that do make it harder for brick and mortar Aussie retailers to compete vs global:

    1) Cost of rent: eg Rent in Oxford st, London, is A$1,050 per sqmtr, Pitt St, Sydney A$12,500. This is the joys of Westfield domination.
    http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/finding/commercial-invest…

    2) We have the highest minimum wage in the developed world: http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/14/pf/minimum-wage-countries-au…

    3) 8th smallest population density in the world: http://www.infoplease.com/world/countries/lowest-population-…

    I do agree that it's highly possible that local Aussie retailers will just ramp up their prices when they understand how noncompetitive global players are.

    • iseenya on 21/07/2015 - 17:49
      +2

      Your #3 is a total furphy. What counts for retailers is access to potential customers, not the endless swathes of unpopulated outback.

      Australia is a great country for retailers, as it ranks 7th in the world for urbanisation: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Urbani…. (For comparison, the UK is 17th and the US is only 37th).

      • mooney on 21/07/2015 - 21:25
        +1

        Eh?! What does urbanisation have to do with anything?! You seem to be implying that this is an important measure for retailers. Hell Singapore (population less than 6m) is the number one!?! Uruguay (population 3.4 million) is only one spot behind Oz.

        I agree with your comment 'What counts for retailers is access to potential customers' the issue is Australia is small in population and massive/ costly to ship product around in (hence my density example) relative to many other countries which makes competitive economies of scale hard to achieve.

    • bchliu on 22/07/2015 - 20:35

      Actually your last point "I do agree that it's highly possible that local Aussie retailers will just ramp up their prices when they understand how noncompetitive global players are" is only valid IF there were absolutely no more international players anymore. What is proposed though is a level playing field so that the prices are more in line with local standards. International pricing will still influence and keep the local guys honest in comparison - and they will no longer have an argument to say that the GST is not fair.

      In reality - there will still be International players, consumers will still purchase online overseas for their goods (regardless of the tax imposed) and these parameters will still keep everyone honest.

  • blitz on 21/07/2015 - 16:26
    +2

    As 'professionals', we really should be doing something about this.

  • fedwood on 21/07/2015 - 16:29
    +6

    The $75 customs clearance fee surely won't be $75 for a $20 item? Where did you find that out?

    • emibel19 on 21/07/2015 - 19:30

      I'd like to know too. That would be ridiculous. There are currently no customs fees for most goods under $1000. I've seen no indication that this would change.

      Apart from this, I see no real issue with charging GST on overseas online purchases for $20 or more (but only if it generates more revenue than it costs to collect it). Why should they be exempt, when such purchases within Australia are not?

    • raphyg on 21/07/2015 - 20:25

      That's what it currently is and there hasn't been anything to suggest otherwise. It's actually a few charged by customs because there is a lot of work involved to clear a package through customs and check that everything was properly declared and then verify it with the occasional c

    • dadaocongsan on 24/07/2015 - 10:13

      I bought hundred of items from overseas , never got the $75 customs .
      The money I saved online shopping I went overseas too ,I did not help the Aussie economy at all

  • pg88 on 21/07/2015 - 16:51

    Imo point 5 is mostly fluff.

    You can't assume that savings made through online shopping will be spent locally. The more likely scenario is the savings will provide more disposable income for overseas goods.

    Additionally, sure the transportation/freight industries are doing better with online shopping, but I don't think they are injecting an additional $4bn into our local economy that is currently being shipped offshore to international companies.

    Don't get me wrong, I am all for a discussion into this, but there does need to be some efforts made to shrink the gap between local and international businesses and in to redirect money back into our economy. As mooney pointed out, we have ridiculous rents, one of the highest minimum wages in the world and such a small population density compared to many other countries… Any business set up here with or without GST is bound to have a disadvantage when compared on a global scale.

