GST on all imports

[filobiblic]

Ok so I have two years to buy all the soap that I need to avoid this disaster

Well, we've also got a couple of local options that are MORE than satisfactory...

 

[stillshunter]

Well, we've also got a couple of local options that are MORE than satisfactory...

Well a few less than we actually need though! I'm just mighty glad we have the likes of @Anthony because otherwise it's all on the shoulders of Shaverhut and MensBiz.

 

[otblue]

Well, we've also got a couple of local options that are MORE than satisfactory...

That may be true in the shaving world but what do you think will happen to the local price of CD's, DVDs, BluRays and books when the competition from Amazon and BookDepository is removed.

 

[SydBJW]

The first bit may be correct but the conclusion is not.

Auspost will collect GST for the gov and will charge a service fee which has been estimated at $17.50 per episode.
Not only that, the GST will be calculated not on the item price but will use the same formula used for calculating GST for items over $1000 which is total price including shipping and a retail markup (to put it on the same footing as the stores).

So the GST on your favourite $30 soap is not going to be $3. Its going to be $17.30 plus 10% of $30 (item) + $20 (shipping) + ??$10 (markup) equals approx $6 for a total tax hike of $23.50.

Abbot just made your $30 soap almost twice as expensive .

Have a strong feeling he will be gone the first time their is an election. Speak to a lot of people from all walks of life in my job, never seen a PM hated by so many.

 

[otblue]

Actually when I think about it, it's not even true in the shaving world. Those local stockists may be perfectly reasonable guys with fair markups but they simply can't stock all the things we want to try.
Without looking, I think I have well in excess of 30 different soaps, over 50 different types of DE blades and the lists go on.
Nobody in Australia can afford to even remotely stock the lines of products available OS because the market is so small. Even the big players in UK and USA only stock the stuff that sells well and the special stuff including artisanal products will have to still be purchased piecemeal on line in the niche market.
Either pay up or reduce the hobby.

Thanks Abbott.

 

[Mark1966]

While the PM might be the easy target this was actually a decision by all the State and Territory Treasurers - http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/transcript/175-2015/

 

[eggbert]

Under pressure from the Commonwealth no doubt.

 

[otblue]

While the PM might be the easy target this was actually a decision by all the State and Territory Treasurers - http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/transcript/175-2015/

The Commonwealth submitted the proposal. The States and Territories merely had to agree at a COAG meeting and why wouldn't they.

The Commonwealth collects the GST which it then distributes to the States. The decision was a forgone conclusion and a betrayal of the promise of no "new" taxes.

 

[Mark1966]

Under pressure from the Commonwealth no doubt.

No benefit to the Commonwealth as the GST goes to the States and Territories.

The Commonwealth submitted the proposal. The States and Territories merely had to agree at a COAG meeting and why wouldn't they.

The Commonwealth collects the GST which it then distributes to the States. The decision was a forgone conclusion and a betrayal of the promise of no "new" taxes.

The history of the change is outlined in the extract below (emphasis mine) from the Statement: Council on Federal Financial Relations Tax Reform Workshop

'At the last CFFR meeting in April, it was agreed that the Commonwealth would develop draft legislation to ensure greater consistency in the application of the GST to digital products and services.

On Budget night, the Commonwealth Government released for consultation an exposure draft Bill and associated explanatory material that would extend the application of the GST to cross border supplies of digital products and services imported by consumers from 1 July 2017.

The Treasurers acknowledged that this is a vital integrity measure to prevent GST base erosion but recognised that it would require work over time.

In line with these reforms, the Australian Leaders’ Retreat on 22 July 2015, agreed to broaden the GST to cover overseas online transactions (physical goods) under $1,000.

At the meeting the Commonwealth Treasurer put forward a proposal that relies on a vendor registration model as a method of collecting the GST for the states and territories. As goods would not be stopped at the border, administering a vendor registration model would have a relatively low cost.

The Commonwealth also recommended that the existing threshold for the GST liability be reduced to zero, in line with the GST collection for other products and services. The states and territories have unanimously agreed to this in principle.

