Hi, From: "Arjen Lentz" <arjen@lentz.com.au>
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, "Pidgorny, Slav(GPM)" <slav.pidgorny@anz.com> wrote:
I don't think that increasing taxes on the better off indefinitely is going to work in the long run.
For most of the second half of the last century taxes "on the better off" were higher. We have a real problem that the biggest companies are not contributing at all anymore.
In Finland, anything up to university is free. While that may seem expensive, It's proven to be a worthwhile investment in the people of the country. So spending more money on the right thing can be good.
It's the same in Germany. And they are talking about spending more on education. Back to the GST: Underneath seems to be an imbalance between Federation and States. The states have, more or less, live on what the Federal government offers on money. But the responsibility is shifting from time to time. Obviously the current lot is not interested in investment in education and health etc. so it "delegates" it to the states. What can you do if you want to run hospitals and schools and unis - and do not have more income? The GST is the only significant factor which could help. The other is more fees. Or a government which is interested in appropriate funding. Keep it in mind when you vote. Slav, as a simple example. Imagine you have a "good income" according to Australian standards. You have a good job in IT and your wife works, maybe $150 000 together. That brings you into the top 10% of the households ranked by income. You get a 2% tax deduction which gives you $3000 more net income. Your two kids will start uni both in two or three years. It gets deregulated and will cost $10,000 more. Each child, each year. Now, imagine to be on a $60,000 income. The decrease in tax gives you $1200. The uni fees are the same. Maybe skip uni then. Face it, your children cannot afford it on $60,000 per year. Then, imagine you are the prime minister. Your child gets a $60,000 stipendium which is unusual and nowhere declared. The person who discovered it is in court and facing 2 years jail. Regards Peter