    Whether you like it or not, there needs to be some form of protectionism/balance, otherwise there is no incentive to have a business in Australia. As a drastic example: If it's no longer profitable for Gerry to operate here, he could shut up shop, set up a store overseas to get the cheap prices that we want. In return for this, we lose lose hundreds/thousands of jobs, sure freight/processing might increase but I am certain that it will not offset the losses that we'll suffer.

    Edit: All Gerry's offshore operations won't be taxed either if the above scenario happens… The people lose out from the perspective of jobs, as well as the reduced infrastructure investment due to reduced tax incomes.

    • bchliu on 22/07/2015 - 20:38

      Gerry's Offshore operations only operates within the countries that they are in. They have tried to export software from Ireland, but that did not work as well as it should have and the idea is scrapped. They do not have offshore direct imports anymore for anything as far as I am aware.

  • 2ndeffort on 21/07/2015 - 17:15
    +6

    Took the kids to the snow a fortnight ago and was talking to a family that were staying in the same lodge. They own a shop and they were explaining to me how they dont make the massive profits we all expect. They were complaining that they were often paying more to the wholesaler than they can privately source the items for on the internet (as we all do). They were planning a trip to the US themselves to organise an unofficial parallel import of stock to get around the local distributor (to whom they are an authorised agent). They were very critical of distributors who, in their minds took maximum profit for little risk. Many held no local stock and would only order stock from overseas once they had received cleared payment from the retailer. For some specialty items they told me that they could order the item themselves from the USA and receive it in the post before the wholesaler would confirm receipt of their order for stuff sourced from the Oz distributor.

    There were more stories about arrogant wholesalers turning up in their BMW X5 to increase prices whilst the retailers were struggling to pay rents etc but i wont paint too emotive a picture, suffice to say, from that retailers perspective, our anger is aimed at the wrong people in the supply chain. Those privileged folks that hold the exclusive Australian distributorship (aka monopoly) for stuff are the folks that are making all the $$.

    • bchliu on 22/07/2015 - 20:40

      Spot on! Wholesalers and Local distributors ARE the issue here.

  • scotty on 21/07/2015 - 21:12

    I think what's likely to happen is that there would be a scheme for overseas retailers to collect GST on behalf of Australia Federal Government. So for Amazon, ASOS, eBay and Book Depository, you can either

    1. Sell the Australian customers ex-GST price, but they'll get $75 collection fee & 10% GST at custom, or
    2. Sell the Australian customers GST price, and do the quarterly BAS.

    For (2) there will be a little bit of work for the retailers but big overseas retailers already have resource for that especially if they sell in EU/UK that have different VAT. In this case it's won't be "50% tax" for low value items so Aussie shoppers are still likely to buy there.

    • emibel19 on 21/07/2015 - 21:57
      +1

      Why do you think that there will be a $75 collection fee (assuming you mean regardless of value) when that isn't the case for most items under $1000 now?

      • raphyg on 21/07/2015 - 22:02

        @emibel19 - because that's what currently happens for parcels where the GST needs to be calculated and collected. Parcels under $1000 don't need GST calculated and collected. If the threshold is reduced to $21 then a $21 parcel will be treated in the same way that a $1001 parcel is currently treated.

        • emibel19 on 21/07/2015 - 22:16
          +2

          OK, but it's all speculation anyway. So far, the stories I've seen concentrate on GST, rather than the customs processing charges. I don't see why they couldn't be treated separately.

    • raphyg on 21/07/2015 - 22:01

      Or given that we're a tiny market of 20M people, many are unlikely to go through the hassles of massive and expensive system changes and just forget about us. It will also cause there to be a significant advantage to purchase from smaller dodgy retailers who will be under-declaring parcels and declaring them as gifts.

    • CheapBrah on 22/07/2015 - 07:45

      Wouldn't surprise me if the focus is only on large overseas retailers that make up the bulk of imports. In other words, any overseas retailer selling over $x of goods into Australia has to charge GST and complete a BAS. While for everyone else it remains the same, or maybe with somewhat of a reduction in the threshold (eg $500 instead of $1000).