Non-residents (overseas suppliers) will be the ones who charge, collect and remit the GST for digital and physical products. As is the case in Australia, only vendors with an Australian turnover of $75,000 will need to register and charge the GST.

The Commonwealth will draft legislation for the application of the new arrangements from 1 July 2017.'

(from http://jbh.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/075-2015/)

The CFFR (Council on Federal Financial Relations) is the Council consists of the Treasurers of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories and is where this proposal originated.

 

[gthomas04]

No benefit to the Commonwealth as the GST goes to the States and Territories.

You mean the commonwealth changing funding models in health and education had no influence on the states needing to get more revenue from somewhere?

 

[otblue]

"The CFFR (Council on Federal Financial Relations) is the Council consists of the Treasurers of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories and is where this proposal originated."

Yes that may be the forum, but the idea was proposed then pushed by the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer. Both have been out there plying the media with how the measure will "level the playing field" and result in more retail jobs. Dream on.

The States went for the ride.

The details have not been worked out and Treasury hasn't even modelled the costs though a previous model indicated that it was uneconomical to collect GST on under $1000.

The big players may decide to register for GST and pay the Commonwealth; good luck with that. We all know how the big multinationals are great corporate citizens and don't use any minimisation strategies.

The small players will still have their goods stopped at the border and fees including service charges applied.

This already happens for small commercial orders shipped by the courier companies.

The devil as always is in the detail and it doesn't look good.

 

[Mark1966]

You mean the commonwealth changing funding models in health and education had no influence on the states needing to get more revenue from somewhere?

A far more complex discussion (see the Reform of Federation White Paper) around vertical fiscal imbalance but the states have been whining for years and certainly in education the Commonwealth has been putting in far more than previously.

Yes that may be the forum, but the idea was proposed then pushed by the Treasurer and the Assistant Treasurer.

It has been bouncing around as a 'good idea' within State, Territory and Commonwealth Treasury and Finance departments for a lot longer than the current (Commonwealth) Treasurer and Assistant have been in office. It has been one of those ideas that the Departments push every time more funds are 'needed' by States and Territories - persistence works with these things and eventually circumstances dictate that the proposal gets accepted by the political masters.

The States went for the ride.

They were active participants - never stand between a Premier and a bucket of money is I think Paul Keating's quote!

The details have not been worked out and Treasury hasn't even modelled the costs though a previous model indicated that it was uneconomical to collect GST on under $1000.

Yep, Productivity Commission did the previously modelling and I think that this is why they have deliberately talked about a very different model.

The big players may decide to register for GST and pay the Commonwealth; good luck with that. We all know how the big multinationals are great corporate citizens and don't use any minimisation strategies.

Which is exactly why they WILL register like Apple do with iTunes at present. They will register and collect the GST and pass the cost to customers - little net cost (only admin). A far better option than taking s hit on transfer pricing rules which affects the bottom line.

The small players will still have their goods stopped at the border and fees including service charges applied.

I thought I'd read otherwise ???

This already happens for small commercial orders shipped by the courier companies.

Yes, couriers collect duties etc on commercial imports, routine process for businesses

The devil as always is in the detail and it doesn't look good.

The devil is always in the detail - but on the detail I've seen it could be worse.

 

[Dale.Whiley]

A far more complex discussion (see the Reform of Federation White Paper) around vertical fiscal imbalance but the states have been whining for years and certainly in education the Commonwealth has been putting in far more than previously.



It has been bouncing around as a 'good idea' within State, Territory and Commonwealth Treasury and Finance departments for a lot longer than the current (Commonwealth) Treasurer and Assistant have been in office. It has been one of those ideas that the Departments push every time more funds are 'needed' by States and Territories - persistence works with these things and eventually circumstances dictate that the proposal gets accepted by the political masters.



They were active participants - never stand between a Premier and a bucket of money is I think Paul Keating's quote!



Yep, Productivity Commission did the previously modelling and I think that this is why they have deliberately talked about a very different model.