      Seems like the most efficient system to me.

  • Aus99 on 22/07/2015 - 07:56
    +1

    This is the trend all over the world.

    e.g.
    - USA - No free allowance. All imports are taxed
    - UK - GBP15. All imports above this amount is taxed.

    • Grillman on 23/07/2015 - 01:31
      +3

      But people in those countries probably pay fair prices for things and don't need to import as often.

  • Third_Gear on 22/07/2015 - 09:01
    +2

    raphyg: How many retail businesses have you owned/operated/managed to date either in Australia or overseas? Probably none. For the most part, local retailers are just normal people running their shops trying to get by in a very complicated and expensive trading environment.

    "Australian retailers have been taking customers for a ride for too long." <—- sigh…

    As a business owner though a change in the GST charged will have no impact upon my life or pricing structure and I couldn't care less. I assure you most retail businesses (people I deal with on a daily basis) will feel the same and also don't care.

    I suggest you do more research and get some proper factual information because all you have accomplished is creating a document that reads like an overly emotive manifesto.

    • bchliu on 22/07/2015 - 20:44
      +2

      Raphyg is only speaking with the view of the consumer and does not know about the complexities of running a retail business. A typical consumer does not care what happens in the background and only cares about the price tag for that particular item compared to the next shop or online. This is what drives this site..

      • Third_Gear on 22/07/2015 - 22:05
        -1

        That aside dude is freaking out over nothing. I am from Canada originally and we have a $20 threshold. It worked fine there and processing of international orders was easy. This was pre internet days…

        Whatever. The sky is falling!

        • wako on 23/07/2015 - 04:30

          your comment reminded me of the blame canada south park song.. just saying

      • arislan on 24/07/2015 - 13:26
        +1

        Nor should they. Are we subscribing to capitalism or not? If we are, then its up to business to compete and survive without protection from the government.

  • bokka on 22/07/2015 - 10:35
    +3

    I think most people can understand the need to have a level playing field for domestic retailers and overseas retailers.
    And if this can be done by enforcing GST on purchases, in such a way that the enforcement of the additional tax is not out of proportion to the value raised, then it's hard to argue against it. If the value raised versus the cost of raising the revenue is disproportionate, then it screams of vested interest distorting the policy process.

    HOWEVER, where the hypocrisy lies is in
    a) Multinational companies profit shifting and reduce their effective tax base in Australia. And for all Joe's talk of going after these companies, they are all talk (http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/abbott-government…)
    b) Allowing domestic retailers to enforce geographical pricing structures on Australian consumers. You can't ask for a level playing field for the retailer, without having a level playing field for the consumer. Why are Australian consumers price gouged on everything, especially digital content that should have absolutely no pricing difference between countries on an exchange rate basis.

    Address these two issues and then come after your measly 10% (which will end up being 5% after collection costs).

  • uccoffee on 22/07/2015 - 17:26

    sound like they are moving us back to the times before GST, people will start bringing good back from overseas and sell locally on ebay with a good profit~

  • Gomo on 22/07/2015 - 17:57

    Wow that's crazy :(

  • Manh on 22/07/2015 - 18:10

    If Josh Frydenberg is in cahoots with Solomon Lew, then I'm voting for whichever party that introduces a federal level ICAC and tranparency to donations. So far that means The Greens — even though I have no idea what their other policies are. Get them in for one term to have these new laws in place and then get rid of them unless they're doing a good job with the economy.

  • whooah1979 on 22/07/2015 - 18:19
    -1

    this is great news. now there is no reason to keep consignments under $1k to avoid gst + duty. time to bulk.

  • cloudy on 23/07/2015 - 11:11
    -6

    Too long, read some, skipped most. I noticed OP creatd an account just to post this, makes me wonder why.

    Do I care if there is GST on small items bought online? Not really, sure I buy some stuff online, but the amount is small, the $$ spent is small. And if this shuts up Gerry Harvey from whinging and whining, it's probably a few dollars well spent.

    Unless u spend thousands of bucks on small online purchases this tax isn't gonna get much from you, so it's it really worth my time. I'm more concerned about raising the GST to 15% being bantered around by the states.

  • bongom on 23/07/2015 - 12:22

    Any of the freight forwarders allow you to specify item(s) as a gift?

  • CacheHunter on 23/07/2015 - 12:59
    +1

    Gifts are subject to customs duty and GST as well.

    In a former role with the Commonwealth Government and familiar with Customs' cost recovery process and the Government policy, the Customs processing fee would be based on the average cost of processing a parcel. There is no reason that a $20 parcel would cost less to process than a $1000 one, so even though it makes no sense, the scenario painted above is realistic. The one potential positive is if there are substantial fixed costs to Customs, which would mean that the cost per parcel would fall and so the fee should fall for everyone.

    I'm bemused by the Government's claimed interest in cutting red tape and doing things like this that add to it - quite apart from the cost of the GST and fee, if this comes in, parcels won't be left at your mailbox etc. Instead, you'll need to go into the post office and fill in forms, make a payment etc.

    If you want to make your views known to the government, I suggest going to cuttingredtape.gov.au and filling in the feedback form, as well as writing to your local Federal member.

    • bongom on 23/07/2015 - 13:03

      So if my Nanna sends me a birthday present from OS it will be subject to GST?

      • dadaocongsan on 24/07/2015 - 10:32

        NO , Customs officers know very well which parcels are commercial or individual , yours are not subject to GST but it is more likely that it will be X rayed & scrutinised more .

  • CacheHunter on 23/07/2015 - 14:39

    Currently, if it's worth more than $1000, the technical answer is yes. Of course, customs don't have time to check the declared valuation on the parcel, so if she said it was only worth $500, then you'd be fine.

    Even if they reduce or abolish the threshold, it wouldn't stop people under quoting the valuation unless you were one of the very small percentage of parcels that is audited.

    • dadaocongsan on 24/07/2015 - 10:35

      No . Customs DO have time to check all parcels they think are high risk , under stated value .
      Don't risk your parcel being held for weeks & get heavy penalty .

  • raphyg on 24/07/2015 - 15:02
    Merged from Pay over $100 for a $25 Tshirt

    You may have seen my post about the Online Shopping Tax - The Great Australian Billionaire Protection Scheme:
    https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/203727

    I try to explain (albeit with a bit of emotion) the impact the consumer tax that's about to be implemented will have.

    I've set up a petition which I email email to the members of parliament ASAP once we get a bit of traction.

    Can you please sign and share it around if you believe in the cause?

    https://www.change.org/p/australian-shoppers-stop-the-austra…

    • GaelicAU on 24/07/2015 - 15:39
      +1

      Firstly, thanks for putting the time and effort in getting this petition published.

      Can you advise on where I can read more on the custom fee related to this;

      Now imagine they lower the GST threshold to $20 (which is what they’re talking about) and you order a $25 product from Amazon. When it arrives in Australia, you will receive a bill for $77.50 ($2.50 for the GST and $75 customs clearance fee). So your total cost will be $102.50 for something that should have cost $25.

      • fedwood on 25/07/2015 - 16:04

        You can't read more about it because that won't happen. He is taking an example of how it is now at over $1000 threshold and assuming that everything would instantly receive the same treatment.

  • Talonparty on 24/07/2015 - 15:58

    This increase in the tax is an absolutely terrible idea and the only reason it's being done, as far as I can tell, is because of the governments total inaction and lack of desire to conduct any real tax reform (ruling out everything else).

    I can see it now, some time in the future (5-10 years) it will be exposed just how inefficient this is and how much it locks Australians out of the global marketplace to our detriment. All supposedly from the 'adults' who sell themselves as being good economic managers.

    This is the attitude of the liberal party and big business. Gloabalisation is a good thing when large corporations and multinationals benefit. If the consumer benefits, then it's a bad thing.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join