Which is exactly why they WILL register like Apple do with iTunes at present. They will register and collect the GST and pass the cost to customers - little net cost (only admin). A far better option than taking s hit on transfer pricing rules which affects the bottom line.



I thought I'd read otherwise ???



Yes, couriers collect duties etc on commercial imports, routine process for businesses



The devil is always in the detail - but on the detail I've seen it could be worse.

I go back to my earlier post. Beancounter

I'd swear @Mark1966 penned your reply.

I go back to my earlier, earlier post:

This goes beyond us blokes. We, Australia's wet shavers are helping our country get out of debt. Be proud men

 

[otblue]

It has been bouncing around as a 'good idea' within State, Territory and Commonwealth Treasury and Finance departments for a lot longer than the current (Commonwealth) Treasurer and Assistant have been in office. It has been one of those ideas that the Departments push every time more funds are 'needed' by States and Territories - persistence works with these things and eventually circumstances dictate that the proposal gets accepted by the political masters.

Agreed. However, the idea was rejected by previous Comm. governments as not making either electoral or financial sense.
The current government has decided to push ahead and after the decision come up with a model that supports it.

 

[borked]

The cold hard truth is simple.
Australians got fed up being price gouged by greedy retail.
The advancement and evolution of the internet and in order to balance the budget (remember we are one of the most expensive countries worldwide to live in) sought cheper options and found them overseas.

Forcing what effectively is nothing more than another tax or tariff upon us will not result in us buying more from the retail sector, as there will be less to spend, due to an isolated and protected market going unchecked with regards to competition, which will no doubt collude upon pricing, due to incompetent and infective regulators.
As for collusion, crude oil is at prices unseen for close for 15 years per barrel, yet retail prices are failing to reflect this decline in raw product.

What really is disgusting, is the lack of objection by a supposed socialist Labor/Greens coalition.
In fact, bipartisan support over this has been achieved!
Time the Governor General stepped in, as this IS contrary to the greater interests of both this country and it's citizens and residents, which are whom a government are aupposed to serve first and foremost.

If it was not for a history of politicians bullying incumbent private citizens stepping up, I would take a stand against this entrenched rot.

 

[Mark1966]

Agreed. However, the idea was rejected by previous Comm. governments as not making either electoral or financial sense.
The current governmentS have decided to push ahead and after the decision come up with a model that supports it.

FTFY

Part of the current political rhetoric at Commonwealth and State/Territory level.

It will be interesting to see the legislation and the implementation mechanism.

 

[Drubbing]

The cold hard truth is simple.
Australians got fed up being price gouged by greedy retail.

This is not a balanced way of looking at it. Some sections of retail are greedy if they can make it work, but they also have to work with excessive rents, and for those that are local online retailers, excessive import duties and charges, and/or local distributors who see affluent Australia as a low volume cash cow, to be milked as hard as possible before the retail margin gets put on. Retailers generally are doing it pretty tough, and expected to work longer hours for questionable gains in turnover demanded by late or Sunday trading, or find workers at excessive penalty rates to do it for them.

It's not about evil retailers, it's the whole infrastructure that shafts the lot of us. That's why overseas online has got some traction, and why the govt has decided it needs that pie back.

 

[borked]

This is not a balanced way of looking at it. Some sections of retail are greedy if they can make it work, but they also have to work with excessive rents, and for those that are local online retailers, excessive import duties and charges, and/or local distributors who see affluent Australia as a low volume cash cow, to be milked as hard as possible before the retail margin gets put on. Retailers generally are doing it pretty tough, and expected to work longer hours for questionable gains in turnover demanded by late or Sunday trading, or find workers at excessive penalty rates to do it for them.

It's not about evil retailers, it's the whole infrastructure that shafts the lot of us. That's why overseas online has got some traction, and why the govt has decided it needs that pie back.

In that case, where did the point of uncontrolled inflation originate from ?
There's always a point of critical mass, what was it for the retail industry as a whole ?

As for the pain masked by opiates induced response...
Your reply is just a different combination of the same 26 letters of what you're replying to